One of the most demanding responsibilities of any society deigning to be democratic is ensuring fundamental liberties while maintaining a form of benevolent control over its subjects. Liberties is a loaded word, taking them as an individual connotes overstepping unspoken boundaries. Liberty is also a hard won freedom from oppression. Libertarianism, the principle of free will, acknowledges that the State has a necessary role in ensuring freedoms, but not to the extent that it constrains the individual . So what do we say about something as fundamental as identification papers?
A necessary evil, it can be argued. How does the State keep track of the John Smiths, without being able to identify them all, fairly? Whether by assigned numbers, signatures, fingerprints, photographic proof of identity, many versions have been tried, none can possible satisfy all.
For some, passports suffice. Others are satisfied with driver’s licences. But, it is entirely possible that a citizen of any given country never chooses to drive, nor wishes to exit that country, thus having no need for a passport. What then?
Well, as in the US and Canada, it is expected that the vast majority work, pay taxes. The working class gets assigned a Social Security Number or, in the case of Canada, a Social Insurance Number, a number that enables both the government as well as other legal entities to keep track of the John Smiths, determine which one is entitled to pensions, health benefits, education subsidies, the like.
Should they be compulsory? A true libertarian would argue that they should not. Abuse of information is much more likely to occur, infringing on those hard-won liberties.
In a democratic state those who have power and expert knowledge, in theory, are to serve the community and, in theory be controlled by the ordinary people who elected them; those who, in theory lack the power and knowledge.
The first problem with a democratic state is to ensure that the government is kept to its proper task. No one would argue, even in view of the libertarian approach, that democracy is government by the people. It would be absurd to expect that all members of any society, - we, the people - in their multifarious relationships to be able to govern. Conflicts would be sure to arise.
Government then involves power and organization, administration, rules and decisions, to which the majority agree to respect. It is possible, as in the case of totalitarian states, such as Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, to rule by fear, in a way control the wills and minds of a people.
Both of these systems used forms of identifying the populace that enabled total control. One HAD to work, every job was registered in a work-book, any and all steps beyond imposed rules noted.
Estonia still has that legacy - a book that documents one’s employed career. Could you imagine a Montanan or Minnesotan accepting such a document? As of this year the Estonian government has come up with a new requirement - a compulsory ID card. A mandatory requirement for every resident of the country ( note again, not citizen) who has reached the age of 15. Quite an early age - too young to drive, vote, or have a legal beer - but old enough to be registered in the nation’s database.
Check out the web site
www.pass.ee - it warns of the dangers of this ID. It is not a passport, even though it is compared to one. People are warned not to lend their ID to anyone - chance of fraud is too great.
Government members dismiss similarities with Soviet era “internal passports”. It must be remembered that it was illegal in the Soviet Union to not have official ID papers, papers that had to be presented at any time at the whim of officialdom.
In Canada, a passport is rarely part of the daily baggage, a driver’s licence or proof of citizenship suffices. Passports are used only for travel, not carried around in wallets or purses. Why does Estonia require an internal ID, then? One can surmise that it is of use in keeping illegals out of the country - but that is what border stations are for.
These thoughts came to the fore when Estonian politician and all-around interesting character Kalle Kulbok complained last week that his three-year old daughter could not be entered as his legal dependent into his passport. ( Kulbok is perhaps Estonia’s most noted royalist, wishing for a monarchical system of government) Kulbok’s daughter has a different surname. His comments added fuel to the fire surrounding the ID question. In most western democracies a child is entered into the parent of choice’s passport, regardless of surname. Curiously, the undersigned experienced border crossing difficulties when visiting Estonia in 1999 with our children - same last name, entered into father’s pass. The Canadian version proved to be inadequate for the Estonian border officials, but sanity prevailed.
When Plato discussed democratic ideals he expressed concerns that liberties would be construed as a “go-as-you-will”, permissive concept, one that would undoubtedly lead to anarchy. Thus leading a good citizen to willingly, knowingly “accept” arbitrariness from the sate. The libertarian would argue against Plato. Both however, would no doubt agree that consent to any particular form of decent government implies a contract. One where certain things would be expected of both parties, not necessarily likeable but required to maintain law and order.
Is a compulsory ID, valid only within a State part of this contract? Or can it be replaced, supplemented by, say a passport, birth certificate, driver’s licence? Or shall we resort to iris scans, voice identification, fingerprints, like repressive regimes would expect.
Seems to me at least, that an internal document, such as the one required by Estonian law, is ripe for abuse. Remember that a passport, required for foreign travel is also proof of citizenship. Surely, Estonia’s new ID concept needs to be reworked.
