Social Justice and Freedom

The growth of Western democracies has consistently resulted from class conflicts and struggles for freedom. The fight for social justice on one hand and freedom on the other is the strongest engine of political growth in democratic countries. This article revisits the theories of two theorists who each approach the two poles of this discussion, namely social justice and freedom, from different perspectives. The selection of these two thinkers may seem arbitrary. The theoretical consensus of these two theorists, both influenced by the intellectual struggle against dictatorship, is the defense of parliamentary democracy. Initially, the thoughts of Ernst Frenkel (1898 – 1975) are briefly introduced. His goal was the realization of social justice alongside citizenship rights in a democratic society and country. The second theorist is Ralf Dahrendorf (1929–2009), who addressed the prerequisites necessary for a free society. Both were advocates of parliamentary democracy and opposed the ideological legitimization of any form of dictatorship, especially totalitarian dictatorships. Neo-Pluralism and Social JusticeErnst Frenkel was the founder of the theory of neo-pluralism or, in other words, modern pluralism. He linked liberal and socialist ideas in a new conception of democracy. For this reason, he is referred to as a reformist socialist. He spoke of Western democracies that share a common tradition, particularly valuing the ideas of separation of powers, parliamentarism, and free elections of representatives. Frenkel added workers' demands to classical democratic notions, emphasizing the role of the labor movement in democratizing society and the country. For him, democracy and social justice were inseparable. Frenkel was a Marxist for a time and during that period discussed 'dialectical democracy' in his theoretical work. His aim with this discussion was to legitimize the importance of the plurality of social and political institutions and to articulate political demands, meaning to strengthen the influence and impact of organizations that represent specific social interests. The positive function of groups defending specific interests, namely the tense conditions of consensus or disagreement among individuals and groups, including compromise or irreconcilability among different groups, is seen by Frenkel as having significant importance for the formulation and shaping of a country's political will in modern democratic societies. This type of function of various groups is, in fact, part of the symbolic and structural characteristics of a dialectical democracy. Over time, he evolved the idea of dialectical democracy into the theory of neo-pluralism, particularly arguing against the theory of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. He believed Rousseau proposed a debased theory of democracy and was intellectually responsible for the emergence of totalitarian dictatorships. Frenkel's main goal was to counter the challenge of totalitarianism. He believed that totalitarian dictatorships negate pluralism and thus, pluralism must be negated again to reach neo-pluralism. He argued that every individual should defend their interests, which is a natural matter. Pluralism only becomes meaningful and comprehensible within the framework of Western democracy, meaning in a system where civil liberties are guaranteed and every citizen has the right to defend their interests and can compete with the interests of others without intending to infringe upon another's rights. In Western democracy, specific and particular interests, the plurality and diversity of different citizens' interests, and the positive manner of freely defending individual and group interests find their legitimacy. Of course, the authorities of a country must respect the right to compete for different people's interests and not allow the framework of freedom in the country to disintegrate. The condition for this is a minimal social consensus and agreement. Moreover, social welfare in a pluralistic democracy does not arise spontaneously and must be guaranteed within a competitive system. In modern mass societies, the defense of group and personal interests must be organized by state authorities and social institutions. In contrast, in totalitarian dictatorships, the explanation and determination of what social welfare is is defined by a ruling group. Independent, self-reliant, and autonomous groups must play a significant role in the process of determining political will and political decisions of the country and compete with each other. It is under such conditions that a social group can gain a social identity. In fact, the theory of pluralistic democracy defends the freedom of parties and social groups. A country with an institutionalized pluralistic structure of society has created conditions for the competition and coexistence of different groups, thereby guaranteeing the rights of social, religious, national, and ethnic minorities. According to Ernst Frenkel, the standards of moral coexistence among humans must be considered and respected without limitation. Frenkel's intellectual principles and theories were influenced by Franklin Roosevelt and his wife Eleanor Roosevelt and the intellectual revolution of human rights. Frenkel concluded that the conflicts of modern mass society must be contained within the framework of parliamentary democracy. Pluralistic institutions must continuously work to realize their demands. The success of pluralistic democracy depends on the activity of individuals and parties, the activity of unions and labor syndicates, and all groups and institutions of civil society so that a society can achieve its democratic goals without submission to a leader and the military organs of a dictatorship. Oligarchy and FreedomRalf Dahrendorf concluded that every member of society is allowed to freely engage in the construction of society and the country. Dahrendorf continues that citizens only occasionally intervene in social affairs, and in fact, the role of the people in shaping the political process in a free society is not essentially necessary and sometimes even illogical and meaningless, bringing negative outcomes. In other words, according to this German theorist, who was also a member of the House of Lords in Britain, the role of the people in modern societies cannot be compared to the role that parts of the people played in the French and American revolutions, nor should it be. Because the duties and roles proposed for the people in revolutionary programs to shape the course of history were themselves totalitarian programs. Dahrendorf rightly explains that these naïve totalitarian and all-encompassing revolutionary programs never had a chance to realize their fanciful dreams, that is, their 'utopia', and historical experience has shown that the opposite of those totalitarian programs and theories has occurred in human history. In other words, Dahrendorf was an advocate of the separation of powers in the country and not of direct popular involvement, as the claim of direct public participation in political affairs is a naive thought that often leads to the policies of state coercion. The fact that the general public uniformly has no interest in political affairs and does not participate in them is itself a sign of the degree of freedom in a country. Dahrendorf divides society into three parts: 1) The general public that lives hidden and has no interest in participating in the political affairs of the country. 2) Groups from the general public that are inactive and occasionally and irregularly become active. 3) Active groups that regularly try to change the social and political course through their membership in social and political institutions. For this reason, Dahrendorf believed that oligarchic groups play the main role in all political systems, whether democratic, socialist, or fascist, either positively or negatively. He was one of the greatest and most important critics of socialist theorists who promoted labor governments and did not inform the people of the reality that only oligarchic groups hold the reins of the country. He concluded that only active groups, which include elite groups, can form a new oligarchy. He believed that elite groups and oligarchies should not be closed groups but completely open so that anyone can become active in these groups or conversely reduce their activity and exit the circle of active elite oligarchs. According to Dahrendorf, fundamentalist democrats want all individuals in society to become active in the political process, and in this way, they help to distort and destroy the democratic process of society; but if society has the opportunity to proceed based on the plurality of opinions, various and diverse democratic groups can operate and play a positive role in the political process of society and the country. Of course, if a group from the general public exceeds its limits, other groups will resist against that group, and as a result, various social institutions will be strengthened and expanded. For this reason, Dahrendorf is also considered a founder of the theory of conflict and strife or, in other words, 'conflict'. Dahrendorf's understanding of democracy is that both freedom and the relationship between the government and the citizens of a country hold central value; and one of his main questions is how social freedoms should be institutionalized. He believes that the engine of social progress is positive 'conflicts' in society. In contrast, 'utopia', meaning the fanciful dream of democracy that seeks to homogenize people's social actions, must lead to a totalitarian dictatorship. Thus, like Frenkel, he is also among the opponents of Rousseau.