Presented for the Preparatory Meeting organized by the Sasakawa Peace Foundation in Jakarta on 22nd May 2014.
This paper advances the proposal for the setting up of a World Forum for Muslim Democrats. It provides a brief situational analysis of Muslim countries and the state of democracy and freedom, specifies the goals and objectives of such a forum and recommends the core imperatives for advancing democracy in the Muslim world.
Concept paper towards the first international conference on “World Forum for Muslim Democrats”
by Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, for the Preparatory meeting for the first international conference on “World Forum for Muslim Democrats” on 22nd May, 2014 in Jakarta organised by the Sasakawa Peace Foundation, in collaboration with The Habibie Center.
1. Situational analysis
For the last three decades generally and since the Asian financial crisis of 1997 in particular, and above all the Arab Spring, Southeast Asia and the Middle East have undergone significant socio-political changes. While these developments cut across religious boundaries, a prominent aspect concerns the fact that Muslim countries as well as countries with significant Muslim populations underwent transformational changes which have a profound impact on their political and socio-economic structures as communities and nations.
The Arab Spring which spelled the end of certain praetorian regimes, autocracies and dictatorships has added impetus to this new wave of democracy bringing fundamental changes to the political systems in various parts of the Middle East.
1.1 Indonesia
Indonesia’s quantum leap from military autocracy to constitutional democracy is a classic case that debunks the myth of Muslim societies being not amenable to a functional democracy. Over the last decade since the onset of the Reformasi era, there were several attempts by extremist groups to gain access into the mainstream of political affairs but these efforts were quickly rebuffed by the Indonesian people at the ballot box.
Many challenges remain as Indonesia continues to ascend its learning curve and to cope with the new found challenges as the Muslim world’s largest democracy but the constitutional infrastructure that has been laid will ensure that the essential checks and balance for a fully functional democracy are in place.
Nevertheless, it must not be forgotten that economic inequality was among the more significant factors in the build-up to the Indonesian revolution with the financial melt-down of 1997 being the trigger. Hence, socio-economic challenges continue to be of paramount concern but all indications point to Indonesia moving forward. Above all, issues of governance will continue to loom large and the outcome of the war against rampant corruption will be key to Indonesia’s long-term success as a democracy.
1.2 turkey
In the case of Turkey, no doubt the most mature in relative terms of all the Muslim democracies, there are attempts from remnants of the old order to destabilize a duly and democratically elected government. These attempts have proved to be a strain on the democratic foundations of the erstwhile praetorian state. Nevertheless, thanks no doubt to the democratic reforms initiated and the overall track record of proper governance under a leadership dominated by progressive Muslim democrats, Turkey has managed to weather the storm without any major backsliding of freedom and democracy.
1.3 tunisia
Changes in the political landscape brought on by the Arab Spring have transformed former autocratic fiefdoms and dictatorial regimes alike into functional constitutional democracies. Tunisia, under the leadership of Muslim democrats, is holding on fast to its new found democracy in spite of attempts to destabilize the duly elected government.
Among the most important factors in Tunisia’s successful democratic transition is the ability and willingness of all power stakeholders to lay the foundations for freedom, democracy and justice with a constitution based on consensus.
It is said that the success in this democratic choice motivated the Islamist leadership to give up administrative power, not because they were coerced, but because they placed prioritizing Tunisia’s future above self-interests. This was essential to avert the temptation of dictatorship. In the words of Sheikh Rachidal-Ghannouchi: “All forms of dictatorship are doomed to failure, and the temptation of power that changes power to arrogance is a disease.
“By sharing power with the opposition, we protect ourselves from the temptation of monopolizing power and arrogance of power. At the same time, power-sharing protects us from the threat of being subjected in the future to exclusion, marginalization, and torture.” [1]
Tunisia has crossed its first major hurdle with the ratification of its new constitution on 27 January 2014 and we await the general elections due by the end of 2014.
1.4 Egypt
The demands for ‘bread, freedom and social justice’ in Egypt that heralded the ‘Tahrir Square Republic’remind us of Nobel laureate Amartya Sen’s famous development as freedom doctrine or in simpler language “empty stomachs do not clamour for democracy but food and shelter”.
