Free World (Pardes)

File:Freedom in the Region (Liberty Watch).png

Country ratings from Emmerian think tank Liberty Watch's Freedom in the Region 2014 survey, concerning the state of Pardes freedom in 2013. Data from this survey is commonly used throughout media organizations referring to "Free Pardes".   Free      Partly Free      Not Free      No data

Free Pardes is a contemporary geopolitical term for nations in Pardes that have free market economies and some form of representative government, on a scale from liberal democracies to constitutional monarchies. Although the scope of nations included in the idea of Free Pardes varies, the nations of Emmeria, Belhavia, Belfras, Arthurista, former Western States, Eagleland, Temuair, Sieuxerr, Prestonia, Tippercommon, Karinzgrad, Lion's Rock, and Austrasien overlap in all lists by analysts and theorists describing the geopolitical expression.

In addition to the nations stated, the countries of Kalenia, Dniegua, Hornatyia, Basileria, Bogoria, and Gratislavia are often included on some lists of nations consisting of "Free Pardes" but not others.

Even within the political, policy, and intellectual community that uses the term, there are sometimes wide disagreements over the parameters of which nations are eligible to be in Free Pardes. Many neoconservatives and conservatives include authoritarian and illiberal democracies if they are free market capitalist or anti-communist. Alternatively, in many liberal and libertarian circles, only nations with market economies paired with stable, functioning representative governments could be eligible to be included.

The geopolitical term has faced criticism from individuals, scholars, and governments both inside and outside of "Free Pardes." In particular, critics of the idea suggest that the concept is a binary for nations with certain political-economic systems (generally free markets and popularly-elected governments) to justify neo-imperialism and neocolonialism by undermining the legitimacy of regimes not in "Free Pardes." For example, Rodarian politicians and thinkers often accuse the idea of "Free Pardes" as a cover for CDI "imperialism" and "expansionism." Other criticism emerges from cultural relativists, who argue the geopolitical expression demonizes and unfairly suppresses political, economic, social, and cultural developments and history that diverted from that of the similar histories of "Free Pardes" nations.

"Free Pardes" is not just a list of criteria of a nation's political economy; it is also considered a geopolitical identity and cultural association. Hence, while some nations such as Anikatia may fit the political and economic criteria, its unique cultural identity and multilateral ties such as those with Authoritarian Pardes often distinguish it as a independent state not in complete alignment with the prevailing liberal geopolitical order.

Origins

The term was used extensively by presidential administrations in Belhavia starting with Julian Settas in his famous January 1981 speech at the Freeport Military Academy. Settas used it as a constant refrain to present the Capitalist world as a foil to the Communist world, including Tule, the First Estovnian Republic, theAnkaran Union, and prominently Communist Anikatia.

It became a key geopolitical catch-word during the Neoliberal Revolution of the 1980s as reformist and anti-communist neoliberal leaders were elected to high office across the span of nations considered at the core of 'Free Pardes': Belhavia, Emmeria, Belfras, Arthurista, the Western States, and Eagleland.

Sociopolitical-Cultural Diversity

Free Pardes shares an overall and tightly-intertwined sociocultural, ideological, philosophical, and political foundation; however, despite this, for a variety of reasons, there exist different political and sociocultural climates among members.

• Liberal Bloc: Nations such as Arthurista, Lion's Rock, and Prestonia make up this informal camp. The liberal bloc often espouses a form of liberal internationalism based on Arthuristan Enlightenment ideals such as human rights, social liberalism, peace-keeping, progressivism, liberty and individual rights. They are usually, though not always, liberal democracies. They are often governed by liberal and left-wing parties of various stripes, and put a strong emphasis on including countries as apart of Free Pardes only if they have market economies married to stable and functioning representative governments, preferably liberal democracies and social democracies.

• Moderate Bloc: Led by nations such as Emmeria, Tippercommon, and Belfras. The centrist bloc will conventionally take the middle course between the right and left blocs, championing a mixture of liberal and conservative internationalism as well as national interests-oriented realism. Liberty, individual rights, stability, and liberal ideology are often the values promoted by this bloc. They more regularly side with the liberal bloc in the post-Cold War era in restricting membership in Free Pardes to nations with mature and developed liberal political orders and market economies; however, during the height of the Cold War, this bloc often joined the conservatives in including anti-communist regimes with authoritarian or illiberal tendencies within the Free Pardes orbit. They are governed domestically by an eclectic mix of political parties, but libertarian or libertarian-leaning parties tend to predominate.

