Undoubtedly, freedom of opinion or expression is one of the most fundamental rights that humans have.
It is the right which enables right holders to demand for their rights from duty bearers and to hold duty bearers accountable as well as help facilitate the enjoyment of all other human rights or question their fulfillment by the State.. It is the only right which is both a means and an end in itself.
Thus, for the survival of freedoms, the establishment of a free society grounded on good governance and the entrenchment of democracy, the right to freedom of speech or expression must be encouraged, protected and enlarged.
No development or progress is possible or can be possible if the people are prevented from contributing their instructed judgment or opinion to the running of their own affairs.
“…If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind….J.S.Mills
The silencing of opinion, especially a dissenting one, is fraught with dangers for the social welfare, wellbeing of society and for liberty…
What if the opinion suppressed is actually true? The people would then be denied the knowing of the truth. They would be robbed of the opportunity of exchanging error for the truth.
What if the opinion is false? The people wont know since the opinion deemed false is suppressed. They would lose the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.
The State, as the primary respecter and protector of rights, must allow itself to be castigated, lampooned, criticized, called out by citizens, fairly or falsely. This must be the attitude of public officials, the price paid for holding public offices.
In particular, the State must ask itself few questions if an opinion is expressed by citizens, and certainly before limiting or suppressing it: is the State harmef in any way by the opinion or statement? Are citizens harmed or likely to be harmed by the opinion? Is the opinion expressed in the best interest of the people? Will democracy be enlarged or constricted by the suppression of the opinion? What legitimate aim is being served by the limitation?
The State and its officials, unlike private citizens, have functions, tasks and services to perform or delivery.
Citizens have expectations from them and only through freedom of expression can they indicate their appreciation or dissatisfaction of these services and hold them accountable.
People are governed by truth and reason and for democracy to succeed all avenues that lead to the discovery of truth must be left open.
In the words of J. Williams Fulbright, the State, and all of us, “must learn to welcome and not to fear the voices of dissent. We must dare to think about unthinkable things because when things become unthinkable, thinking stops and action becomes mindless.”
A great substructure on which democracy rests is transparency, especially regarding information and its accessibility and free flow.
When people don’t have access to information or when public officials are not forthcoming with information to the people, they are bound to speculate and would be right in doing so. It is the State’s obligation to ensure that citizens have access to credible and timely information on all matters of public interest.
Freedoms of opinion and expression are often the first rights that political parties promise to safeguard when they come to power.
However, they are often the first rights they curtail or suppress. States that understand and appreciate the inalienablity of these rights ensure they are preserved beyond the reach of the long arms of the Executive.
Imagine what a great society we would be having if the State also tells the citizens “I disapprove all what you say, but I will defend to the death you right to say it..”