Just as it was in Indonesia, Egypt’s attainment to freedom happened when decades of autocratic rule coupled with gross economic inequality combined to form a cauldron of frustration, anger and discontent which boiled over and eventually overthrew Mubarak.
Unfortunately, the democratically elected government that replaced the dictatorship was in turn toppled in a military coup. This tragic turn of events is not to be cast as a failure of democracy but a textbook example of military might and the greed for power prevailing over the will of the people.
It is to be noted that vested and elitist political and economic interests accustomed to monopolising power would not easily forgo it. Hence, even after the fall of Mubarak with the revolutionary events centred on the symbolic Tahrir Square, the counter- revolutionary forces wasted no time in plotting to regain their lost crown. Even as the political wing of the Muslim Brotherhood scored unprecedented Parliamentary victories in free and fair elections and the people of Egypt voted in Morsi as their democratically chosen president, the reactionary elitist elements conspiring with the resurgent praetorian forces headed by Gen al-Sisi set in motion a series of calamitous events that culminated in the military coup.
The backlash and witch-hunt that followed has seen the systematic break-up of Egypt’s nascent democracy and a state organized reign of terror unleashed on the people that violates every known principle of freedom, democracy and justice. Indeed, now that the illegitimate government of al-Sisi has outlawed the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization with hundreds being convicted and given death sentences, further oppression of the people is to be expected as democracy is being entombed. Nevertheless, history has shown that these shifts in power are not permanent as it was the case with Turkey’s past struggles with military regimes. Eventually, the power of the people will prevail.
1.5 pakistan
Pakistan continues with its protracted roller coaster ride with military dictatorship and democracy and the added dimension of a conservative Islamist challenge directed against Muslim democrats. However, rather than dampening the democratic spirit, this dynamic has spurred greater efforts by the Muslim democrats to stand up for freedom and democracy over dictatorship and tyranny.
Having a somewhat amorphous territorial boundary in the North-west region and sharing geographical proximity with Afghanistan, Pakistan remains perched on a precarious geopolitical threshold with extremism, jihadism, and terrorism threatening its democracy from within and at the gates. Under these circumstances, the voices of Muslim democrats are constantly clamouring to be heard.
1.6 southeast asia in general
The Arab Spring, particularly developments in Egypt, has a clear and exacting influence on the political climate in Southeast Asia. Theoretically at least it should have acted as a lightning rod to trigger reform and renewal through regime change. The ends of the Arab Spring are perfectly compatible with the aspirations of those seeking freedom and democracy in the region. In reality, this has not materialised.
The question is whether the people in Southeast Asia need some nudging in order to do what they themselves should be naturally inclined to do? History tells us why an Arab Spring wave of revolution has not happened and perhaps why it would be unlikely to happen the way it has unfolded in the Middle East.
By the turn of the 19th century, with most Asian states under either foreign domination or direct colonial rule, the quest for freedom and independence became a recurring theme among the influential thinkers in the region.
Writing in 1872, renowned civil rights activist and luminary during the Meiji Era,
Fukuzawa Yukichi reminds us that “each individual man and each individual country, according to the principles of natural reason, is free from bondage.” Therefore, any threat to this freedom would justify the use of any means necessary to protect it. [2]
There was, however, no guarantee that freedom from colonial rule or Western domination would lead to rule by democracy. And the reality was that in the wake of the Second World War, many countries merely traded their old colonial regimes or loss of sovereignty for a new kind of despotism or autocracy. This could be in the form of an absolute monarchy, or military dictatorship, or autocracy under the guise of guided democracy.
Change, however, is long overdue as the greater part of Southeast Asia, except the Philippines and Indonesia, is ruled by the same political parties and personalities for far too long. In the case of Malaysia, for example, with the largest Muslim population in the region after Indonesia, the ruling political party has had a monopoly on Federal power since independence in 1957. Familiarity breeds contempt as they say particularly when those who overstay continue to plunder and pillage the people’s wealth.
The need for an Arab spring type revolution does not present itself because the people are already moving towards the process of regime change via the ballot box. These changes are not incremental but phenomenal and as the last general elections in Malaysia have demonstrated, the popular vote was won by the opposition even as the ruling party continues its hold on power through political subterfuge and gerrymandering. As the wave for political transformation surges, it is envisaged that the tide for regime change in the next elections will be so overwhelming that no amount of fraud or political chicanery will be able to stem it.
