One of the greatest tragedies of our history lies in our failure to recognize that the misconceptions fuelling the ideological foundation of the 1979 Revolution were not propagated by corrupt opportunists or selfish profiteers but by the educated elite, who harboured genuine concerns for building a better society. The same mindset that promised free electricity and water to everyone continues today, advocating for unrealistic measures such as Article 31 of the Iranian Constitution, which declares that every Iranian individual and family has the right to adequate housing.
The ethical flaw and logical impasse of demands like “free utilities for all” become clear when we scrutinize the concept of rights. When we say that everyone has the right to adequate housing, it means individuals have the natural right to create such opportunities for themselves in a fair society. However, it does not mean that someone else is obligated to provide that housing for them. The first interpretation of rights opens the door to progress and societal development, while the second interpretation leads to coercion and the destruction of civil society.
In the current critical juncture of our nation, we cannot afford further mistakes. We must recognize the trade-off inherent in our demands and choose our path with open eyes, no longer shirking responsibility. Understanding the difference between negative and positive rights is a practical necessity for every individual who seeks to live in a free and just society. This distinction provides a framework to assess political agendas critically.
Understanding Negative and Positive Rights
Rights granted to individuals often impose corresponding responsibilities on others. Negative rights impose a duty of non-interference, meaning others are obligated not to violate someone’s life, liberty, or property. These rights are often referred to as individual freedoms. In contrast, positive rights impose an active obligation on others to provide goods or services, such as healthcare or housing.
When we say, “Everyone is equal before the law,” we are referencing negative rights. These rights, by their nature, are universally applicable without conflict. We can always respect others’ freedoms simply by refraining from imposing our will on them. Positive rights, however, inherently require the imposition of obligations on others. In practice, granting a positive right to one individual often necessitates violating another’s negative rights.
The failure to distinguish between these rights has far-reaching implications, particularly in expanding state power and limiting individual agency. The concept of negative rights gained prominence during the Enlightenment and the rise of classical liberalism as a response to the abuses of concentrated power. By emphasizing negative rights, classical liberals sought to limit the scope of government, ensuring it acted as a protector of freedoms rather than an enforcer of collective goals.
Adam Smith’s Perspective on Justice and Freedom
Adam Smith, the 18th-century Scottish philosopher and moral thinker, articulated a vision of justice and freedom that remains relevant today. He argued that a society recognizing negative rights may not be necessarily a pleasant society but is not characterised by injustice. Smith regarded justice as the cornerstone of social coexistence and saw the government’s primary role as protecting these rights.
In criticizing those who seek to impose their ideals through political or governmental means, Smith coined the term “man of the system.” Such individuals view society as a chessboard, where every piece can be moved at the will of the man of the system to create his perfect vision of the society. Smith warned against this mindset, emphasizing that individuals have their own goals, motivations, and rules of behavior, which may not align with the grand design. According to Smith, social order emerges naturally and spontaneously from the free interactions of individuals pursuing their interests. Social planner’s interventions disrupt this organic order and lead to wasted resources and diminished progress.
Balancing Negative and Positive Rights
This is not to say that positive rights are inherently harmful or unnecessary. A society that ignores basic needs risks alienating its most vulnerable members and undermining social cohesion. However, pursuing positive rights must not come at the expense of negative rights. Classical liberalism provides a framework for striking this balance, emphasizing that the government’s primary role is safeguarding negative rights while fostering an environment where markets and civil society can address positive needs.
By limiting government power and encouraging voluntary cooperation, individuals and communities can tackle collective challenges without sacrificing individual freedoms.
Nationalism as a Driving Force for Unity and Progress
Nationalism, when understood as valuing people, is a perspective that emphasizes the well-being, culture, and unity of a nation’s citizens, often with a focus on shared identity and collective progress. This form of nationalism is distinct from exclusionary or aggressive nationalism and can be seen as a constructive approach to fostering community and belonging.
To achieve these goals, a future government must limit its responsibility to establishment and enforcement of a system of justice, which is essential for civil society to function harmoniously. Large, centralized governments have repeatedly demonstrated their tendency toward corruption and inefficiency. Conversely, a government committed to the principles of liberalism and modern nationalism, fostering private sector growth and empowering citizens to participate freely, can pave the way for national renewal and position Iran as a regional and global powerhouse.
Seizing the Opportunity for Change
If the current turbulent times hold an opportunity for transformation, it is imperative to abandon the flawed thinking that has dominated modern Iranian history. The foundation of our future must rest on reason and logic. Instead of wandering down paths destined for failure, why not choose a proven route that history and reason show to be the most reliable for achieving prosperity, development, and the highest degree of individual freedom?
This path lies closest to the tried-and-tested principles of classical liberalism, rather than the misguided slogans that have led even Western societies astray. Constructive nationalism, rooted in inclusivity and unity, is a cornerstone of this vision. By embracing this approach, Iran can build a future where all its citizens thrive in freedom, dignity, and opportunity.
