What is 'Why'?

"'Manipulations work, but they cost money. Lots of money. The danger of manipulations is that they work. And because manipulations work, they have become the norm, practiced by the vast majority of companies and organizations, regardless of size or industry. Just because it works doesn't make it right. When manipulations are the norm, no one wins.' That's roughly a bit of meaning I got from Simon Sinek's work, 'Start With Why,' said Laluna after saying Basmalah and Salaam. "And that night, " she moved on, "the songbird accompanied me to explore the Land of Equatorial Emerald. For some reason, that night, she couldn't sleep, and before I asked 'why?,' she took me to, first of all, crossing the island which, in the days of Dutch colonialism, never sleeps, Onrust. And now, Onrust had completely fallen asleep. Then, after passing several islands, the songbird took me to the never sleeps city, the Metropolitan City, although not as grand as New York and there are many Metropolitan cities in other parts of the world, but, that's what people in this land, call it. And, there is something interesting about the Governor in this Special Capital Region, that many people are talking about him, both his favorites and his haters. For those who like him, simply greet him with the nickname 'The President!' But, why? This is due to the haters, because every time there is trouble on the Land of Equatorial Emerald, ranging from floods to a pair of broken flip-flops, the Governor will be blamed. Our wit would say, 'In ancient times, both Kings, Sultans, or Caliphs, and today is called the President, has a moral responsibility for the safety of his every single people? So, that's the way he's been called 'The President.' Then, where is the incumbent? It seems like, your Excellency has been busy, to find 'a shoulder to cry on.' This Land I visited, had achieved its independence since the end of World War II until now, for decades. And I wonder, why in the Constitution, their 'Founding Parents' would prefer the word 'Freedom' rather than 'Liberty'? Both Liberty and Freedom are synonyms, but sometimes, it can get confusing, and people find it hard to decide which word to use.

'Liberty' is defined as 'the right and the power to believe, act, and express oneself as one chooses, of being free from restriction, and having the freedom of choice. It is the condition of having the power to act and speak without restraints.' On the other hand, 'Freedom' is defined as 'the state of being free to enjoy political, social, and civil liberties. It is the power to decide one’s actions, and the state of being free from restraints or confinement. It is synonymous to the words liberty, privilege, deliverance, and independence.' The term ‘Liberty’ relies heavily on implication of responsibility and duty, and attachment to a greater whole society or philosophical belief system. In contrast, freedom means the raw ability to act and do as one wills. So, 'Freedom' is a more concrete concept than 'Liberty.'

When we talk about 'Liberty' and 'Freedom,' we cannot be separated from political theory. In Joseph Raz's view, Political theory, can conveniently be divided into two parts: a political morality and a theory of institutions. Political morality consists in the principles which should guide political action. It provides the principles on the basis of which the theory of institutions constructs arguments for having political institutions of this character rather than that. Political morality also sets a goal as well as limits to the actions of those political institutions. But the principles of political morality themselves, grow out of the concrete experience of a particular society with its own institutions. Their validity is limited by their background. In this way, institutions shape the principles which are designed for the guidance and remoulding of these institutions. Much of the day to day political activity of a country is concerned with the shaping of political institutions and procedures. Not uncommonly the best way to implement new policies is to create new public institutions or rearrange or reform old ones. And we are all aware of many cases where the best policies failed through the failure of the institutions which were charged with their implementation.

Furthermore, by ‘political institutions,’ Raz is referring primarily to the state and its organs, and also, somewhat more broadly, to all public authorities. So, not all political organizations are political institutions. Political parties, in most democracies, are not. They are political organizations for it is their purpose to engage in political action.

Liberalism was long divided between those who regarded liberty as intrinsically valuable, and those who claimed that it is of instrumental value only. The latter include the utilitarians and the free-market economists. The analysis of the meaning of ‘liberty’ or of ‘freedom,’ according to Raz, cannot answer the questions of which liberties are valuable, what counts as a restriction or interference with a person's freedom and how to judge what to do when considerations of freedom conflict with other considerations—which may or may not involve the interest of freedom in some other respect.

Raz explained, historically, liberalism and individualism grew together. Similar social and economic forces have often combined to advance their cause in various countries. Yet they are distinct doctrines. Liberalism is a doctrine about political morality which revolves round the importance of personal liberty. Individualism is a moral doctrine. It is related to liberalism as liberalism is related to democracy, understood as a theory of political institutions. Liberalism can provide a foundation for democracy, though one can reach democratic conclusions from other foundations, each lending a somewhat different shape to the democratic theory it yields. Similarly, an individualist may endorse liberalism, as his political morality, but liberal conclusions, can also be based on nonindividualistic premisses. Also, just as a liberal may support non-democratic institutions as the most suitable for some societies, so an individualist may become not a liberal but a libertarian—seek to maximize autonomy and political freedom, and minimize the state's violation of individual liberties; emphasizing free association, freedom of choice, individualism and voluntary association—or an anarchist—skeptical of authority and rejects all involuntary, coercive forms of hierarchy. 

Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and political freedom, and minimize the state's violation of individual liberties; emphasizing free association, freedom of choice, individualism and voluntary association. Libertarians often share a skepticism of authority and state power, but some libertarians diverge on the scope of their opposition to existing economic and political systems. Various schools of Libertarian thought offer a range of views regarding the legitimate functions of state and private power, often calling for the restriction or dissolution of coercive social institutions. Different categorizations have been used to distinguish various forms of Libertarianism.

Anarchism calls for the abolition of the state, which it holds to be unnecessary, undesirable, and harmful. As a historically left-wing movement, placed on the farthest left of the political spectrum, it is usually described alongside communalism and libertarian Marxism as the libertarian wing (libertarian socialism) of the socialist movement, and has a strong historical association with anti-capitalism and socialism.

Individualism tends to lead to a vision of liberalism as a theory of limited government. It presents a view of political liberty as a doctrine of what governments may not do, how they may not treat their subjects, which areas of individual conduct they should keep their hands off, and similar principles. Here too the connection is a loose one and one can support a limited government interpretation of political liberty on non-individualist grounds as well.

The doctrine of limited government, regards governments as a threat to liberty. Its protection is in keeping governments confined within proper moral bounds. While not denying that governments can and often do, pose a threat to individual liberty, there is another conception which regards them also as a possible source of liberty. They can create conditions which enable their subjects to enjoy greater liberty than they otherwise would. This second conception regards liberty as sometimes threatened by individuals and corporations, not only by governments. It goes further and claims that though governments sometimes abuse their powers and trespass on individual liberty, in situations which are not all that rare they should act to promote freedom, and not only sit back and avoid interfering with it. They should keep off certain areas of life, or avoid interfering with them in certain ways, while acting in other areas and in other ways to promote freedom.

In short, there should be moral principles which are special to political morality. Freedom and Liberty, must be seen to be a distinct value, but one which is intimately intertwined with others, and cannot exist by itself.

What I have said, is merely to present the importance of start with 'Why.' It is a way of thinking that that gives some leaders the ability to inspire those around them. Simon Sinek says, 'There are leaders and there are those who lead. Leaders hold a position of power or influence. Those who lead inspire us.

Whether individuals or organizations, we follow those who lead not because we have to, but because we want to. We follow those who lead not for them, but for ourselves.

All right then, let's get back to the songbird. Moments later, the songbird perched on a tree branch, and one of her wings beckoned me to shine my light onto the front yard of a conference hall. Seen down there, four men, and one of them, was talking. I knew the man, he is the philosopher, and if Nietzsche was often referred to as an ‘aphoristic’ writer, I'd like to call him as ‘aphoristic’ philosopher. But unfortunately, my time had reached me. Tomorrow night, I'll be back to this location and, Insha Allah, I'll share with you what he said. Of course, as a continuation of 'Why.'

For a while, Songbird and I will be separated, and tomorrow night, we promised to meet again at the same time and place. And gently, I heard the songbird, humming,

Because the world is round

It turns me on

Because the world is round

Because the wind is high

It blows my mind

Because the wind is high

Because the sky is blue

It makes me cry

Because the sky is blue *)

Before leaving, Laluna said, "All historical facts come to us as a result of interpretative choices by historians influenced by the standards of their age. Millions have crossed the Rubicon, but the historians tell us that only Caesar’s crossing was significant. And if you asked 'Why?' Perhaps the answer is this, 'The phrase 'crossing the Rubicon' is an idiom that means that one is passing a point of no return. Its meaning comes from allusion to the crossing of the Rubicon by Julius Caesar in early January 49 BC. His crossing of the river precipitated Caesar's civil war, which ultimately led to Caesar's becoming dictator perpetuo [dictator for life ]. Caesar had been appointed to a governorship over a region that ranged from southern Gaul to Illyricum. As his term of governorship ended, the Senate ordered Caesar to disband his army and return to Rome. As it was illegal to bring armies into Italy, the northern border of which was marked by the river Rubicon, his crossing the river under arms was synonymous with insurrection, treason, and a declaration of war on the state. According to some authors, he uttered the phrase 'alea iacta est' ["the dice is cast"] before crossing.' And Allah knows best."

Citations & References:
- Simon Sinek, Start with Why, Penguin Group
- Joseph Raz, The Morality of Freedom, Oxford University Press
- Edward Hallett Carr, What is History?, Penguin Group
*) "Because" written by John Lennon & Paul McCartney

Bahasa