2. goals and objectives and how they relate to specific challenges/opportunities
2.1 primary goal
The primary goal for a World Forum for Muslim Democrats is to establish a common platform for leaders, intellectuals and professionals of the Islamic faith, together with their non-Muslim associates, to articulate their progressive views on matters pertaining to freedom, democracy and justice.
It is envisaged that such a platform will bring to bear the collective weight of the views of these individuals, representing their respective communities and nations, upon these matters that will have a significant impact on Muslim societies, the region and the world at large.
2.2 primary objective
Whilst specific mention has been made of the threats of extremism, jihadism and terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan, there is no gainsaying of the violence and mayhem that continues to be unleashed in the Middle East particularly in Syria, Iraq and Libya. In Southeast Asia, the various forms of extremism and ultra-conservatism in religious leanings are kept under control but it would be sheer folly to assume that there is no threat, imminent or otherwise, of these forms of religious extremism raising its ugly head and waiting to launch their assault on societies.
Under these circumstances, the objective of the Forum, among others, is categorically to moderate and ameliorate the negative voices of intolerance, extremism and exclusivism with the voices of moderation, tolerance, understanding and inclusivism. In this regard, no apology is to be made of the fact that the progressive views envisaged for the Forum areto be regarded as an imperative,reflecting the modernity of Islam.
3. core principles for democracy in the Muslim world
Any attempt at defining democracy holistically will be an exercise in futility without the following four dominating elements. They are universal suffrage, elections which are free, competitive, recurrent and fair, a pluralistic system of political parties, and diverse and alternative sources of information. [3] It can be seen that in all these factors, participation takes a pivotal position.
Building on these preconditions, it is contended that the following core principles are imperatives to be internalised and professed by Muslim democrats in theory and in practice. [4]
3.1 good democracy
Firstly, it is a government that is widely legitimized and stable. By legitimacy we can take it to mean that it has not come to power by illegitimate means such as cheating, fraud or money politics. Legitimacy must be wide i.e. clear victory with a clear majority. Now, where a government comes to power by virtue of fraud and also having lost the popular vote, it is indeed counter-intuitive to claim legitimacy. Needless to say, governments installed by military coups such as the current regime of al-Sisi in Egypt will fail this preliminary hurdle, their democratic pretensions notwithstanding. Similarly, many other Muslim current regimes and governments fail this test.
Secondly, a good democracy is one where citizens are fully satisfied because the elected representatives in power are responsive to their needs and demands. Thus, if the powers that be choose to wilfully ignore their needs and demands or respond by telling them that if they are unhappy with the government, they can vote them out in the next elections, that cannot be good democracy.
3.2 the rule of law
Thirdly, the people enjoy freedom and equality beyond the minimum, that is to say, over and above what is guaranteed by the Constitution. In practice, Muslim democracies which inherited the Westminster model of government such as Malaysia, Pakistan, and various African states began life after independence as constitutional democracies with Charters that guarantee fundamental liberties while at the same time allowing the legislature to pass laws curbing these freedoms.
In a good democracy, the Legislature will not pass such laws except under the most valid of reasons and circumstances, and where so passed, there will be effective checks against abuse.In this regard the rule of law is of paramount importance and the bastion to defend this principle is the Judiciary. In a good democracy, the Judiciary deliberates without fear or favour. It will play the role of an effective check against the excesses of the Executive and the Legislature. Above all, it will maintain the rule of law to ensure that legal and judicial processes will not be hijacked by the powers that be for their political agenda.
3.3 electoral accountability
As mentioned earlier, elections provide the starting point for good democracy: They must be free and fair, with a level playing field, equitable access to media, and above all, a totally impartial and independent electoral commission.
However, even this may be inadequate without the additional requirement of electoral accountability which is essential to give meaning to the doctrine of participatory democracy. It is imperative therefore that citizens are not to be limited to participate in choosing their representatives no matter how regular that may be but they must be given the opportunity to consult and if need be call on their representatives to take certain actions.
An elected representative’s mandate may technically be as long as the next election but morally the mandate ends when political neglect begins. Elected representatives whether in government or in the opposition must not forget that their legitimacy lies in the hands of the electorate. This is a moral imperative and no amount of legal argumentation will avail them.
