Freedom and Equality; Which Comes First?

In this week's program, we address an age-old question that has occupied the minds of thinkers and citizens in Western countries since the Enlightenment and has increasingly confronted anti-colonial and anti-dictatorial movements in the so-called Third World or Global South. The question is whether freedom precedes equality or vice versa. Can one be prioritized over the other, or is one impossible without the other? If prioritizing one over the other is necessary for societal development, why is freedom considered to take precedence over equality? Or why is equality viewed as superior to freedom? I am here with these questions in a debate featuring two guests: Akbar Mahdi, a senior sociology professor at California State University, Northridge, and Jamshid Asadi, an economics professor at the Dijon Graduate School of Business. Mr. Mahdi, from a sociological perspective, how do you see the relationship between freedom and equality or freedom and justice in terms of societal development? Akbar Mahdi: First, I must point out that these concepts are not equivalent. Freedom is more of a social and political cultural issue, while equality is more of a social and economic concept. Although justice is applied in both social and economic realms, its definition is more cultural and religious, with a historical precedent that predates the other two concepts and should not be considered a precise equivalent of equality. I know that the basis of today's discussion relies on the opposition between capitalism and socialism, but we must recognize that each of these elements can have their specific definitions within these political systems. However, to answer your question directly, a person without freedom loses their human essence. It is through freedom that a person gains and expresses their creativity and autonomy and shapes their destiny. Specifically, without political freedom and a structure that can guarantee and expand an individual's economic, social, political, and cultural capabilities, society loses its human potential and becomes stagnant, even if it is wealthy. Today, you have Saudi Arabia and most oil-rich countries in the Middle East, including Iran, which all suffer from varying degrees of lack of freedom. The wealthiest of these countries, Saudi Arabia, has the least freedom and we witness the greatest political, social, and cultural stagnation there. What is important is human capital. There are many countries where the accumulation of capital, technological growth, and even economic development are similar. What distinguishes them is the meaningful difference in the level of well-being among their citizens. Human capital cannot grow and express economically without political and cultural freedom. Mr. Asadi, please respond to the same question from your economic perspective. Jamshid Asadi: Allow me to first express a philosophical view on this issue before addressing the economic perspective. I am very pleased that Mr. Mahdi's conclusion was a celebration of freedom, which is not surprising given my understanding of him. However, to answer your question directly, if we consider freedom to be the foundation of humanity, the foundation of human virtue and a free society, then we cannot deny the existence of inequality among humans. An individual is inherently unequal; they are different. They cannot attain their individuality except through freedom. The pursuit of individuality through freedom inevitably leads to characteristics that differentiate them from others, which many refer to as inequality. The distinction began in the eighteenth century when Enlightenment thinkers discussed this fundamental law of natural rights. What was the essence of natural rights? They stated that humans are born equal. We must examine the text of this statement. What did they mean by humans being born equal? Before that, humans were not born equal. If you were born into a feudal family or a peasant family, of course, the serf has a more beautiful meaning. In our Iranian context, the term 'peasant' carries a different connotation. Perhaps 'serf' better conveys this meaning to the listener. If someone was born into a specific class before the Enlightenment, they would grow up in that same class. The essence of this natural rights doctrine was that no, let us set aside the family and social class into which a person is born. Humans are born free and equal in rights. This was especially the core of the French Revolution and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, which expressed it differently. However, when the revolutionary government grows, we can say today that when leftism and radicalism grow, before the era of terror in France begins, they publish another declaration that leads to a constitution based on a different interpretation of natural rights, which asserts that humans are always equal by nature. Well, this is not the case. We are equal in rights. The difference between these two is embedded in your question. The difference between freedom and equality. I hope there will be an opportunity to address this in another question. The crux of the issue lies in the distinction between these two. Mr. Mahdi, sometimes a choice may be necessary, at which point things become difficult. In your view, is freedom prioritized over equality or equality over freedom? Akbar Mahdi: In response to you and as a reaction to the philosophical discussion that Mr. Asadi initiated, I must say that choices have always existed and will always exist. To varying degrees, depending on the level of societal development, the literacy of the country, or the people making the choices, this has always been the case and will continue to be in the future. However, if we specifically discuss Iran, the economy and development of Iran have always been juxtaposed with this debate about which should take priority: the distribution of wealth, the distribution of resources, and economic justice, or should we emphasize economic growth without paying attention to social inequalities? In my opinion, this issue, without considering the determining factors of economic growth, keeps the discussion in an abstract or philosophical realm and does not take into account the real-life examples. In my view, the freedom and equality you referred to, if I use them in the same direction, are both necessary and interdependent. They are dialectically related. The existence of one without the other may be possible, but it is not sufficient. If it