Freedom in The Decolonization Period

Ever since freedom was proclaimed as one fundamental human right compatiblly existing among global citizens and championed by our pioneers as the long-term groundwork of states, the subject emphasizing the flexibility of individual actions and significance of citizenship has been meeting intense public discussions and conflicts. For example, one German philosopher, Immanuel Kant’s observation that freedom innately held by rational beings serves as the root for efficient social and political governance (Immanuel Kant 1965), along with the announcement of political association’s goal in preserving man’s liberty in “Declaration” (National Assembly of France 1789), encounters a dilemma in the case of governmental intervention with ordinary people’s information stored on digital devices in the United States. The wide disagreement between a significant number of American citizens and spokesmen from the government over the legality and moral senses of fetching individual messages, seen by many as a serious invasion of human’s freedom of privacy, prompts the world to reconsider the degree of protection of human’s free rights as well as an appropriate political stance in fulfilling and respecting its implementation. It turns out the motivation for causing the dispute, either about the practicing scope of individual interests, or the latitude and coercive function of administrations, when put in the historical context, could be traced back to the content of collective struggles occurred during the decolonization period. Throughout the human race’s history, looking from of the perspective of battles for independence and facilitation of international policies, the decolonization age following the World War II is inarguably one of the most important events making possible the overall procedure of human emancipation from exploitations and excessive controls of rights. The definition given by the Oxford English Dictionary establishes that decolonization is the “withdrawal from colonies” and “acquisition of political or economic independence (The Library of Congress Blog 2013)” profoundly reveals the nature of dismantlement’s exceptional contribution to advancing the course of freedom of nations and their citizens. Without many nationalities’ efforts, most of which are exerted in African or Asian countries from the third world, the enrichment of meaning of human’s freedom as well as the availability of ideals round emancipation of humanity and defense of basic rights would be entirely impossible.

In recent decades, increasing events and occurrences indicating the lack of consensus in understanding the weight of citizens’ freedom of rights within social and political conventions provide excellent opportunities for the globe to shed more lights on the history of removal of colonialism. It is generally estimated that an initiative vision on the enforcement of human rights and independence of minds constitutes an unprecedented and most vital ingredient in struggles against colonial domination. As indicated by Jan Eckel, one renowned professor engaging in modern and contemporary history, it was after the 1940s that the notion of human rights achieved a firm foundation in national and global relations (Jan Eckel 2014).The ideology and theoretical basis of human rights, justified and applied by today’s projects and activities within nations and regions, obtain their forms and details through the post-war period, where anti-colonialism takes a pivotal role in shaping the psyche of both colonists and the colonized. Taking Africa as the example, ranging from 1956 to 1963, twenty-nine African nations set foot on the road of the restoration of independence, with seventeen having achieved their success. The over-extraction phenomenon widely emerged in fields of many African regions led to a growing tendency of anti-colonialism, giving rise to the gradual weakening of economic and political strengths of colonial powers, such as France and Britain. The reclaim of human’s basic tights and advancement of independent lifestyles were regarded as one progressive mentality increasingly advocated by many states from Africa and Asia, eventually making themselves visible characteristics of the decolonization process,

The emancipating campaign, seen as one of the most radical course of political movement in the first half of the twentieth century, primarily involves national liberation wars launched by pro-independence communities when violence is witnessed play a crucial factor in finalizing the political process. To better understand the feature of national liberation, or restoration of the nation, Frantz Fanon, the writer of The Wretched of the Earth, gives suggestions on putting the examining focus at the very beginning when basic claims of laws and rules are announced to the face of the colonized population. According to Fanon, the evidence of leading the success of colonization lies in a social fabric that “has been changed inside out (page 1 Frantz Fanon)”. The gradual switch of administration is made possible only when manipulations are strongly intended, struggled for, and required. Hence, decolonization could be interpreted as the substitution of one political group by another, one ideological structure by a different one. In this sense, national liberation wars become an agency of conflicts massively formed and battled with the purpose of reacquiring independence from hands of foreign forces: a reawakening of not only external rights but individual interests and awareness. One generalization could be made that the concrete connotation of decolonization, where many developed European nations take back their economic and political controls imposed on dependent lands, manifests itself in two aspects: freedom of consciousness from colonizers’ powers and elimination of forces at institutional and geographical levels. Of all historical documents and rhetoric that lay concentration on the third world’s struggle for human rights and drastic colonial emancipation at this particular period, a 1966 movie named Battle of Algiers serves as one outstanding work with historical and cultural values highly recognized and critically praised. Basing on the Algerian War against the French regime in North Africa, the half-documentary movie gains popularity with insurgent groups due to its realistic depictions of the urban guerrilla warfare. Placing Algeria’s acquisition of independence from the French government in the film’s epilogue, the director, Gillo Pontecorvo, tells the story of guerrilla warriors who march into the Casbah and confront French enemies attempting to gain political control. The fact that a parallel is witnessed between the film’s release and days of the decolonization results in the work’s additional role in demonstrating battle tactics and raising controversies among different interest groups. For example, condemned as biased, the portrayals met considerable criticism and was banned in France for five years (PierNico Solinas Retrieved in 2016).

In understanding the potential of colonization, Aime Cesaire contends that the historical event equals a campaign of barbarism where the negation of it could emerge at any time, and in the purest and simplest manner (page 5 Aime Cesaire). It bluntly points out that substances and forms in a colonial system contain a high likelihood of being undermined or overthrown because of violence and cruel suppression against people’s rights and identities. The indication placed on the importance of man’s ideals and their inherently possessed rebellious spirits mirrors Arendt’s insights both on reasons for any nation to gain a foothold and the essence of violence. According to Arendt’s theory, nations are the unmatched and long-term bearer of a collective identity and status where inhabitants claim common rights. Besides, through nations, citizens declare homogeneity that could possibly be pronounced as universally used language, shared customs, as well as similar senses toward historical development. It is argued that a truly functional autonomy could be possible only when states are equipped with the sustainable capacity for protecting the rights of its citizens and implementing efficient policies to ensure active treatments within their territory. In turn, citizens approach and fulfill their fundamental rights by attaching themselves to the state, in which human dignity and honor are enabled. Further, according to the analysis, the sense of being right, which means a universal agreement from citizens over sets of values and deeds at moral and cultural spheres, and “interest of all” would eventually overcome and justify any terror. Beyond any doubt, Arendt’s statements bring about the most profound perspective over the inevitability of the decolonization age. Whether it is the emergence of a new political fabric, or collapse of colonial regimes, ultimate solutions and proper methods to good governance stems from unconditional safeguard of citizen’s free rights and free spaces in conducting actions.

To a substantial extent, the new global climate in the twenty-first Century where Arendt inhabits reveals a distinction from turbulent waves of decolonization, whether in terms of varieties of violence or increasingly complex types of terrorism in multiple dimensions. However, one thing that remains consistently unchanged is the truth that political chaos and social conflicts, regardless of scales and categories, result from the insufficient satisfaction of the mankind during the process of practicing their fundamental rights and realizing their freedom that is supposed to be unconstrained. At all times and places, reduction of disputes and avoidance of brutality as implied by the colonial domination can be made only by frequently connecting with historical lessons in the past and returning to the most fundamental principles of global ethics. With a critical eye on conditions of injustice, inequality, and violence, we are allowed to achieve a heightened awareness at our roles and behaviors, at the same time, creating tools for the future construction of higher levels of democracy and universal freedom.