• Conservative Bloc: This 'camp' includes nations such as Belhavia, and Eagleland. The conservative bloc tends to articulate a vision of conservative realism and/or neoconservatism, with guiding principles of stability, ideology, national interests, or other goals. These countries are mostly constitutional monarchies or countries with strong presidential systems. They are typically led by conservative governments and have a willingness to prioritize opening the tent to be a part of Free Pardes to countries that are authoritarian democracies and/or illiberal democracies if they are free market capitalist or anti-communist, a perspective often opposed by the liberal and moderate blocs.

Recent Usage

The term has since resurfaced, being invoked steadily by Belhavian officials, in particular Foreign Minister Daniel Nobelstein, in regards to geopolitical tensions between the Central Defense Initiative and the Romulă Cooperation Organisation. In the late summer and fall of 2014, the word has been redirected to refer to the 7th Pontite War.

The term has also been used widely in Emmeria and Tippercommon. The Emmerian private think tank Liberty Watch draws upon the geopolitical expression in its foreign policy and military policy lobbying. The organization also creates annual "Freedom in the Region" maps that are widely cited by both proponents and critics of "Free Pardes" as rough approximations of the scholarly consensus on which nations are part of the concept.

The Emmerian neoconservative think tank Foundation for Emmerian Security (F.E.S.) regularly appeals to "Free Pardes" in promoting increased military spending, foreign military interventions, and giving humanitarian aid to poorer Emmerian allies in its domestic political advocacy.

Belhavian industrialist and founder of the Kohen Institute, Charles Kohen, wrote in his first collection of memoirs Free Pardes: Why We're Right to Be Right that:

It's plainly simple, [the division] between free Pardes [and the remainder]. Two different sides of the same region, but one is plainly dedicated to the expansion and protection of the individual and his rights. The rest? Well, the rest is simply an enemy to every man, woman, and child who feels himself cogent and believes himself justified in exercising his own faculties. The rest of Pardes - those countries which do not find peace in the individual, but force upon them the collectivized hell of socialism, communism, fascism, and all forms of statism, we might say - is just, plainly, a [fucking] blight on the history of humanity.

Criticism

The geopolitical expression has faced criticism from several corners, ranging from ideological and political objections to cultural, historical, and philosophical critiques.

Ideological-Political Criticism

The concept has faced pushback from politicians, thinkers, scholars, and public intellectuals in many of the same nations that are explicitly excluded from membership in the "Free Pardes" community, especially the countries of Rodarion, Tarsas, Ulthrannia and more recently Anikatia.

Zair Perales Villagómez, the Director of the Centro de Investigación y Docencia en Geopolítica (CIDG), said at an open panel discussion of geopolitics at the University of Nuevo Asturia:

"As James Ciorban, a former Brettons Institute Fellow and a gentleman who wrote a very well-versed article in the United Press, said: 'freedom is the rule, not the exception'. Ulthrannia has some great liberties, so to does Tarsas but we are 'partly-free' to the CDI and CDI-aligned nations who claim they are 'free'. Funny how Belhavia, which suppresses rights for its LGBT community, Estovnia which doesn't even allow its coloured races to vote, and the Western Confederacy, which frequently invades other sovereign nations, can [all] call themselves apart of Free Pardes. To be fair, it's not wrong for Emmerian, Belhavian, and Alleghanian thinkers to sling the term around, as there are indeed societies which do not enjoy such liberties as them. But I think that they use it to satisfy a very basic 'us and them' mentality; to distinguish societies that are closely aligned in mindset, attitudes, and in some cases cultures to those that are widely different such as our own nation."

