The citizen has more freedom of expression than leaders: John Ralston Saul

Freedom of expression, and its limits, is back in the news in India because of the Wendy Doniger and The Hindus controversy. Penguin has issued a statement explaining why they took the decision to not re-issue the book. Both Doniger and Penguin have blamed the burden of the law in India especially Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code which makes “Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs” punishable. There is currently a petition on Change.org by the scholar Ananya Vajpeyi addressed to the MPs and the Law Minister asking for a reform of Sections 153A and 295A of the Indian Penal Code.

Earlier this year at the Jaipur Literature Festival, John Ralston Saul, the current president of PEN International, spoke to Firstpost about the challenges and responsibilities of freedom of expression.

The argument is in a place like India, freedom of expression has to be weighed against the potential for violence erupting when say a public person makes incendiary statements. So we have laws to preserve communal harmony to not cause offence to religious groups because leaders are accused of firing up religious sentiments for political gain. With leadership comes responsibility. In a way the citizen has more freedom of expression than the leaders. I know what I say as international president of PEN has certain impact. I am not in my own country. Certain things I could say. But certain things are better said by Indians.The great politicians, the great religious leaders, the great public leaders and journalists, they know they have the obligation of choosing their words carefully – it’s not giving up freedom of speech, it’s assuming the other half of the PEN charter which is responsibility of knowing that your words will have impact. Therefore if you are a political leader you do not drive people toward violence. If you are a religious leader you do not drive people towards violence. If you do you are not acting properly as a public figure.

This has nothing to do with the West. It has nothing to do with democracy. The good prince knew exactly what the role of the prince was – your job was to hold people together to prevent violence. This tradition goes back thousands of years. In Indian tradition there are strong examples of what the good prince is. Lets not pretend this is an idea of the west and this idea of responsibility and limitation among leaders is from the west. If you read Confucius, he is very clear about responsibility of leaders limiting their words.

But the leader says I know my responsibility but this artist or this writer is producing something that can give offence and cause a riot. So we must be more of a nanny state. At the end history is clear on this. All through history the good prince has known it’s essential to have the capacity for debate which the prince has in some ways given up. But it’s clear there is an essential role for the writer and the artist. Look at the murals of churches of Europe, read Rumi – my God, would you get away with it today? The creation of the role of the fool in the European courts was all about ensuring maximum public debate at a level where you could disturb the junior princes and courtiers so they could not settle into comfort. So when you hear someone in power saying I am going to prevent freedom of expression in the population they are not acting as the good prince. They are not understanding their role in how society functions.

Why do you think that populism can be perceived as a danger to freedom of expression?

It to some extent depends on what you mean by populism. The most dangerous thing in any society is fear, not hatred but fear. And leaders have an obligation not to work through the fear of the other. Empathy is about identifying with the other. The history of populism is about people who have strong fear within themselves and have a talent for exploiting that fear in other people. We all have it. A populist is really someone who can create a movement based on fear. That is not a good prince.

While we often think about freedom of expression as being about journalists in jail or threatened, it is also not about the chilling effect, the story that just does not get written because of fear? Of physical fear. Or financial fear. Again you have to go country by country. I think it has got increasingly worse over the last 40 years partly because of the consolidation of ownership where there are fewer and fewer places you can get a job. That means getting on the wrong side, getting your head above the parapet can mean permanent unemployment.

Second things is where people who have money slap libel suits on people to shut them up and apparently in India you can slap libel suits on people in very distant places making it even more expensive and awkward for he person. It ruins their career.

But it’s also about whether it’s a civil suit or a criminal one.

That’s the other element. I think that’s a fundamental in all countries. Libel is a civil question because it is attached to freedom of expression. It’s not a criminal issue. Just as debt is not a crinimal issue. If you put up little steps to you are doing OK – one is debate vs violence, one is going to jail for debt. But a key one is civil courts for libel not criminal courts. It’s the only thing I have said very clearly. It’s very clear criminal libel has to be dealt with.

In India we have quite a boisterous media. But one of the problems seems to be journalists are less afraid to speak up against politicians than they are against corporations? They are like the French aristocracy in the middle of the 18th century –these grand rulers of corporations. One of the things they have is if you are nasty to us we will bankrupt you. So owners of media are frightened either because they don’t want to spend the money or because their friends have been insulted. Or they are the ones. I know some big independent newspaper with 500 libel suits against them.

This is one of the real outcomes of the globalist movement. When you look at it, since /11 the facility with which all rules about privacy and freedom of expression have been broken by governments and corporations under the rubric of fear and public order. That would not have been possible if the ground had not been prepared since the mid-70s first by convincing people that the driving force in society was self interest and economics, that business schools were the most important part of the university.

I have said Adam Smith’s tombstone is clear. He is the author of Theory of Moral Sentiments and it says in smaller type the Wealth of Nations. It was a footnote. But business school don’t read Adam Smith. They read extracts of Adam Smiths. From the seventies on economics departments have removed the historians of economics. It was all about statistics. That leads to questions like you want to do cultural festival. Let’s look at numbers. Instead of its value to society.

I have talked about the financial crisis and why did nothing change. It’s because we have an elite structure and there are no other ideas out there in the official structures and when the crisis comes they don’t how to change. I no longer feel this is a moment when these guys can sit down in the room and come up with solutions. I think they are the problem. I think this is moment when we need a complete reworking of language or argument of what is possible..