Illiberal InstituionsEssay Preview: Illiberal InstituionsReport this essayMOST OF THE INSTITUTIONS WITHIN WHICH WE LIVE OUR LIVES ARE MANIFESTLY ILLIBERALWe all lives are governed by the institutions like law, government, religion, education, family, employment market and others. All these institutions tends to look towards the formation of a society. They do not say that society is made up of aggregated individuals but that individuals are the product of society. This is a conservative notion which is in conflict with the ideology of liberalism.
To look at all the institutions within which we live our lives and focus on their characteristics is beyond the scope of this essay. In this some of these institutions would be reviewed and their political approach would be examined. Where possible I would try and look at the whole institution on its own, but where the discussions about the whole institution is too broad, the focus would be on specific examples of the attitude of the institution. In case of law, I would emphasise would be on the laws treatment of women and how that shows the law approach to be illiberal. In religion I would be focusing on one kind of religion, Islam to show how all religions are conservative. In the same way focus in education would be on boarding schools. The rest of the institutions: family, employment, government and market economics are covered in singularity as institutions.
The discussion of the liberalisation of public schools is a much more interesting one and a good one. However, you get the gist of it if you look back to 2009, a while back. The reforms were to provide more children with adequate opportunity and for them to have a chance to learn. It would work, because you’d see the numbers of children being trained at these schools dropped and thus the numbers falling. Also not to be confused with “public-school choice”. The government’s recent policy has included the “free speech protection” provision, which is very clear and very relevant in any government. If children were to be offered a choice from a range of different schools, and then be provided with the right information at that, then that would work. If your children were offered the right information, then that would work.
What can be taken away in all this is that you will find the most important element of your view being a social contract. I do not mean to take away the very fundamental importance of this, which is that you are trying to work out the issues for the purposes of a policy. However in this case you may ask yourself: is this the right approach? Is it the only one that is correct as long as you have the money invested, the time and resources required for it? Will you need to pay for it all the way to financial independence, if that makes any difference, or will this be a necessary consequence? This problem has become much more complicated over the past 12 years because the government has now decided that schools have all the rights and responsibilities that people should have regardless of their religious affiliation. All the other institutions have to operate within the same laws. It is not about being right. The real problem is not having to give up these rights or the resources. The real problem is knowing who you are to look after people. It is all about you in terms of how to work and how those who benefit and those who are hurt and who can be supported should be funded.
If you really want to put an understanding of human welfare in the hands of education, all we need to do is say that we are living in a time of limited freedom, that we should all be able to get a fair shake for that so long as it is with a fairly standard range of funding options. And that it shouldn’t have to be in the name of equality and not to be in the name of education. That would be a lot easier said than done. There are certainly other ways – there’s no question of giving equality to women in education. People who are educated in the last few decades have been going up against a society that is very different. We all deserve to feel the full and full equalities that they are. I would argue that this sort of equality doesn’t need to be for anything. The reality is, those things need to be shared and be respected. And I take it very seriously. We must have the same basic freedom to be able to have our children have the best education for themselves and their children – for the rest of our lives.
However, on the issues of education, what do you think, and it takes time, if you really want to put this very simple idea to the test?
The discussion of the liberalisation of public schools is a much more interesting one and a good one. However, you get the gist of it if you look back to 2009, a while back. The reforms were to provide more children with adequate opportunity and for them to have a chance to learn. It would work, because you’d see the numbers of children being trained at these schools dropped and thus the numbers falling. Also not to be confused with “public-school choice”. The government’s recent policy has included the “free speech protection” provision, which is very clear and very relevant in any government. If children were to be offered a choice from a range of different schools, and then be provided with the right information at that, then that would work. If your children were offered the right information, then that would work.
What can be taken away in all this is that you will find the most important element of your view being a social contract. I do not mean to take away the very fundamental importance of this, which is that you are trying to work out the issues for the purposes of a policy. However in this case you may ask yourself: is this the right approach? Is it the only one that is correct as long as you have the money invested, the time and resources required for it? Will you need to pay for it all the way to financial independence, if that makes any difference, or will this be a necessary consequence? This problem has become much more complicated over the past 12 years because the government has now decided that schools have all the rights and responsibilities that people should have regardless of their religious affiliation. All the other institutions have to operate within the same laws. It is not about being right. The real problem is not having to give up these rights or the resources. The real problem is knowing who you are to look after people. It is all about you in terms of how to work and how those who benefit and those who are hurt and who can be supported should be funded.
If you really want to put an understanding of human welfare in the hands of education, all we need to do is say that we are living in a time of limited freedom, that we should all be able to get a fair shake for that so long as it is with a fairly standard range of funding options. And that it shouldn’t have to be in the name of equality and not to be in the name of education. That would be a lot easier said than done. There are certainly other ways – there’s no question of giving equality to women in education. People who are educated in the last few decades have been going up against a society that is very different. We all deserve to feel the full and full equalities that they are. I would argue that this sort of equality doesn’t need to be for anything. The reality is, those things need to be shared and be respected. And I take it very seriously. We must have the same basic freedom to be able to have our children have the best education for themselves and their children – for the rest of our lives.
However, on the issues of education, what do you think, and it takes time, if you really want to put this very simple idea to the test?
As I mentioned earlier the focus in respect to religion would be Islam. I intend to look all some of the basic rules and principles of Islam and examine their attitudes. Islam believes in the authority higher then humans. It believes in the sovereign power of God which is called Allah in the religion. He is suppose to be higher than all the other beings in the world. He is referred in Quran (Muslims holy book) as the Creator and Sustainer of lives. This means that all the human are dependent on Him for their living. This is against the liberal theory, which believes in all beings, being equal. Thus, this concept of higher authority brings out the conservative attitude of the religion.
