The following is the transcript of a speech delivered by Socialist International Vice-President Kalevi Sorsa at the Helsinki Congress of the ILRS in August of 1997.

CONSENSUS, FREEDOM, AND THE POOR

Kalevi Sorsa
Vice-President, Socialist International
Former Prime Minister of Finland

I was very excited when the organisers of this Congress proposed the theme to me, because it covers the essence of today's societal debate, both in political, i.e. practical, and philosophical ways. I will explain what I mean.

World War II was fought for freedom and democracy. It is true that these are popular slogans for any war, but in the case of the last — I hope — World War it can be truly said that the greatest part of humanity organised itself against those forces whose ideology was racism, oppression and denial of both democracy and freedom. Admittedly, among the winners were also those whose democratic conviction and societal freedom could be criticised, but so strong was the appeal of freedom in the 1940s that even they accepted the rhetoric of liberty and in some cases, probably for tactical reasons, undertook measures to prove that they were serious — a famous example being the restitution of religious freedom in the Soviet Union.

It is then no wonder that the ideological declaration of the victorious alliance, in the aftermath of the war, was a eulogy of freedom. The Soviet Union, true, criticised in some aspects this purely western Declaration of Human Rights, but yielded after some minor concessions by the western powers — among others the membership in the UN of Byelorussia and the Ukraine, a factor that we now know contributed to keeping alive the hope for independence in these countries.

In the ‘40s and ‘50s, with the prestige of the UN at its height, the Declaration of Human Rights became the moral yardstick for youth. I remember personally having learnt it by heart of my own will in my youth. Its laudable principles formed the moral ground for decolonisation and the beginning of development assistance in the ‘50s.

Its most astonishing effect however, was the one it had on the CSCE process. The aim of the Soviet Union, it was understood then, was to confirm the border lines drawn by the war in Europe. The American administration was prepared to accept this because together with other results of the Conference, it would stabilise the situation in Europe and thereby strengthen the chances of peaceful development. But [the Americans] needed something in compensation for the Soviet benefice to sell the Final Act to the Senate and to American public opinion. That is how the so-called third basket, i.e. the human rights chapter, was invented. Once again the Soviets accepted something they considered just declaratory principles to get something they held for a concrete political advantage.

The end result was unforseen by anybody. The human rights chapter had a profound impact on East European public opinion and gave birth to an influential ‘Helsinki movement’. This, together with courageous leadership by men like Willy Brandt and Mikhail Gorbachev, finally tore down what had been thought of as the most concrete result of the conference, the Soviet domination over Eastern Europe, and in the end the Soviet Union itself.

After the collapse of what was considered to be the main danger for freedom, it was only natural for everybody to expect a rapid, unrestrained expansion of democracy which would also lead to more harmonious relations between nations. But only in countries which had a democratic tradition from times before communism was democracy re-adopted without great problems. Armed conflicts broke out in former Yugoslavia and on the territory of ex-Soviet Union. And the old conflicts in Turkey, Cyprus and Ireland went on without any effect from the Final Act, nor from the cessation of the Cold War.

While this was disappointing enough, even the concept of freedom itself has shown signs of distortion and narrowing. During the Cold War freedom was seen primarily the autonomy of the individual citizen before the state and his right to elect those trusted with state powers, which all adds up to political democracy. Under the influence of Thatcher and Reagan administrations in the Anglo-Saxon countries, and particularly after the collapse of communism, the emphasis has shifted from the rights of the individual citizen and to the voluntary organizations of citizenry, formed to protect these rights, to the freedom of entrepreneurship aiming at maximal productivity of capital. The humane fight for the rights of the small individual before all-mighty collectives has ceded place to battling for the freedom of capital, as if the winner of the Cold War had not been freedom but capitalism.

The ideological and economic weapons have now been turned both internationally and nationally against anything that could restrict the freedom of capital. The trade union movement and the political left have been the first targets. They are presented as old-fashioned forces of stiffness in a modern society which really needs flexibility from their role. Freedom, in today’s parlance, is the legitimate property of enterprises which, in a rapidly globalising world are boundless, all-mighty collectives whose tentacles embrace the whole world. Who controls them? Market capital naturally. Capital controls itself and successfully shakes away the last controls set on it by the citizens’ society.

What then is left to the citizen, if one's freedom to defend oneself through uniting in organisations is harmful to economic activity? His lot is flexibility. He has to flex until the production costs are competitive with the lowest in the world. That will be his part of the new, brave free world.

Is this really where half a century’s development under the banner of the Declaration of Human Rights must end up? I cannot believe it. Counter-forces to the excesses of this development are in fact being born. First of all, people, the ordinary citizens, have a good experience of the societal movement which in Western Europe and particularly here in the north fought for a century to minimize social injustice and to build up a society characterized by freedom, equality and solidarity, a caring home for the people. It may have committed errors and excesses, and some of its reforms may have brought about unforeseen consequences, but because it is profoundly committed in the freedom of critique and democracy, those mistakes are reparable. But by and large it has been, it still is, a success, and people are prepared to build it further as the recent election results clearly prove. It might in future have a new emphasis, as somebody put it, furnishing the people’s home to a home for the individual citizen.

