Discussion and debating standards for liberals

Stefan Melnik

The following paragraphs summarise the standards a chairperson or facilitator tries to uphold working within the liberal community, irrespective of whether the event in question is a conference, a workshop, a seminar, an online forum or simply a routine meeting. Participants are encouraged to abide by them. These standards may also be seen as “liberal duties”.

I have listed them because of a number of incidents I have experienced in the past few months in events with young politicians and activists covering topics that are highly charged and controversial. These standards are essentials – and ignoring any one of them undermines the very fabric of liberal discourse:

-We must read or listen actively and ask ourselves: do I understand, do I need clarification, am I able to repeat and explain what my colleague has said if I am asked? If I’m just looking for an opportunity to land and make my own point (we call this phenomenon “stacking”), I’m probably not reading or listening carefully enough. A liberal does not fulfil his/her duty by looking for catchwords to pounce upon and use for polemical purposes. The danger is that such behaviour leads to a slanging match and little more. This is a technique best left to our political opponents.

-We must treat our colleagues with respect. This means that we treat them as fellow-liberals honestly and earnestly looking for answers. This means accepting that they have cogent and sincere reasons for their respective points of view – reasons that we should try to understand. It also means that we do not treat our fellow-liberals as gullible fools who are potential target groups for propaganda. Liberals are often quite good as discerning fact from fiction and propaganda.

-We must use our faculties of reason. Looking critically and analytically at what is being said and testing its value is part of this process. I go a step further and ask myself: Is there perhaps a vested interest I need to take into consideration, given what has been said? Has a spin doctor or public relations department been at work? What is the scientific evidence? Do I need to do some further research? Remember that liberals consider themselves to be heirs of the Enlightenment and enlightenment means not only having the courage of one’s convictions but also the personal commitment to reason.

- We must be sceptical of people claiming to know what the truth is. For liberals truth is elusive. Yes, we can through discussion come closer to truth, but even the process of discussion doesn’t necessarily mean that the answers will survive the test of time. Liberals are sceptical of people who claim that they can prove something to be true. Many liberals therefore subscribe to a principle of critical rationalism, that of falsification. You test a statement or a theory by trying to disprove it. If you can disprove it, you need to look for an alternative. For liberals, particularly for secular liberals and secular humanists, statements of belief that one cannot test (such as belief in a God) are inferior in quality to statements based on the use of reason and based on a process of trial and error. This applies to the public arena, not necessarily to the personal sphere or to the sphere of religion. In a public or semi-public discussion all liberals should commit themselves to focusing on reason rather than belief. Typical statements of belief we are confronted with and need to combat are: “Zionism equals imperialism” or, with respect to the current debate on climate change, “the science is settled”.

- We must be dedicated to upholding the principle of freedom of expression – which is the precondition for serious discussion focused on achieving results. Taboos contain the seeds of this principle’s destruction. If someone has good arguments for saying that religious leaders are directly responsible to hatred and violence, say in Northern Ireland, then our duty is to listen and to debate. It is not to say “this is being disrespectful of religion.” Freedom of expression protects criticism. And we should remember that the function of criticism is to challenge, to bite and even at times to hurt.

- We must as liberals also keep other principles of liberalism in mind when engaged in discussion. One of these other principles is related to the above: that of tolerance. I would go one step further and say: a commitment to understanding rather than just tolerance. We come from different cultures and there are reasons for each of us behaving or acting in a particular way. We need to understand our own behaviour and actions, reflect upon them, and we need to try to understand others and the reasons underlying things that may seem strange to us.

-This does not, however, mean being tolerant of intolerance or of practices that are illiberal. A good example of the culturally determined phenomena we cannot accept is: the systematic repression of women for purported religious reasons. Just as we talk of the necessity of being “militant democrats” if we wish to uphold principles of democracy against its enemies, so we should be determined liberals confident of the benefit of equal rights and unafraid of a principled stand in their favour. Liberalism is not a soft option given the appalling problems we have with respect to political and civil rights throughout the world.

- To be liberal is also to be political. Liberals who just talk about principles and are uninterested in policy are irrelevant. Our principles guide us, yes, but they are not enough. They do not replace policies. We can take the example of dealing with terrorism. What we are looking for is a world in which there would be no excuse for terrorism. This is something we will all agree on. It’s also easy to agree to the following statement: “We hope that more well-being will obviate the reason for supporting terrorism in some parts of the world.” But we need to deal with the problem of terrorism here and now – because it is here and now that fellow human beings and citizens are being murdered. This is what our voters and potential voters expect. And if we don’t supply answers, we won’t get votes. Developing policies and appropriate answers are not an easy task. Granted. To meet the challenge we need dedication, open-mindedness, patience and willingness to pay a price. But this is what counts in the political arena and what, ultimately, generates viable solutions, peaceful co-existence and support from citizens that want to live their lives in freedom and peace. Some of these answers may also be difficult to stomach – but we live in a world that is in no way perfect.

- For liberals it is important to be practical and to compromise. In the field of developing policy we are always faced with options and with decisions we have to make. We shouldn’t damn politicians for trying give and take, for trying to reach compromises because this is part of their job. Political solutions must involve compromise because conflicts of interest underlie all the problems and issues we have to deal with. This is made even more complicated by the fact that everyone not only has a particular interest but also because everyone has his/her own set of values, different values. Some of us are social liberals, some are classical liberals, others are libertarians. In government we are often in coalitions whose members subscribe to values that are different to those we have. The art of politics, also for a liberal, is to develop solutions that are amenable to consensus and that allow for progress towards achieving greater levels of freedom in our respective countries and throughout the world. In a well-managed process of discussion and negotiation we will always find opportunities for realising our interests and some way of putting liberal principles into practice. Some progress is better than none.