3.4 governance – accountability and transparency
The requirement that elected representatives, particularly those in power, must answer for decisions made stems from the moral imperative of accountability which no doubt is an essential element in good governance.
Governance therefore must go beyond mere democracy and accountability or precisely beyond mere electoral accountability. According to an influential view in the discourse on democracy, there must be a “constant capacity of the government to satisfy the citizens, who are considered politically equals, by executing the policies that correspond to their preferences.” [5]
It is true that the conventional views on governmental legitimacy tend to put the emphasis on democratic rights but general governance has emerged to take precedence. In this regard, there is a growing convergence between the Western conception of democracy and governance and the Islamic imperatives on governance according to the Maqasid al-Shari’ah or the Higher Objectives of Islamic Law. The latter among others warrants governance to be predicated on accountability and transparency on the fundamental ground that power is a sacred trust.
“To Allah belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth. And whether you manifest what is in your minds or hide it, Allah will call you to account according to it. So He forgives whom He pleases and chastises whom He pleases. And Allah is Possessor of power over all things.” (al-Baqara 2:284)
Indeed, it is ironic that corruption (which is the worst form of the abuse of trust) and abuse of power continue to be among the ‘notorious hallmarks’ of most Muslim governments. Hence, the imperative for accountability in governance cannot be overstated. No one is suggesting that democratic rights are not essential but even as the trend in Western democracies indicates, their efficacy is pre-conditioned on good governance. [6]
As a prominent democracy advocate puts it, the spectre that is haunting democracy in the world today is bad governance. [7] That means governance that serves only the interests of cronies and relatives and the political elite. It means patronage and the lack of transparency in dispensing government funds and projects. It means governance that turns a deaf ear to the demands for social justice. It means abuse of power and corruption.
Solving a country’s governance is therefore the key to attaining quality democracy and this takes precedence over the economy. This is because economic growth will not be sustainable without significant improvements in governance.” [8] The view is that economic development without an equal economic and political playing field will be useless. For example, where massive corruption is not resolved, high economic growth will not be able to strengthen democracy.
3.5 overlapping consensus
In advancing our constitutional rights and other legitimate demands and expectations, we should remember that there are competing claims from different segments of society. Rawls reminds us that despite “considerable differences in citizens’ conceptions of justice there can still be consensus provided that these conceptions lead to similar political judgments.” [9] For Muslim societies, this takes on particular significance in practical terms in view of the cantankerous and open disputes regarding religion and philosophy. But when one takes into account the nature and extent of these conflicts – as between Sunni and Shia’ or even as among the different Sunni schools of jurisprudence – it may require much more resolve and effort to attain the fulfilment of contending claims.
Again, there is no overstating the imperative of the need to accommodate for diversity and differences. In dealing with the practical implications of political Islam in running a state, Sheikh al-Ghannouchi gives us the timely reminder that pluralism is a universal law and pluralism among and within the Islamic movements is a reflection of this truth. [10] Not only is pluralism tolerated but its inevitability has been ordained by the Qur’an:
“And if your Lord had willed, He could have made mankind one community; but they will not cease to differ. Except whom your Lord has given mercy, and for that He created them.” (Hud 11:118, 119)
On my part, I have regularly cited the following as an imperative for Muslims living in multi-cultural and multi-religious societies:
“O mankind! We created you male and female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other. Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. And Allah is all-knowing all-aware.” (al-Hujurat 49:13)
Firstly, this verse is addressed not just to Muslims but to mankind. Secondly, it lays the foundation for unity and equality in every human being. We belong to one race, that is, the universal race of mankind. We have been divided into different tribes and nations so that we can get to know each other.
Even the Rawlsian conception of justice does not suggest that society can or should do away with its diversity in religion and philosophy but the overlapping consensus on principles of justice is the common platform founded on morality that will cement the multiplicity of groups with diverse doctrines.
So, in the case of the divergent groups in Muslim societies, be they Islamists, modernists, liberals, or leftists, the imperatives point towards convergence in the quest for freedom, democracy, and justice.
The basic infrastructure must be allowed to be put in place. Philosophy must give way to practical reasoning. The notion of left versus right is outdated. There is much overlapping in the midst of diversity. As between the movement for tajdid and islah (Islamic renewal and reform) on the one hand, and the “traditional conservative” on the other, treading the fine balance is crucial.
