Authoritarian regimes tend to place severe limits on their citizens’ enjoyment of constitutional freedoms. In today’s article, we will be trying to explore some of the reasons as to why the authoritarian regimes do so. We will be going further, to highlight some of the specific freedoms that the authoritarian regimes place limits on. And finally, we will be trying to answer the question on what the citizens in such regimes can do, to get out of the predicament they find themselves in.

Why authoritarian regimes place limits on enjoyment of constitutional freedoms

Authoritarian regimes place limits on enjoyment of constitutional freedoms because they (the authoritarian regimes) tend to suffer from insecurities. Authoritarian regimes often lack popular mandates to rule. They therefore lack legitimacy. They are, as such, aware that if they allow people to fully enjoy the various constitutional freedoms (Including the freedom of speech and the freedom to protest) the people are likely to rise up against them. The people are likely to question their legitimacy. And the people are likely to make their hold on power untenable. So they opt to place limits on the enjoyment of the freedoms, to avoid such eventualities.

Specific freedoms whose enjoyment is constrained by authoritarian regimes

The constitutional freedoms that are likely to threaten the authoritarian regimes’ hold on power are the ones that tend to be most severely curtailed. Here, we are looking at things like the freedom of speech, the freedom of choose leaders, the freedom to associate and so on. But some regimes go as far as placing limits even on economic freedoms. The goal there is to ensure that the people are impoverished, and are therefore unable to question anything. That is why you shouldn’t take the job you do, however modest, for granted. Like if, for instance, you hold a job at a company like, say, PepsiCo – meaning that you are able to access your work-related resources at the PepsiCo HR site (www.mypepsico.com). In that case, every time that you are able to visit the My pepsico view login page, and access your paystubs, you need to grateful. There are other nations where the governments deliberately limit the citizens’ access to even such modest opportunities. To such regimes, their hold on to power is more important than their citizens’ welfare. Some actually go as far as putting in place measures to control their citizens’ movements!

How the citizens in authoritarian regimes can improve their lot

The only way that citizens in authoritarian regimes can improve their lots is through the use of cell structures. So the idea is for them to use the cell structures to covertly organize themselves politically (given the fact that open political mobilization is usually restricted, in these authoritarian regimes). They then can opt for mass action or civil disobedience campaigns. Or alternatively, they can opt for open uprisings – although the latter tend to be too costly in terms of loss of human life and property. Peaceful civil disobedience campaigns — akin to what we saw in the Arab spring — tend to work better, when it comes to getting rid of authoritarian regimes.

Everyone agrees that constitutional freedoms are not absolute. There are limits to those freedoms. Thus, for instance, although we have freedom of speech, we can’t go around abusing and defaming people on that account. And although people have freedom of association, they can’t use that freedom to form gangs, which would then go ahead to cause anguish to the society… So on the one hand, we have the constitutional freedoms. And on the other hand, we have limits to those freedoms. And this brings about an interesting question, as to what reasonable limits to constitutional freedoms are. For although we agree that there should be limits to the constitutional freedoms, we are also careful not to limit the freedoms too much (as tyrants do). What, then, are reasonable limits to constitutional freedoms? That is the question we will be attempting to answer, in this article.

The ‘self-harm’ consideration

Sometimes people end up harming themselves while enjoying their constitutional freedoms. For instance, although people have freedom of worship, it is easy for them to engage in harmful practices (including ‘self-flagellation’) in the name of worship. We have also heard of sects that instruct their members not to seek medical care while sick. And there have also been reports of doomsday sects, that advise their members to leave their jobs, sell all their properties and go live in bunkers! That is how you can end up with a fellow who had a decent job at, say, Nordstrom, going to the Mynordstrom.com portal, and signing in into the said MyNordstrom portal, only for him to tender resignation from an otherwise good job — on the advice of such a sect. So there is potential for self-harm here. This needs to be avoided. And that makes it necessary for limits to be put in place, to ensure that people don’t end up harming themselves while enjoying their freedoms.