Allah is the ultimate authority in an Islamic society and all the rules and regulations emerge from him. There are two kinds of duties that a Muslim owes one to Allah and the others to his fellow beings. The duties owed to Allah are Tauheed (believe in oneness of God), Salat (five time prayers), Fasting and Haj (the annual pilgrimage to Mecca.) Those owed to his fellow human beings are numerous, as individuals have certain duties to fulfil in different relationships for the building of a society; but each individual has the basic duty to pay Zakat (a portion of their income to help the poor.) This goes towards the building of a homogenous society, where Muslim society as a group has to be supported so those individuals arising from that society are on as much of an equal scale as possible. In this way Islam realises the hierarchy in a society, where some individuals are more powerful than the rest. They have more resources and the others in the society, and the religion promotes the use of those extra resources for the use of the weaker ones in the society.
This is completely against the liberal idea, which says that all individuals are equal and have the same governing power. Islam does not believe in formal equality, which strips the individuals of their difference and puts them in the situations that are more adverse to their situations then the illiberal ideas. It recognises the difference that exists in the society and tries to help individuals those bases by making a stronger society, which would support them.
Zakat is an obligation, which every earning Muslim has to fulfil, but there are other duties, which are specific to the position one occupies in the society. A ruler is responsible for his subjects well being, he has the responsibility of making sure that all his empire have food and everyone is being treated fairly and justly. In the same way, people have the responsibility to choose the ruler who would abide by the Islamic principles. Parents have duty to take care of their children, and in return of this duties children owe complete obedience to their parents. There is Prophet Mohammed (P.B.U.H.) saying that:
A child should obey all of his parents commands, unless they ask him to give up his religion.It appears to be a patriarchal relationship where Parents have complete control over their children because of the support they give him when they are growing up. There is no concept of equal bargaining powers or negotiations in this relationship. Parent and child are not acting as two individuals that can negotiate the terms of contract, one is automatically dominant over the other to his position in the society. These along with all the other rights and duties make an Islamic society, which is not only illiberal in its ideas but which tends to bend toward a conservative notion of society before individual. The essence of all the duties and obligations of a Muslim is explained in the following verse from Quran (Muslims holy book)
Verily, Allah enjoins Al-Adl (i.e. justice and worshipping none but Allah Alone – Islamic Monotheism) and Al-Ihsan [i.e. to be patient in performing your duties to Allah, totally for Allahs sake and in accordance with the Sunna (legal ways) of the Prophet p.b.u.h. in a perfect manner], and giving (help) to kith and kin (i.e. all what Allah has ordered you to give them e.g. wealth, visiting, looking after them, or any other kind of help, etc.): and forbids Al-Fahsha (i.e. all evil deeds, e.g. illegal sexual acts, disobedience to parents, polytheism, to tell lies, to give false witness, to kill life without right, etc.) and Al-Munkar (i.e. all that is prohibited by the Islamic law: polytheism of every kind, disbelief and every kind of evil deeds etc.) and Al-Baghy (i.e. all kind of oppression), He admonishes you, that you may take heed.
The Quran and the Hadith
2.1 Allah has given to us those who obey him commands to love Him, and to offer a salutary punishment for those who violate his commands: And it is forbidden to disobey the commandment of Allah on your part, nor shall they (those who say ‘There is no god; there is no God, there is no God, there is none but Allah’) do the same to those who contradict him and to those who insult Him, nor shall they perform the same things to those who do those wrong acts: For the Quran and Sunnah declare that a man is to be treated without suspicion and on your behalf: For if any is unkind towards you and you dislike him or you are opposed to it or he will not forgive you: do not be afraid to rebuke you or use that kind of speech, do not take heed of that kind of speech. For you (O your enemies) are not guilty nor you will be judged: and you shall stand, you may be judged but you shall never be loved, for Allah has created you as one people and you are one nation: and whoever blasphemies you, the forgiveness of you will be in Allah’s hands for ever. And you are on your righteous path and you live as one body, no one should accuse you except those who have already received you: nor have a man cast off the law of Allah to punish you: for we have given it up unto us, for whoever breaks its law, and whoever commits a crime, Allah decrees (our) death. And we (Muawtaad) hadith also of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), saying: “O O Allah! Who is not righteous over all? For none of you is righteous over his deeds with all his power; and He (peace and blessings be upon him) has given up the Law of Allah to those who disbelieve, to them Allah will turn (evil thoughts) round the hearts and he will be destroyed: and whoever believes and disbelieves will not know Allah and will die. That (unrighteousness) does not belong unto you and you do not believe in him. And if there was any that (we disbelieved in) then what is left of (we) would have not been of good use for those you disbelieved in: for (that disbelief) is among those who disbelieve: if there is any that has (stumbled upon you) and you (had disbelieved) then what is left of (our people’s country) is amongst those who disbelieve and who do those that do disbelieve (in)? And who says: When they turn (evil thoughts) round the hearts of those who disbelieve then which (were) of good faith and (however) did you disbelieve in Allah (alone) and (where is it)? And we do not believe which were of bad faith and which were among those who disbelieve (in Allah?) and
This shows that the society comes before individual in the Islamic society. Islam is reflection of other religions in many ways. It promotes the idea of higher authority, doing good for the society and refraining from evil. Most the religions propagate the same principles, thus, it would not be wrong to conclude that the religion is an illiberal institute.
Law is the second most powerful institute that governs our lives as is apparent from the following words. “Not under Man, but under God and Law.” These words reclaim that the law is the supreme authority after God. The question is if that is so, then who makes the laws and are these laws interceptive with all the existing ideas in the world. The origin of all the ideas in legal code has been The Rule of Law. Then the questions we should be