Left-Wing Economic Critique

A significant economic critique of "Free Pardes" comes from the global left, especially those ideologies that are explicitly anti-capitalist and oriented towards socialism and Marxism. A common refrain heard was succinctly argued by Fedor Bullinger, a popular Neidmarrian social democratic thinker, who said on a TV interview that:

"It's amusing that the idea of 'Free Pardes' revolves around the concept that every country in order to be free must have a economy centered purely around capitalism. A socialist economy can also mean being 'free' in the sense that the government isn't completely controlling the economy...what I mean is, it isn't choosing what can and what can not be produced or sold. Under socialism, for example, the government has control of most [economic] benefits and the [private] industry but does not reduce its people to borderline poverty like other countries under a more restrictive, command economy."

Cultural-Historiographical Criticism

Academics and intellectuals coming from the fields of Cultural Studies in sociology and Cultural History have lambasted the geopolitical expression as a "hierarchy of control and power" by dominant groups aiming to project and solidify control over other groups; in this case, political elites and nations suborning other nations under their grasp.

Their main critique, with origins in cultural relativist thought, asserts that the geopolitical term unfair maligns the cultural, social, political, and economic developmental processes that differ, sometimes markedly, from those of the similar trajectory taken by the nations in "Free Pardes."

Anette Johannesen, a prominent Estovnian cultural history professor at the Confederal University at Lon-it-Eystra, argued in a piece featured in the Journal of World History in February 2014 that:

"The increasing use of the term 'Free Pardes' has reignited the debate over how we conceive of historical perspective and what methodology is best for doing, as is often said, 'the historian's craft.' In this there is only one side. Pseudo-historians, stuck in the reactionary so-called "traditionalist" and "political history" schools of thought that deny whole groups of historical persons their due agency, in countries like Emmeria, Belhavia, or the Western States, try to deny the coercive systems of control and oppression they create to justify their cultural imperialism. [...] It is well-known that in the so-called rogue states, any attempts to regain their agency and live their lives free of dominance are attacked again and again by armies of gullible thinkers so wrapped up in [Free Pardes'] own culture's propaganda that they do not realize by criticizing those who are different from them, they are actually oppressing those 'Others' in the most insidious ways."

Philosophical Criticism

Some public intellectuals in academic Philosophy have used arguments from the discipline to criticize and rebut the idea of "Free Pardes." Among the more prominent is the notable Belhavian left-wing scholar Wesley Canvess. Canvess used his school of thought, philosophical skepticism, to attack the term when it emerged in the early 1980s. He argued that (1) the political economy underlying "Free Pardes" (neoliberalism, of which Canvess is a major critic) has no verifiable way to be proven as definitively "true" by the way of a "truth value", and (2) that the term inexplicably by its very construction denies that there can be any other definition of 'freedom'.

Defense

General

In February 2014, at an academic conference by the Organisation of Arthuristan Historians in Stechford-on-the-Sea, Arthurista, Sir Charles Foxton, emeritus professor of political history at Kingston University, responded to Anette Halladatter's controversial critique of the geopolitical term earlier that month in the Journal of World History in his opening remarks at the conference, where he was presenting new research.

"The term 'Free Pardes' is, of course, controversial, like any other politically charged piece of vocabulary. And it will be tempting for nations whose cultural backgrounds are not based on the Enlightenment to find fault in the concept. However, despite the great diversity of views, some might even say disagreements, on various social, economical and cultural issues among the 'Free Pardes' nations, a common characteristic unites them – the fact that they hold sacrosanct civil liberties and political rights, the rights to expression and conscience, free press, free debates and free elections. Whatever your values as an individual, you have the ability to engage with your fellow citizens in the civic forum and have a say in your nation’s future. This, really, is what sets ‘Free Pardes’ apart from the rest."

Political-Economic

Supporters of the geopolitical concept point to social science and economic analysis through political economy, asserting that using empirical evidence, the nations and political economy of "Free Pardes" is, in fact, demonstrably more ideal in how public and private life is organized, and the superior outcomes from such systems, such as free market capitalism and self-government, is clear.