The ‘harm to others’ consideration

Sometimes, people may end up harming others, while enjoying their constitutional freedoms. For instance, although people have freedom of speech, it is easy for them to start insulting, abusing and defaming others – all in the name of enjoying their freedom of speech. So it becomes necessary to put in place limits to the freedoms, to ensure that people don’t harm others in the name of enjoying those freedoms.

Conclusion

We come to the conclusion that people should be allowed to enjoy their constitutional freedoms to the greatest extent possible. But limits should also be put in place, to ensure that people don’t either harm themselves or harm others in the name of enjoying their constitutional freedoms.

At some point, we may need to rethink the constitutional freedoms. I know that this is a scary thought — especially given the fact that we have been conditioned to view the constitutional freedoms as ‘sacrosanct’. Yet the truth of the matter is that the constitutional freedoms were framed by people – our forbearers. Those people were thinking within the context of the times they were living in. And given the fact that times have changed, it may surely make sense for us to rethink the constitutional freedoms — in line with the realities of our times. These ideas shouldn’t be so threatening. All things are always being updated, in line with emerging realities. Like if, for instance, you last visited the Lowe’s employees’ website, at myloweslife.com three years ago, and then you visit it today, you will notice that it will have changed. The folks who manage it will have updated it. Isn’t it then incumbent upon us to keep on updating the constitutional freedoms in line with the needs of our times? Surely that line of thinking makes sense.

There are several considerations that we may need to make, while rethinking the constitutional freedoms.

We may need to add some new freedoms to our constitutions, in line with the needs of our times. Surely, today’s world is very different from the world of the 18^th century, when the constitutional freedoms were first framed.

At another level, we may need to limit some of the old freedoms, again in line with the needs of our times. Like, for instance, the (controversial) freedom to own and carry arms – which made a lot of sense when the people were still trying to colonize a new – and hostile—land. Isn’t time for such a freedom to be rethought?

We may even go a step further, and decide to do away with some of the freedoms entirely. This thought shouldn’t scare anybody. After all, wasn’t there a time when people had a constitutional freedom to own slaves? Wasn’t that freedom done away with, at some point? And isn’t the world a better place for that? It therefore becomes clear that doing away with some of the freedoms may, in certain circumstances, be a good idea.

There is always the risk of constitutional freedoms being abused. Take the second amendment rights in the United States, for instance. Thanks to the second amendment, Americans have the freedom to buy and bear weapons. But we have often seen people taking those freedoms to ridiculous levels: like where people with mental disorders demand to be sold weapons, citing the second amendment freedoms! And this shows that people have potential to abuse their constitutional freedoms. Thus, the question that arises is as to how we can prevent that from happening: in other words, how we can ensure that constitutional freedoms aren’t abused. And according to the experts who have expressed themselves on this subject, there are 3 key things we can do, to ensure that constitutional freedoms aren’t abused, namely:

1. Setting clear limits to the freedoms: sometimes, it is hard (for the citizens) to know just how far the freedoms go. This gives the people the impression that their freedoms are unfettered. And that is how you end up with the people abusing the freedoms. To avoid this, it is necessary to set clear limits to the freedoms – delineating the extents to which the people can enjoy the freedoms. Everyone should be in a position to know where his freedoms start and where his freedoms end.
2. Educating people on the limits to their freedoms: setting clear limits to the freedoms is one thing. Getting the people to know about those limits is another matter altogether. So having set clear limits to the freedoms, it is necessary to get people to know about those limits. And that is only possible through education: educating people on the limits to their freedoms. It is just like what we saw when Walmart set up the Walmart1 portal for its employees. It then had to educate the employees, in order to get them to a level where they could visit the Walmart1 login page, sign in, and proceed to access their work-related resources. It is similarly critical to ensure that having set the limits to the freedoms, you educate the public on those limits.
3. Subjecting those who abuse their freedoms to court processes: the goal here is to ensure that the people who abuse their freedoms are punished for doing so. This is the only way we can get people to desist from abusing their constitutional freedoms.