Freedom of Association: Essential Principles

Introduction

Polish workers had had enough. In mid-July 1980, the government imposed steep price increases on most goods without compensatory wage increases. A month later, shipyard workers in Poland’s second largest city, Gdansk, decided to go on strike. Soon, millions of workers across the country occupied nearly every large factory.

The workers’ main demand, though, was not a wage increase. It was the right to form a free trade union. Decades of communist dictatorship had taught them that the official trade unions acted only as instruments of the state, which controlled the whole economy. Only by being allowed to form their own union could workers defend their own interests against such a monolith.

After two-weeks of a national strike, bringing the country to a halt, the government finally agreed to the workers’ demands. The 21-point agreement, known as the Gdansk Accords, gave birth to the Independent and Self-Governing Trade Union Solidarity (NSZZ Solidarność). Ten million workers joined within one month (the fastest union organizing drive in history).

The example of Solidarity is not unique. . . . [I]n numerous protest movements against authoritarian regimes, the struggle for freedom of association has been at the core of achieving, advancing and defending democracy around the world.

A short 16 months later, in December 1981, the government tried to destroy the Solidarity movement by imposing martial law. But the union’s resistance over eight years led ultimately to the collapse of the dictatorship and rebirth of Polish democracy in 1989 (see also Poland Country Study).

The example of Solidarity is not unique. From the abolition movement to the Civil Rights Movement, from the labor movement to the suffragette movement, and in numerous protest movements against authoritarian regimes, the struggle for freedom of association has been at the core of achieving, advancing and defending democracy around the world.

“The Mother of All Science”

As noted in Freedom of Expression, it is of doubtful value to rank one freedom above another. Certainly, freedom of expression is claimed to be the most fundamental to democracy by free speech advocates. But the freedoms that underlie democracy are intertwined. As Tom Kahn, a civil rights and trade union activist, wrote, "Freedom of expression without freedom of association is the right to speak freely in the wilderness."

Political theorists consider freedom of association fundamental to democracy. By organizing citizens outside of state control, civil society protects rights and advances common interests. Freedom of association is also a basic defense against the abuse of state power. For this reason, dictatorships view free organizations of citizens — especially trade unions like Solidarity — as threats and target them for repression, takeover or closure.

American colonists learned when facing coercive British rule that freedom of association was necessary to give their fight for other freedoms substance. It was impossible to argue for due process of law or the right of self-governance without organizing into purposeful groups (such as the Sons of Liberty and Committees of Correspondence).

In Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville’s study of the United States in the 1830s, he observed that this lesson had been well learned. In the U.S., “the science of association was the mother of all science," he wrote. Freedom of association is what all other progress depends on (see also History).

A Meaning Both Broad and Specific

Freedom of association covers all manner of organizations created by citizens to protect their individual and common interests. Any group of people who join together voluntarily in an organization is exercising freedom of association. This includes civic, educational, humanitarian, ethnic, racial, religious, social, professional, business, trade union or other workplace-based groups and organizations.

Freedom of association is among the rights specifically cited in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 20, quoted above) and is associated with the right to assembly: to gather freely in order to build public support or petition the government.

Freedom of association covers all manner of organizations created by citizens to protect their individual and common interests. . . . While broad in nature, freedom of association also has a more specific meaning in international law. It is the right of workers to organize in trade unions of their own choosing.

While broad in nature, freedom of association also has a more specific meaning in international law. It is the right of workers to organize in trade unions of their own choosing. The workplace right to associate freely and to bargain collectively over wages and conditions of employment is the most common expression of freedom of association.

Freedom of association was struggled for by workers wherever democracy emerged. Early trade associations in the United States led to development of the Knights of Columbus and then the American Federation of Labor. Early “combinations” of workers and the Chartist movement in Great Britain led to expanding the franchise and the rise of the Trades Union Congress (see also "The British Battlefield" in History). Showing the universality of worker rights, this pattern repeated in countries throughout Europe, North America and other continents. (The Country Studies in this section are from Latin America, Africa and Asia.)

It is this specific right of association that many point to when discussing freedom of association. As indicated in the example of Poland above, it is this specific right that has contributed most profoundly to the expansion of liberty and equality in all parts of the world. It is thus the focus of the presentation below.

Out of War, Fundamental Worker Rights

The devastation of World War I propelled the international community to recognize broadly the need to protect workers' interests. Leaders at the 1919 Versailles Peace Conference, which brought a formal end to World War I, recognized that mass unrest due to harsh economic conditions could lead to future conflict. They agreed to a proposal by Samuel Gompers, the leader of the American Federation of Labor, and European union leaders to create the International Labour Organization (ILO) as part of the League of Nations.

The ILO’s essential aim, or principle, was simple: to establish basic standards for the fair treatment of workers that all countries would observe, thereby creating conditions for social peace. It was one of the Versailles Treaty’s achievements that led President Woodrow Wilson to state that conditions for peace had been secured to make World War I “the war to end to all wars.”

