There is a deep fault line running through politics today. On one side are those who believe people should be empowered – free to learn, question, create and fulfil their potential. On the other are those who believe society functions best when people are compliant – guided from above and discouraged from asking too many questions.

For Liberal Democrats, that divide goes to the heart of our philosophy. Our commitment to liberty, equality and democracy begins with a belief in people. Liberalism assumes that individuals, when given freedom, opportunity and a meaningful voice, are capable of shaping their own lives and contributing to the common good.

But history shows that every increase in human freedom has been contested.

• The right to vote.
• The right to education.
• The right to organise politically.
• The right of women to participate fully in public life.
• The right to speak freely, worship freely and live openly.

Each advance faced fierce resistance from those who feared what might happen if ordinary people gained greater agency over their own lives. That tension continues today. Across the world we see governments concentrating authority, narrowing the space for dissent and tightening control over information. Even in long-established democracies, many citizens feel decisions affecting their lives are drifting further away from them.

The deeper question behind these trends is philosophical rather than procedural: what do we believe human beings are capable of? Do we trust people to think, deliberate and take responsibility? Or do we assume most people need to be managed – even controlled?

Taiwan’s digital minister Audrey Tang captured this when she said:

It’s not about whether people trust the government. It’s about whether government trusts the people.

Taiwan’s Covid response demonstrates what that philosophy looks like in practice. The government released public data and invited civic technologists to help design solutions. Hackathons brought together volunteers to build tools such as the now-famous “mask map”, showing real-time availability of masks across pharmacies. Citizens were not treated as passive recipients of policy. They became collaborators in solving the problem. Because information was shared openly, trust grew rather than eroded. Mask wearing became a widely accepted social norm rather than a political battleground.

The lesson is not that governments should step aside. It is that governments work better when they treat citizens as partners rather than subjects. That matters because people want more from life than security alone. They want agency:

• The power to make meaningful choices.
• The sense that their actions can shape the future.
• The opportunity to develop their talents and purpose.

Psychologist Abraham Maslow described this aspiration in his hierarchy of needs. Once basic needs are met, human beings strive for self-actualisation – becoming the fullest version of themselves. Politics rarely talks about this. Yet it should.

Too many systems unintentionally weaken people’s sense of agency. Decisions are centralised. Economic power concentrates in fewer hands. Public services sometimes treat people as passive recipients rather than active participants. But human beings are far more capable than that.

During my years rowing solo across the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans, I discovered that I was capable of much, much more than I had previously suspected – and that feeling of rising into my own potential was transformative. I learned how much resilience and creativity I had when responsibility rested in my own hands. And I believe that there’s nothing special about me – that everybody has these inner resources that can be called forth by the right circumstance and the right systems.

When people are trusted, they rise to the challenge. Politics should reflect that confidence.

It means decentralising power so communities shape decisions affecting their lives. It means spreading ownership through models like community energy and employee-owned businesses. It means education systems that nurture curiosity and critical thinking. And it means public services that work with people to rebuild independence rather than taking control away from them.

Empowerment must always sit alongside compassion. A decent society supports people facing hardship through illness, disability or poverty. But the purpose of that support should be to restore dignity and agency wherever possible – not just helping people endure life’s difficulties, but enabling them to shape their own futures.

This philosophy lies at the heart of Liberal Democrat thinking. Liberty ensures people have the freedom to shape their lives. Equality ensures everyone has the opportunity to do so. Democracy ensures power sits as close as possible to the people it affects – so that “no one is enslaved by poverty, ignorance, or conformity”.

Decentralisation is not an abstract constitutional idea. It is an expression of respect for people. And this ethos should begin within political parties themselves.

Parties are strongest when they operate through cohesion rather than control. MPs inevitably bring different perspectives to the table. Not every opinion can prevail. But leadership works best when it builds a shared sense of mission and listens to colleagues who have something to offer.

Recent tensions within Labour show that excessive centralisation can drain energy and creativity from a political movement – in just eighteen months. As the African proverb says: if you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.

Paddy Ashdown captured the Liberal mission perfectly:

The mission of the Liberal Democrats is clear: to ensure that every individual has the opportunity to fulfil their potential.”

That remains the challenge for politics today. To build a society that trusts people. A society where power is shared, citizens help shape the decisions that affect them, and every individual has the chance to become who they might yet be.

* Dr Roz Savage is the Liberal Democrat MP for the South Cotswolds.