Whatever bent or persuasion, these groups must be grounded on reality and not on pious platitudes and lofty ideals with the clear objective of solving society’s problems. Democracy requires compromise and groups with different agendas and views must be prepared to enter into dialogue setting aside immediate differences.
3.6 developmental freedom
As alluded to earlier, the greatest threat to democracy may not come from the barrel of a gun at all but from an empty stomach instead. In this regard, Amartya Sen has rightly posited the importance of development as an imperative in assessing the state of democracy. [11] Essentially, effective participation in democracy is preconditioned on availability of economic resources. On this account, when one considers the hundreds of millions of people in Muslim countries still living in poverty and thus deprived of elementary freedoms, the imperative is development.
This begs the question: would not such an imperative be diagonally opposed to another principle of good democracy which is the freedom to own property, amass wealth and do business unimpeded by government?
Democracy in this conception must mean, among other things, free enterprise, free competition and free market capitalism. We know that in this scheme of things, inequality will be an inevitable consequence because competition naturally breeds inequality.
Western economists agree that in free market competition, there will be a trade- off between efficiency, obtained through the market, and equity, obtained at ‘some social cost’, which is putting it rather mildly.
The social cost in reality is substantive and impacts on our daily lives. Occupy Wall Street is living testimony. The effects of the 2007 sub-prime crisis in the United States, the land of free competition, hit Americans hard dispossessing them of their houses and causing massive unemployment.
Elsewhere, in Muslim societies and countries throughout, the rising cost of living continues to chip away the purchasing power of the average citizen and the gap between the rich and poor continues to widen. Education is getting increasingly unaffordable with families getting tied up in debt while the mushrooming of private hospitals has not made health care any cheaper. Housing for the wealthy is an embarrassment of riches but for the average household, it remains a continuous drain on the resources to own a house.
Inequality therefore is unjust and governments who leave their citizens to fend for themselves in the name of free market cannot seriously pass the test of good democracy.
3.7 social justice
The answer to this conundrum has to be from top down. Not trickle-down economics as in the weak justification for so-called collateral benefits from capitalistic predators. It has be social policy in the name of social justice.
Bereft of the social justice and human development approach to democracy, new found freedoms may appear too ornamental and concepts like civil society may just be too lofty for comprehension.
This imperative is very much linked to the preceding imperative on development and will address the multi-fold challenges posed by Muslim countries. Muslim democrats in the Middle East, Southeast Asia and elsewhere must take the cause of social justice actively and not as some philosophical construct fit only for academic disputation.
Absent social justice, the poor get poorer, weak become weaker while the rich become richer and the strong, even stronger. A vicious cycle follows and going beyond material inequities, those at the short end of the social stick are then threatened at the core. This strikes at the very heart of being human – the dignity of man.
According to John Rawls, the principles of social justice provide a way of assigning rights and duties in the basic institutions of society and they define the appropriate distribution of the benefits and burdens of social cooperation. [12]
Social justice must therefore be a core imperative of good democracy. In practical terms, Muslim democrats must address the gross income disparities in their societies. Minimum pay, the provision of medical benefits, better working conditions, and financial assistance to workers’ families will be crucial to help “define the appropriate distribution of the benefits and burdens of social cooperation”. In return, workers then fulfil their duties by giving full commitment in their work. Above all, there can be no compromise on placing education at the top of priorities. In this regard, it bears reminding that among the factors for Tunisia’s successful transition to democracy are its relatively high level of literacy and the fact it has one of the best educational systems in the Middle East.
Poverty stricken societies, as is the case in many Muslim countries, and a home- owning democracy is a contradiction in terms. It will not happen as long as governments fail to implement a sound and effective social justice policy.
Drawing inspiration from the principles of Islam, social justice can be realized through a ‘humane economy’ – al adlwaihsan. From the standpoint of such an economy, there is no clash between the pursuit of wealth and the dispensation of social justice: the right to ownership of property endures but while there is no compulsion apart from the obligatory taxation on wealth imposed across the board, Islam encourages wealthy individuals to contribute to society.
