Freedom is a foundational and contested concept in political philosophy, shaping the evolution of democratic systems and struggles for individual and collective rights. As a dynamic ideal, freedom’s meaning shifts according to political, social and historical contexts.

Yuval Noah Harari presents freedom as a “corrective mechanism” that recalibrates power structures and ensures that governance remains accountable to the people. His idea, especially when viewed alongside the contributions of Harold Laski and Quentin Skinner, offers a powerful lens for understanding how freedom underpins democratic orders.

This essay explores Harari’s concept of freedom, the politics of negotiation versus confrontation, and how these ideas illuminate the political crisis in Pakistan, where confrontation is hindering democratic progress.

Harari’s view of freedom, as presented in Sapiens and Homo Deus, departs from conventional interpretations. He sees freedom not as an inherent right but as a corrective mechanism within societal structures. Freedom, for Harari, is a dynamic process through which individuals and communities can challenge power imbalances and authoritarianism, ensuring that governance remains responsive to the needs of the people.

In this sense, freedom is active and requires engagement — citizens must defend their rights to prevent the entrenchment of elite power. In a democracy, freedoms of speech, assembly and participation are tools for recalibrating the state’s relationship with its citizens and preventing power from becoming unaccountable.

Harold Laski, a prominent theorist of the 20th Century, offered a more traditional view of freedom, emphasising its role in ensuring democratic participation and social justice. In A Grammar of Politics, Laski argued that freedom was not just the absence of interference, but the capacity to participate meaningfully in political life.

He stressed that true freedom required social and economic equality, without which marginalised groups were unable to exercise their rights or influence governance. Laski’s concept of freedom, therefore, is closely tied to democratic participation, where individuals are able to shape political decisions and access the benefits of society. This aligns with Harari’s notion of freedom as a tool for recalibrating power and promoting equity.

Quentin Skinner, in Liberty Before Liberalism, adds another dimension to this understanding of freedom, focusing on political autonomy. Skinner distinguishes between the absence of interference and the active capacity to shape one’s political environment.

For Skinner, freedom is not just a personal right but a political condition where individuals and groups can fully participate in the collective life of a community without arbitrary domination. He argues that political institutions — such as democratic elections, rule of law and a free press — are essential for safeguarding freedom and enabling citizens to hold their government accountable.

Skinner’s focus on institutional frameworks resonates with Harari’s corrective mechanism. Both emphasise the importance of active engagement in the political system. Skinner’s view of freedom underscores the need for a political environment where individuals are empowered to shape policies and laws, preventing arbitrary rule.

Harari’s corrective mechanism can be linked political negotiation, which contrasts with the more disruptive politics of confrontation. The politics of negotiation seeks to resolve conflicts through dialogue, compromise and consensus-building, whereas the politics of confrontation, marked by polarisation and radical opposition, often escalates tensions and undermines democratic institutions.

While confrontation may sometimes be necessary to challenge oppression, Harari, Laski and Skinner suggest that long-term change through negotiation and gradual institutional reform is more sustainable. Negotiation upholds the freedoms essential to democracy while confrontation risks deepening divisions and destabilising democratic processes.

John Mearsheimer, a prominent scholar of international relations, argues that democracy and freedom are natural outgrowths of human nature and the desire for self-governance, but he places limits on their role in international politics.

While democracies promote freedom internally, Mearsheimer is critical of the democratic peace theory, suggesting that democratic states are not necessarily less aggressive in foreign policy and may even pursue imperialistic actions when aligned with their interests. He believes that in global power dynamics, security concerns often override ideals of freedom, and states prioritise power and survival over democratic principles in their foreign relations.

Mearsheimer is sceptical of attempts to spread democracy abroad, particularly through military intervention, arguing that such efforts can destabilise other nations and often clash with the pragmatic realities of power politics. Ultimately, he stresses that the internal freedom of democracies does not exempt them from engaging in aggressive behaviour in the international system.

Pakistan has been frequently trapped in the politics of confrontation. Since Imran Khan’s ouster from the government in 2022, his supporters have engaged in street protests, some of which have turned violent, exacerbating the hostility between the state and the opposition. This confrontational dynamic has undermined democratic freedoms and the state has employed authoritarian measures to suppress dissent.

The politics of confrontation in Pakistan mirrors the dangers Harari, Laski and Skinner warn against: it destabilises the democratic process, deepens societal rifts and erodes the corrective function of freedom. While confrontational politics by the opposition reflects its grievances, it has led to the suppression of political discourse and the weakening of democratic institutions. Citizens are unable to fully exercise their rights, and the state’s authoritarian response threatens the freedom of political actors and ordinary citizens alike.

For Pakistan to move past its political crisis, it must transition from confrontation to negotiation. Harari’s corrective mechanism suggests that freedom is not a passive right but an active process that requires ongoing engagement. In Pakistan, this means fostering spaces for dialogue between political parties, the establishment and the civil society. Laski’s focus on social justice and Skinner’s emphasis on political autonomy reinforce the need for an environment where freedom is exercised through negotiation, not antagonism.

This transition will require substantial institutional reforms, including strengthening of judicial independence, ensuring electoral transparency and protecting civil liberties. Political leaders must recognise that democracy cannot thrive under constant polarisation and tension. Instead, they must work towards a more inclusive and accountable political system where negotiation and compromise are prioritised over confrontation.

Freedom, as understood by Harari, Laski and Skinner, is the foundation of democratic societies. It is not a passive right but an active force for political engagement, social justice and self-determination. The politics of negotiation, rather than confrontation, provides a framework within which freedom can thrive.

The writer is a professor in the Faculty of Liberal Arts at the Beaconhouse National University, Lahore.