HOW
FREE IS FREE?
By Frank
Deaver
Rotary Club of Tuscaloosa, Alabama USA
Rotary is alive and well in 126 countries of the world, but by the
very nature of the organization it exists only in countries with a
(relatively) free society. The word “relatively” is necessary,
because no peoples of the world are in fact totally free. We live
within defined structures, within legal and ethical limitations.
Thus the question, “How free is free?”
Freedom is noticeably absent in certain countries, and
significantly those societies are without the presence of Rotary.
Nevertheless, even the most restrictive governments claim that their
people are, by their own definition, “free.” Fidel Castro claims,
for example, that the Cuban press is “free,” free to publish the
“truth,” truth as defined by the government. North Koreans are said
to be “free,” free to support the goals of the Communist regime.
Taking freedom to its literal but illogical extreme, it might
be said, “If I am truly free, I am free to be irresponsible; I have
no restrictions, no obligations.” The reverse extreme could be
stated: “If I am required to do (or not do) certain things, then I
am no longer free.”
Of course, we recognize that these are extreme statements. An
elementary example of legitimately limited freedom can be seen in
the streets of our cities. At major intersections, there are red
and green lights, and the red light limits our freedom. During
certain intervals in the cycle, we are not free to proceed.
But we do take pride in thinking of ourselves as members of
free societies. Many of us have lived our entire lives in a culture
of relative freedom, although the danger is ever present that we may
become complacent, and take our privileges for granted.
Many countries of the world are newly free, and from a history
of recent authoritarianism it can be challenging to responsibly
handle freedoms newly thrust upon them. Within any free society, an
ongoing struggle is to define how much freedom citizens have (or
should have), and how much of that freedom they are able to exercise
with responsibility.
It is apparent that we cannot be absolutely free or there is
chaos, there is no order in society. The constant struggle of a
free society has always been to define the outer limits of freedom,
while preserving the maximum degrees of freedom. We struggle to
balance personal freedoms with the collective good; to balance the
will of the majority with the retained rights of the minority.
Freedom is not “free to be irresponsible,” neither for
government nor for individuals. Similarly, responsibility is not a
mindless submission to authoritarian whims, whether imposed by
government or employer.
Degrees of personal freedom are limited in many ways – some
clearly justifiable, some highly debatable. Governments limit
freedoms through legislation; businesses through contracts;
employers through policies. In addition, professionals impose
limits on themselves through their own high ethical standards.
It is in this last category where Rotarians find their own
balance of freedom. Along with other citizens, Rotarians are
subject to certain legal and contractual boundaries, but Rotarians
go beyond those definitions. With commitment to the principles of
the Four-Way Test, as well as to personal ethics, Rotarians embrace
responsibility as a corollary to extremes of freedom.
Someone has said, “You can trust a Rotarian.” That is a level
of group credibility that is valuable above all external
definitions. Whatever the degrees of freedom, in whatever society
of the world, Rotarians have earned the reputation for exercising
their freedoms as “freedom to serve.” It is no accident that our
motto is “Service Above Self.”