Dr. Shaun J. Abbasi, Ph.D., Professor of Political Science at the Ivan Stanford School of International Affairs at Cambria University in Cambria, CN, Emmeria, wrote an op-ed for the campus publication The Cambria Daily, which was re-published in the national newspaper The Chaleur World on July 10, 2004, summing up the political-economic view:

"A basic analysis of centuries of history continuously reveals a single common denominator: a representative government, ruled with the consent of the governed, paired with a system of free enterprise, is consistently the ideal system conducive to prosperity, innovation, stability, and peace. Empirical evidence shows democracies are statistically less prone to aggressive war out of the virtue of their liberal tradition and public input and oversight. Representative models are stable due to the mechanics by which they operate in attempting to form versatile governing constructs. Free economic systems promote innovation and radical technological change. Globalized free markets allow for mutual economic reliance, reducing the utility of hostilities. Combined, these processes universally augment the concepts of peace and stability. The results of these characteristics are not merely words left up to individual and diverse interpretation; they are numerical statistics with a single underlying meaning: this isn't the ideal system, but it's the best system. The reason the "Free Pardes" terminology is so universal is because it is naturally understood that the term refers to the nations in the region which embody these ideals, with regard for factual statistics rather than unconstructive cultural interpretations."

Historiographical

Defenders of the concept of Free Pardes use historical evidence to posit that market economies paired with stable, representative governments have, over the long term, produced more general economic prosperity, population satisfaction, peace, social and ethnic harmony, and growth in human understanding of the world. Led by historians of the Whiggish and Annalist schools of thought, these proponents point to specific and quantitative political, economic, and social history that lends credence to their argument.

Jacob Weingarten, Professor of History at Almania College, a leading Belhavian center of higher education, asserted in response to the Halladatter thesis in February 2014 in an op-ed in The Belhavian Historian publication that:

"The march of History has shown that the Halladatter thesis is not only mistaken and misguided, but wholly offbase. Rarely before have we seen such a radical preposition offered that was built on a flimsy house of cards. Traditional schools of historiography have demonstrated that History is, indeed, a social science of sorts, and makes full use of quantifiable and qualitative to come to a satisfactory conclusion. When you examine the histories of Emmeria, Belhavia, or Alleghania, say, and use available archives of economic and social statistics and political history, we see a starkly more stable, prosperous, harmonious culmination than the dark histories of Tarsas, Sturmia, or Estovakiva, in contrast. In those annals, we observe base ruthlessness, brutal total wars, discontented populations, and the lack of development we would refer to 'prosperity' or 'stability.' Using History as our guide, we see it points justly in the direction of Free Pardes."

Cultural

The defence of the term "Free Pardes" has also been taken to the cultural level, in which countries that fall into said category tend to have higher cultural development than other countries which are arguably less free. It is argued that, on a cultural level, free and democratic societies allow for greater cultural expression, owing to the existence of a threshold within which no government force can coerce cultural control. Hence, works of art, music, theatre, philosophy, and, more recently, cinema, have all flourished under such societies.

Katerina Ventouri, Professor of History at the National Socratic University of Athens in Athens, LA affirmed that:

"The term "Free Pardes" is extensively employed in [political] discussions everywhere. It has been for quite some time since the early 1980s, and in the Eagleland similar terms were used [as early as] 397 BCE. Despite the term's [controversy], it can be verified that democratic societies tend to be more culturally developed than others. Eagleland History provides a brilliant instance of this [phenomenon]. In the time of the Fylarchies, the South Attican Fylarchy was the most culturally developed of all other Fylarchies present [in the Eagleland]. Athens was revered as the cultural capital of the country, and that was because the fylarchs had no intention of suppressing any form of [cultural] expression, hence this is why theatre, music, philosophy that was born [in the Eagleland] originated there, combined with a fierce sense of citizenship and patriotic fervour, which sparked a cultural revolution that spread to less free Fylarchies in the Eagleland. The basic concept of such a cultural revolution is that people should be left alone to express themselves in whatever way they see fit; music, art, theatre, and now films and this also allows for cultural ideas to be proposed without fear [of government prosecution]. This is why free Pardesian countries have expressed such a cultural explosion, so to say. No one, after all, has seen such a phenomenon outside of those countries in Pardes. This is not to say that other countries do not have a distinct culture, but there people have learned to fear their government in many things and this evidently deprives of said counties the chance to flourish culturally. "