Neither the ILO nor the League of Nations ended all war. But the ILO established the essential principle that workers had rights that must be protected in the laws of nations. It also established the principle of social cooperation. Its tripartite structure of labor, business and government coming together to adopt protections for workers ensured the basis for co-existence of free trade unions, employers and the state within market economies. Core conventions that the ILO adopted included bans against capitalism’s worst ills: forced labor, child labor, unfair remuneration, unending workweeks and discrimination in employment, among others.

Unions & Democracy

Economists and sociologists have identified free trade unions also as a foundation for democratic governance.

The American sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset wrote that free trade unions strengthen the social foundation for democracy by establishing the broadest form of association through the workplace and leading to improvement in economic conditions for workers in industrialized countries (see Resources). 

[T]rade unions strengthen the social foundation for democracy by establishing the broadest form of association through the workplace.

Indeed, by representing the shared economic and social interests of a wide range of workers, trade unions tend to break down ethnic, racial, age and gender divisions within society and thus expand opportunities and representation for all citizens. While trade unions at first were restrictive in membership because of organization by skilled trades, they developed for a broader membership through organization by industries and professions to become the largest, most diverse and best organized associations within most democracies.

In an essay called “Trade Unions as Mediating Institutions” (see Resources), Tom Kahn, the labor theorist cited above, wrote that unions strengthened democracy’s foundations in more ways. For one, without trade unions engaged in collective bargaining, the state or the largest employers would dominate politics. Secondly, absent trade unions to negotiate wages and working conditions, there would be no mediating or democratizing institution in the economy. The state or employers (or both acting together) would exert arbitrary control and possess unmediated power to dominate political institutions. By acting to foster economic equity, trade unions ensure greater political equality.

A third aspect is that free trade unions — that is, unions that function independently of the state or employer — are “schools for democracy.”

A third aspect is that free trade unions — that is, unions that function independently of the state or employer — are “schools for democracy.” Unions are the place where workers of whatever education learn to engage in meetings using parliamentary procedures that recognize the rights of the majority and the minority. Being a part of unions, citizens learn to speak in public meetings about issues affecting their community, to choose representatives and to vote for or against workplace contracts determining the conditions of their daily lives. At the workplace, community, regional and national levels, unions broaden representation.

Numerous studies, surveys and scholarly examinations indicate that in democracies, strong trade unions correlate with the greater exercise of democratic rights. Higher trade union density (meaning the percentage of workers in unions) correlates with higher electoral participation and stronger citizen participation on public issues. Correlations are shown as clearly by low union density. As unions weaken, inequality rises, civic and electoral participation declines and the wealthy have larger influence on public policy.

[M]any workers have recognized the correlations between lack of union representation and lower wages and benefits. . . . [T]oday unions enjoy much greater support in democracies.

In many Western democracies, free trade unions have been portrayed in academia and popular media as economically and politically anachronistic. However, many workers have recognized the correlations between lack of union representation and lower wages and benefits as well as between a weaker labor movement and the greater political influence of corporations and the wealthy. As a result, today unions enjoy much greater support in democracies, especially among younger generations.

Unions & Dictatorship

Article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states the rights to freedom of association but also not to be “compelled to belong to an association." The reason for this second clause is that by the time the UDHR was adopted in 1948, there was ample experience of states forcing workers and others to belong to controlled organizations acting as state instruments. It is therefore necessary to distinguish between free and unfree association.

Authoritarian states previously had acted to limit freedom of association. Just as Tocqueville had recognized the “science of association” as essential to democracy, authoritarian leaders viewed free associations of citizens as a threat to their arbitrary rule.

The principle for [totalitarian rule] was aptly described by the Fascist leader of Italy, Bennito Mussolini. He stated, “Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.”

When dictators rose to power, they repressed the most threatening of groups, especially political parties and trade unions, since these were structures capable of mobilizing masses of people. Another strategy was to coopt free associations by installing loyal supporters as appointed leaders or using bribes or threats to coerce existing leaders into cooperation.

Totalitarian states like the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany went further: they destroyed all existing associations and then coerced all citizens’ participation in party- and state-controlled institutions in order to establish total social conformity. The principle for ruling was aptly described by the Fascist leader of Italy, Bennito Mussolini. He stated, “Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.”

Soviet youth were pressured to belong to the Red Pioneers in the USSR and German students to the Hitler Youth in Nazi Germany. The Soviet All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions, which was controlled by the Communist Party, had obligatory membership of all workers but without any democratic features to direct its activities. Such monolithic organization was mirrored by other Soviet-imposed or Soviet-modeled communist regimes (as described above in the Polish People's Republic). While each claimed to be establishing “worker states,” they all prevented any genuine worker organization. Fascist regimes similarly eliminated trade unions in favor of “labor fronts” of employers and workers directed by the state.

