Are we really free?

Freedom currently occupies a central place in modern political discourse never before seen, but it is also one of the most misunderstood and, to some extent, manipulated concepts. We often hear that we are free because we can express ourselves, move wherever we want, or vote without restrictions. However, if we delve deeper into this issue, we realize that political freedom is not simply about doing what we want. On the contrary, freedom is, rather, the guarantee we have of not being forced to do what we have no right to want.

Montesquieu, one of the great architects of modern political thought, offers us a perspective that challenges superficial conceptions of freedom. For him, true freedom lies in respect for the laws that regulate social coexistence, in a legal security that ensures individual autonomy without arbitrariness. Being free means being able to act within the limits imposed by the law, which exist not to restrict, but to protect the freedom of each citizen.

Contrary to the popular idea of freedom as an unlimited expression of will, political freedom depends on solid structures that protect the individual from abuse, especially in the justice system. Legal certainty, especially in the penal system, is a fundamental pillar. Without it, freedom is lost in the fear of unjust persecution, the lack of procedural guarantees, and inequality before the law. Impartial justice is not a luxury; it is an indispensable condition for political freedom.

We are confronted here with a disturbing reality where contemporary democracies, despite their advances, often fail to ensure this full freedom. The existence of arbitrariness, the slowness of the system, inequalities in access to justice, and political interference in judicial institutions threaten the security that makes freedom real and felt. A citizen subjected to unfair trials may, paradoxically, be less free than someone under an authoritarian regime that at least ensures a minimum of legal stability.

In the current public debate, we observe a great confusion between political freedom and absolute freedom, as if the right to do whatever one wants were synonymous with freedom. But such freedom does not exist in an organized society. The rule of law is not an obstacle to individual will, but rather a guarantee that the will of each individual is not crushed by the arbitrary will of others, whether exercised by rulers or social groups. Only within this framework of clear laws and independent justice can freedom genuinely flourish.

Some questions remain: to what extent are we willing to accept the limits and responsibilities that political freedom demands? How many recognize that freedom is not about doing whatever one wants, but rather ensuring that no one is coerced into doing what they shouldn't want to do? Are we willing to defend institutions that guarantee legal certainty, even when this contradicts momentary desires for impunity or unrestricted freedom?

True freedom is not a feeling; it is a concrete condition, built on rules, justice, and mutual respect. If we are not careful, we risk reducing freedom to a mere slogan , a mask that hides arbitrary and unstable power. True freedom begins with the law, and it is on this basis that we must focus our struggle.

It is crucial to recognize that democratic achievements are fragile and require constant vigilance. Political freedom, far from being a given, depends on an institutional architecture that not only creates fair laws but also enforces them equitably and transparently. The current challenge lies in defending these institutions against political, economic, and social pressures that attempt to subvert their role. Without an independent judiciary and a reliable legal system, what we call freedom becomes illusory.

Furthermore, political freedom faces new and complex threats in the contemporary world: the advancement of digital technologies, the spread of disinformation, and growing polarization have the potential to erode public space and manipulate popular consent. Thus, defending freedom also implies protecting the democratic environment where debate takes place under clear rules and respect for fundamental rights. The law, in this context, must be updated to respond to these challenges, ensuring that freedom does not turn into chaos or tyranny of the majority.

Ultimately, the proposed reflection is not an invitation to pessimism, but a call to civic responsibility and the construction of a mature and sustainable freedom. It is imperative to abandon simplistic narratives and seek a deeper understanding that prioritizes the balance between individual rights and the common good. This is how political freedom can truly fulfill its promise—not as a fantasy of unlimited autonomy, but as a living, tangible reality for all.