A Non Conformer is not always the Enemy

It is very satisfying and fulfilling to take the moral high ground and proclaim that the level of freedom in a country is a direct consequence of the amount of ‘security’ enjoyed by the minorities. Fact of the matter is that there are too many minorities to be satisfied according to their own definitions of ‘security’ and hence this equation is inadequate. A country can be considered ‘free’ if it is able to accommodate minorities through either compromise or, in some instances, reform whilst still maintaining its foundational framework.

To grant all the wants of the minority is to ensure the destruction of a country. A minority will only feel secure if they are able to essentially do whatever they desire. This in their opinion will allow them to be free however it is obvious that this could in fact endanger the freedom of another group. If this level of ‘security’ were granted to each minority group within a society, a society and hence a state or country will no longer exist. Therefore, although it may seem morally correct to allow minorities to practice their definition of freedom, it only redefines the current way of life of a country to align with the beliefs of a minority. This is impractical.

At the same time, the majority must not ardently adhere to their system of beliefs and practices, ignorant of the existence and needs of the minorities. A majority must respect its minorities firstly because they live together and therefore to ensure some social harmony. The majority defines a framework within which everyone must live in but these boundaries must also be flexible enough to accommodate the needs of the minority. That is, the needs of the minorities must be placed in context with the current system of the majority and then assessed in terms of its suitability. For example, voting is compulsory in Australia yet people may be engaged in religious activities on election day. This society has come to a compromise by allowing such people to place a postal vote. Here a compromise is reached so that both the needs of the minority and the rest are satisfies.

Nevertheless, a minority can truly be called ‘free’ if they have a say in how these boundaries are established. Surely it is practical to reach a compromise in most issues however they are still based upon the beliefs and practices of the majority. When a society is open to both legal and moral reform based upon need and the security of that society, then and only then can it be labelled as free. A strong society will know what it needs and is therefore also strong enough to know when certain aspects of its functional policies need to be changed. That is, the people of that country can recognise when certain needs of the minority need to be officially accepted and also when they need to be totally rejected. Allowing reform at this level not only creates social harmony but also political and, in some cases, economic balance.

Therefore, granting every single need of each and every minority with the morally inclined hope gaining the title of a free country is an impractical approach. Rather, a country needs to be firm in how it defines itself but at the same time accommodating so that it can accept certain minorities and their practices. This type of concession can only be practical if such a state allows the possibility of reform to accommodate what it deems as necessary changes whilst at the same time strongly upholding its foundational principles.