Workers & Resistance

Just as free trade unions and their leaders have been active parts in achieving democratic progress, they played essential roles in resisting dictatorships and tyranny. Acting clandestinely, free trade unionists were central to the resistance movements in Nazi Germany, fascist Italy and occupied France, Benelux countries, Finland, Norway and Poland. In Western Europe, their efforts were key in overcoming the great destruction of World War II and rebuilding democracy in postwar Europe..

[D]espite the great risk of repression, workers seek to organize themselves in free trade unions. Once organized, free trade unions strive to achieve democracy, expand rights and achieve more equitable distribution of wealth

As well, from the early 1950s to ‘70s, there were organized worker protests in East Germany, Hungary, Poland, Romania and the Soviet Union against state control. They were all crushed by tanks and security police. The rise of the Solidarity movement in Poland and its successful resistance against repression were a catalyst for mass demonstrations in 1989 that brought down communist dictatorships throughout Eastern Europe (see Poland Country Study).

In addition to Poland, free trade unions and independent worker movements resisting dictatorship were essential to achieving democracy in many countries, from Chile to Venezuela, from Philippines to South Korea and from Tunisia to South Africa, among many others (see Country Studies, especially of Chile and Tunisia in this section).

These examples show that despite the great risk of repression, workers seek to organize themselves in free trade unions. Once organized, free trade unions strive to achieve democracy, expand rights and achieve more equitable distribution of wealth

Unions, Social Democracy & Liberalism

Free trade unionism and free enterprise or free markets are often portrayed as conflicting ideas (see also Economic Freedom). But their history in democracies, as well as the experience and practice of the International Labor Organization (see above), indicate that the two can and do coexist to serve two essential principles that may be mutually beneficial.

Indeed, the experiences of the Great Depression of the 1930s and Great Recession of 2008-09 indicate that free enterprise fails without free trade unions. By providing a vehicle through which working people share in the fruits of their labors, unions boost income and consumption and support a better quality of life, and thus improve the economy. In both upturns and downturns, they act to provide stability to the economy.

[T]he experiences of the Great Depression of the 1930s and Great Recession of 2008-09 indicate that free enterprise fails without free trade unions. . . . In both upturns and downturns, they act to provide stability to the economy.

At the same time, state command economies in the Soviet Union and other communist regimes failed to provide economic benefits or social mobility. The economies of communist countries were among the most unequal and least efficient in the industrialized world. With a few exceptions, they either collapsed or, as in China and Vietnam, evolved into hybrid market economies.

Notwithstanding the economic and political success found in the co-existence of free enterprise and free trade unions, the adoption of neo-liberalism by many democracies in the 1980s and 1990s once again put economic freedom over freedom of association. There was a reversal of social democratic economic policies, a weakening of free trade unions and limits placed on rights of workers to organize and represent themselves. This has led to greater conflict between trade unions and employers and more generally a rise in economic inequality. (See also Economic Freedom and “Employers Strike Back” in History in this section.)

Freedom of Association: A Recap

Freedom of association is both a broad and specific right in international law. While the specific right to organize unions is affirmed in the ILO and Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the broader right is affirmed in all constitutions in democratic countries and in international and regional charters (such as the European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of the Organization of American States).

From civic organizations to trade unions, human rights groups to community initiatives, citizens acting in voluntary association have ensured the long-lasting success of democracy as a form of governance in Europe, North America and other continents

Most scholars identify freedom of association and the growth of civil society generally as essential to the post-war period of democratic expansion. From civic organizations to trade unions, human rights groups to community initiatives, citizens acting in voluntary association have ensured the long-lasting success of democracy as a form of governance in Europe, North America and other continents (see also History).

As well, freedom of association and the rise of civil society have been seen as essential to overcoming communist dictatorships in the Soviet bloc in the 1980s and 1990s and in other dictatorships such as Chile and Tunisia (the Country Studies in this section), as well as Bolivia, Indonesia, Philippines, South Africa, among others. In all these cases, human rights groups, civic groups and volunteer organizations joined with free trade unions to play essential roles in achieving democratic change.

Not surprisingly, there has been a backlash among dictatorships. It became clear from the expansion of democracy starting from the 1980s that the rise of civil society was a clear threat to continued rule. Dictators targeted civil society for heightened repression and restriction. (See, for example, many of the Not Free countries in Democracy Web, such as Iran.) Meanwhile, “populist” political parties that came to power in existing democracies have tried to restrict civil society in an attempt to maintain power by authoritarian means (as in Venezuela successfully and Poland unsuccessfully).

Indeed, Freedom House has tracked drops in scores for political freedoms and civil liberties for 18 straight years in its annual Freedom in the World survey. Greater restrictions on and repression of trade unions and civil society in all aspects has been a key factor in the retrenchment of democracy.