This organization of the national community and of international solidarity was arrived at by the efforts of citizens’ political, social, trade union, co-operative, educational and religious organizations, often under a socialist leadership, but also other political forces from the left and the centre have given their noteworthy contribution.

It is these forces that are now reforming their platforms and reorganizing themselves in defence of a society where harmony and consensus are regarded to be valuable objectives, and where the sense of solidarity extends to the poor. But there have been also other reasons for an expanding concern about the undesired consequences of the triumph of freedom. Increasing criminality, violence, drug addiction, alcoholism, loosening of family bonds, dilution of a sense of responsibility, and above all high unemployment, poverty and similar social flaws are awakening concern in large quarters. The strongest pleas in favour of a new course have in Finland come, not from among the labour movement but from the archbishop, and from the richest media mogul. And internationally from George Soros, the best known speculator on the global money market.

The nonchalant arrogance and unrestricted egoism of modern capitalism just cannot be tolerated, they seem to be saying. There are religious and societal values, older than capitalism, that are not and will never be just simple market ware. Democratic governments must honour their responsibility towards their citizens and conquer the leadership of development back towards the realm of democracy.

Responsibility? That word has occupied the minds of InterAction Council, a gathering of former state and government heads which, under the spiritual leadership of former German federal chancellor Helmut Schmidt devotes itself to the study of the most central questions of our time. Recognizing the darker side of the coin of freedom, and persuaded of the fact that to achieve balanced societal development, human rights must be matched with human responsibilities, Helmut Schmidt has during two, three years chaired an informal group of leading philosophers and representatives of different religions. On the basis of their work the InterAction Council in its meeting two months ago adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities. It is our aim to submit the text to United Nations for adoption, so that it could be during the coming decades a similar signpost as the Human Rights Declaration has been during the past decades.

I shall now read a few articles of this remarkable document for your contemplation:

‘All people, to the best of their knowledge and ability, have a responsibility to foster a better social order, both at home and globally, a goal which cannot be achieved by laws, prescriptions and conventions alone.

Article 1

Every person, regardless of gender, ethnic origin, social status, political opinion, language, age, nationality, or religion, has a responsibility to treat all people in a humane way.

Article 3

No person, no group or organization, no state, no army or police stands above good and evil; all are subject to ethical standards. Everyone has a responsibility to promote good and to avoid evil in all things.

Article 4

All people, endowed with reason and conscience, must accept a responsibility to each and all, to families and communities, to races, nations, and religions in a spirit of solidarity: What you do not wish to be done to yourself, do not do to others.

Article 5

Every person has a responsibility to respect life. No one has the right to injure, to torture or to kill another human person. This does not exclude the right of justified self-defense of individuals or communities.

Article 6

Disputes between states, groups or individuals should be resolved without violence. No government should tolerate or participate in acts of genocide or terrorism, nor should it abuse women, children, or any other civilians as instruments of war. Every citizen and public official has a responsibility to act in a peaceful, non-violent way.

Article 7

Every person is infinitely precious and must be protected unconditionally. The animals and the natural environment also demand protection. All people have a responsibility to protect the air, water and soil of the earth for the sake of present inhabitants and future generations.

Article 8

Every person has a responsibility to behave with integrity, honesty and fairness. No person or group should rob or arbitrarily deprive any other person or group of their property.

Article 11

All property and wealth must be used responsibly in accordance with justice and for the advancement of the human race. Economic and political power must not be handled as an instrument of domination, but in the service of economic justice and of the social order.

Article 14

The freedom of the media to inform the public and to criticize institutions of society and governmental actions, which is essential for a just society, must be used with responsibility and discretion. Freedom of the media carries a special responsibility for accurate and truthful reporting. Sensational reporting that degrades the human person or dignity must at all times be avoided.

Article 15

While religious freedom must be guaranteed, the representatives of religions have a special responsibility to avoid expressions of prejudice and acts of discrimination toward those of different beliefs. They should not incite or legitimize hatred, fanaticism and religious wars, but should foster tolerance and mutual respect between all people.’

The organisers of the Congress have been kind enough to reproduce the full text of the declaration for distribution to those of you interested in a closer study of it.

Dear friends,

‘They deprived us of part of our identity, of our economic level, of our technical skills,’ an Estonian friend once told me. ‘But all that will be replaced in a matter of years. The most serious lack the communists left behind was of moral order. They ridiculed our religious ethics but gave nothing to compensate it. The only virtue was to serve the interest of the Party, and even that had been corrupted into the interest of nomenklatura. Moral reconstruction is the Estonian’s most demanding task,’ he said.

The disappointment with the immorality of capitalism must be profound among the newly liberated peoples. The experience of liberating oneself from one immoral system only to be embraced by another one can easily lead to a cynical outlook on life, a perfect breeding ground for social misbehaviour.

The same seems to be true also in the well-established democracies. Making profit more important than man leaves the man also morally unarmed.

The moral reconstruction in the spirit of brotherhood and equality is our most important task everywhere!

Return to Faith