President Sarkozy’s proposal to ban the ‘Burka’ may certainly be a populist measure playing to the latent racism and Islamophobia of the French public. However, the real origins of this policy, as with the previous headscarf ban, is not secular fundamentalism but a flawed philosophical conception of liberty.

No matter how much we protest against the apparent  flaws of secularism, or the ignorance and intolerance of Sarkozy – without understanding their philosophical background, the reality is we are talking to people who speak a totally different language.

What we, in the English speaking world, understand as freedom or liberty is the absence of constraints or limits, in our ability to do whatever we want, or might want to do. Sir Isiah Berlin in his famous essay ‘Two concepts of liberty’, defined this as ‘negative liberty’. I say English speaking world, because this tradition is present in all former British colonies, hence President Obama’s statement supporting the right of women to dress as they wish.

In this understanding of freedom, also known as liberalism, the less the state interferes with individuals – the more free that individual is. This is why we find ‘liberal’ political parties calling for ‘small government’, doing only the bare essential functions on behalf of its citizens.

The opposite understanding of liberty - ’positive liberty’, is best understood as being in control as individuals. To be really free, we must be self-determined – that is the ability to control our own destiny, in our own interests. One of the best illustrations of this concept is that by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, whose writing influenced the French Revolution, the beginning of the modern French state.

In Rousseau’s vision of liberty, individual freedom is achieved through participation in the political process to exercise collective control of one’s own society or country – in accordance with the ‘general will’. Crucially he gives the ‘lawgiver’ (government, monarch etc) the task of determining what this ‘general will’ is. In modern terminology, ‘general will’ can be equated  to the concept of ‘public interest’. It is the role of government to determine what is ‘in the public interest’ – even though the public may not be interested in it.

This is all fine and good theoretically. However as Sir Isiah Berlin pointed out in 1958, the pursuit of ‘positive liberty’ paradoxically carries the real danger of totalitarianism and political oppression. He argued the danger was the state could force upon people a certain way of life, because it judged that it was in the people’s best interest. And consequently what a person should desire, even though they may not actually desire it.

So as we can see, the Burka ban is not just some form of enforced secularism, but the implementation of a social and political philosophy. Sarkozy is not ignorant – he and the French public really do believe that the Burka is an impediment to their liberty. Even if women are not forced to wear it, they are succumbing to their irrational desire to wear it, and it is the role of the state to make them free!

Another proponent of positive liberty Karl Marx, similarly called religion an opium of the masses, preventing them from realising their exploitation. A total ban of religion as enacted by communists was thus to create a society of free people.

All these thinkers however did believe in creating a free and equal society. The only problem as illustrated by George Orwell, was that in their conception of liberty, and political organisation in realising it – everyone was equal, but some more equal than others. So while we get a Burka ban, we won’t see a ban on nuns wearing their habits.

Such is life with paradoxes and contradictions – Sir Isiah Berlin, a famous proponent of liberalism was a staunch supporter of Israel. Being forced to be free is an oxymoron, but President Sarkozy is also just a plain moron.