Afrasianet - Khalil Haidar - Dr. Beblawi is quoted as saying about liberalism in the twentieth century and the beginning of the First World War (1914-1918), and he talks about what happened to liberalism in this century: "With the outbreak of the First World War, the continuous decline of liberalism began at the intellectual level, and the tendencies of government intervention appeared, and individualism and the rights and freedoms of individuals no longer had the same amount of sanctity and respect.
Al-Beblawi mocked the totalitarian trend that has taken on the political tyranny of Europe, saying, "Reason and rationality are objective matters that everyone agrees on, and therefore individuals must submit to their logic in order to protect their freedoms, even if they have their noses.
It is clear that the transition from this new concept of 'positive' freedom to a kind of patriarchal society and further interference in the lives and freedoms of individuals no longer required more than a small step.
The interwar period of 1918-1939 was the era of dictatorship and ideological and individualistic systems in Europe.
Thus ideas began to emerge that rivaled and opposed individualism, and currents of thought emerged that transcended the individual, and sanctified race or class.
The rise of the Bolshevik regime in Russia in 1917, fascism in Italy in 1923, and Nazi in Germany in 1933 heralded the decline of liberalism. With the independence of the colonies and the emergence of "third world" countries, most of which lack democratic traditions, they were dominated by powerful governments that soon turned into forms of individual or totalitarian rule.
Thus began the second half of this century, with totalitarian regimes dominating most of the world, supported by ready-made ideologies and effective models of police rule.
These include von Hayek's writings on freedom, the rule of law, and the need for decentralization, as a reaction to what Marxist systems have shown, as well as to get rid of the negatives of forms of state intervention in the economy within capitalist systems.
Von Hayek concluded that individualism is the basis of economic efficiency, and among those who added to liberal thought in addition to Hayek, Rawls in his book "The Theory of Justice" and James Buchanan in his theory of "public choice" who questioned the decisions of the bureaucracy and the functional apparatus and the extent to which they are compatible with the public interest It is not true that each of them is looking for the public interest, but rather that the idea of the public interest is influenced and changed from one body to another in the government itself, and often competition and contradiction prevail between the state organs themselves."
Perhaps the most important characteristic of liberalism, in its recognition of the rights and freedoms of individuals, is its ability to tolerate and coexist with different values, opinions and beliefs, which gave it maturity and depth in not being drawn to absolutists.
The ugliest wars of the struggle between nationalities are the same ones that now seek a kind of economic and political unity, having softened the predominance of nationalism as it has in the past, and the exaggeration of religion." The left accuses it of calling for individualism and forgetting the total, while the right takes it upon itself to ignore the stable historical conditions and advantages of a nationality, religion or gender."
There is a common impression that confuses the state with society, "The truth is that the state is not society, but rather a set of organs of power supported by multiple organs of administrative institutions and legal systems.
Liberal systems, while seeking to achieve a balance between the rights of individuals and the interests of society and the powers of the state, do not claim to achieve the ideal society or succeed in reaching the idea of perfection, but rather the essence of liberal democratic systems is the recognition of the continuous shortcomings, and the idea of an ideal society or utopia on earth is in essence the antithesis of liberal democratic thought."
Although each of them relates to the regulation of social relations between individuals in society, law is only concerned with regulating what exists and exists, while ethics seeks for example, "what should be", while taking care to protect ideals and noble values. That's why so many well-meaning people have tried to combine the law with the principles of morality.