occurs, it cannot guarantee sustainable development, freedom, justice, or equality. I believe that while without economic growth, the possibility of equitable distribution of resources does not exist, if there is no fair distribution of resources for the majority of society, the possibility of economic growth decreases, leading to inequalities that create economic and political turmoil. This is what Mr. Asadi referred to regarding revolutions. Of course, not all revolutions are leftist. We also have rightist revolutions. I am not very comfortable with categorizing revolutions as left or right. In any case, revolutions aim to transform one economic or political system into another that we are currently juxtaposing. What I believe regarding the economic and political issues is the balance and equilibrium between these two metrics and their associated values. Although the degree of this balance and equilibrium also depends on other objective factors, not just abstract and philosophical ones. There are many determining factors for a developed and successful society, and researchers have created various schools of thought around these factors. If I were to name the most prominent elements mentioned in these theories, we could better familiarize ourselves with their rules and exceptions. Among all these factors, many researchers emphasize a few: first is geography. Where are the countries located, and what resources and facilities do they have? Second is culture. What social values does that society prioritize, and how closely do their values and living standards align with the necessities of economic and social development? Third is structures, which is more relevant to your current discussion: what political and economic system has the country established for itself, and on what basis and social, economic, and cultural rules is the production and distribution of wealth established? Finally, many researchers highlight a factor that is often overlooked: chance. Countries encounter specific historical opportunities that others may not have. Therefore, the issue is to see what opportunities countries have seized or missed or whether they had them at all. In my view, considering these factors, I can conclude that no country can achieve sustainable development without trust between the government and the people and without active public participation in its economy and politics. In fact, social capital, which researchers in both capitalism and socialism emphasize today, is a determining factor in the level of trust among the citizens, the government, and the enhancement of economic productivity or growth. A country that places less value on human capital compared to economic capital cannot create sustainable development for itself. It will inevitably face economic or political turmoil. Mr. Asadi, if I were to ask you the same question, in situations where it becomes difficult, do you believe freedom is preferable or equality? Jamshid Asadi: Undoubtedly, freedom must always take precedence, under any circumstances. For two reasons: first, when you ask which should take precedence in human society, if there is no freedom, humanity suffers and never changes. In war, freedom; in peace, freedom; in progress, freedom; in regression, freedom... it makes no difference. Allow me to finish my initial response. Sometimes you talk about equality of rights. That is what freedom advocates support, following the blessed tradition that the Enlightenment, especially in the eighteenth century, established. At other times, you talk about equality of benefits, which I strongly oppose. People inevitably become unequal based on their talents, efforts, and ideas; this is not a bad thing. It is a blessing for a society. The income differences between great entrepreneurs like Thomas Edison and his contemporaries are a blessed matter. If this inequality arises from freedom, it helps the progress and development of all. The wealth that Bill Gates has, the wealth that Steve Jobs had, the wealth that Thomas Edison possessed, and the wealth that Sanie-ol-Dowleh had in Iran, how many people were able to find work and life because of these entrepreneurs? Here, they focus on inequalities and say this society has growth. Well, this inequality is a blessing. This is the same inequality that exists between my literary talent and that of Dr. Mahdi or our esteemed scholars. We cannot say why there is such a difference in knowledge. This is the difference that exists in my literary talent compared to that of Shamloo and Nima. We cannot say why this difference has arisen. Well, I love the pen. I love books too. But where can I reach their status and rank? This is a natural talent and differences in people that lead to these inequalities. These inequalities are a blessing. Having those who are unequal due to their superior talents and efforts elevates society. In a society where there are elevated elites, society itself rises. This inequality is a blessed inequality. However, the condition for this inequality is that freedom must come first. There is a difference between the wealth of rent-seekers in Iran and the wealth of Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. The world has changed. The world after Edison has changed. How does this inequality change the world? But what has changed between the rent-seeking that, for example, occurred in the Soviet Union after its collapse and after the establishment of the Islamic Republic in Iran? This is an unblessed inequality. Why is this inequality unblessed? Because it did not arise from entrepreneurial freedom, competitive freedom, or self-creation. It arose from unfreedom, dictatorship, and despotism. That unblessed inequality brings society down. Just as it has done in our country. In short, my succinct answer to your question is that freedom must always take precedence over equality, and inequality is not a bad thing if it arises from freedom. This means that people have blossomed as they should. I have one last question for Mr. Mahdi, if you allow me. Is justice in your classroom distributing a general grade equally among all, or should we look at how each individual has performed, showing their individuality, and based on their talents and efforts, give them a better grade? Which of these is justice? Mathematical equality or inequality arising from competitive freedom? In my classroom, some of my students score 18 out of 20, and some score 2. Can we say both did not achieve a perfect score of 20? But look at the distance.