In the context of democracy and governance, in the Islamic conception, social justice is an imperative to be followed by the state. The Higher Objectives of the Shari’ah enjoin those in charge of the state to ensure society’s sustained well-being. Gross inequalities of wealth, poverty, and the deprivation of fundamental social necessities such as health care, education and housing cannot constitute society’s sustained well-being.
4. proposal
As the theoretical underpinnings that had kept Muslim countries from the mainstream of democratic systems of governance neither exist anymore nor hold the Muslim mind captive, the time has come for Muslim countries to move forward with a new agenda for freedom and democracy.
In this new vision, practical and substantive issues must prevail over academic or theoretical disputations. The World Forum for Muslim Democrats to be established must work out a full democratic agenda for reform, for social justice and good governance.
With this in mind, under the auspices of the Sasakawa Peace Foundation, I propose to take the initiative to co-opt Muslim leaders and prominent democrats in Asia, the Middle East, Turkey, the United States and Europe to take an active role in the Forum. To expand the network and organizational base of the Forum, it will be mutually beneficial to forge strategic alliances with the International Institute of Islamic Thought, and like-minded bodies such as seta in Turkey and the Habibie Center in Indonesia. Other bodies that share similar aspirations will also be eventually co-opted into the Forum’s secretariat.
In this regard, it is proposed that such a formal secretariat be set up without undue delay in Kuala Lumpur. Going forward, this preparatory meeting in Jakarta must set out a clear road map to take us to a first major conference to be convened sometime in August (to be confirmed) to focus on the challenges faced by Muslim democrats.
5. challenges ahead
Notwithstanding certain media distortions to the contrary, the fact is that the political changes of the past three decades including the Arab Spring have positively altered the geopolitical dynamics in the region with significant implications for freedom, democracy and justice. Particularly with the Turkish and Indonesian experiences and the successful transitions in Tunisia and incremental progress in other Muslim countries in the region, the overarching scepticism that used to plague the region concerning compatibility of democracy and freedom with Islam has dissipated.
Nevertheless, other seemingly insurmountable problems remain which continue to pose daunting challenges for the cause of freedom and democracy in the Muslim world. In particular, the sectarian conflicts between Sunnis and Shiites in the Middle East and Pakistan which often manifest themselves in violent bloodshed and brutal killings must be addressed by all concerned. Compounding this problem is the emergence of fanatical and violent groups with no particular ideological leanings apart from recklessly flaunting the badge of jihad and Islam. They have gained notoriety by unleashing senseless violence, committing mass kidnappings and horrifying public executions of captives.
Indeed, these reactionary, negative and destructive forces and tendencies, if left unchecked will pose a major stumbling block to long term aspirations for peace, freedom and democracy in the Muslim world. It is therefore incumbent on the World Forum for Muslim Democrats to take on these issues headlong and help bring about their resolution.
Notes
[1] Noureddine Jebnoun, Tunisia at the Crossroads: An Interview with Sheikh Rachid al-Ghannouchi, aCmu Occasional Papers, April 2014
[2] Gakumon no Susume [An Encouragement of Learning] (1872-1876)
[3] Leonardo Morlino (2004) ‘Good’ and ‘bad’ democracies: how to conduct research into the quality of democracy, Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics, 20:1, 5-27, p. 5; DOI: 10.1080/13523270410001687082
[4] For a comparative analysis in respect of good democracy in the Western construct, see Leonardo Morlino (2009), Legitimacy and the quality of democracy, International Social Science Journal, 60: 211–222. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2451.2010.01717.x
[5] Dahl, Robert., Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition, New Haven, 1970, pp. 95-97
[6] Gilley, B., The Right to Rule: How States Win and Lose Legitimacy. New York: Columbia University Press, 2009
[7] Larry Diamond’s address of the National Endowment for Democracy’s 25 years of operations, 2007
[8] Larry Diamond, The Spirit of Democracy: The Struggle to Build Free Societies Throughout the World. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2008
[9] John Rawls, A Theory of Justice. (Revised Ed.) Harvard University Press, 1971, 1999, p. 340 10 Jabnoun, ibid. 11 Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom, Oxford University Press, 1999
[12] Theory of Justice, p4, drawing on the ideas of utilitarianism of Bentham and Mill, Lockean social contract, and Kant’s doctrine of the categorical imperative, and this is restated in Political Liberalism (1993), where society is seen, “as a fair system of co-operation over time, from one generation to the next.”
