Fundamentals

What an Open Society Is and Why It Matters for Freedom

By Daniel Sardá · May 03, 2026

In this article

An open society is a social and institutional order in which different people can think, speak, associate, debate, dissent, change social position, cooperate and replace governments without violence under general rules, individual rights and institutions that limit power.

In simple terms: an open society does not require everyone to think alike. It requires that no one have enough power to impose an official truth, turn the dissenter into an enemy or trap people inside a compulsory identity.

The open society matters for freedom because it allows people to live with disagreement. It does not eliminate political, moral, religious or cultural conflict. It processes conflict through public debate, freedom of expression, the rule of law, pluralism, civil society, social mobility and criticism of power.

Key idea: an open society is not a society without conflict. It is a society where conflict can be expressed, discussed and corrected without power turning the dissenter into an enemy.

From a liberal perspective, the open society is inseparable from individual liberty. A person can develop their life only if they can think, speak, associate, change their mind and dissent without being absorbed by the state, the party, the majority, the political tribe or a compulsory morality.

What an open society is

An open society is a society in which public life is not closed by official dogmas, legal castes, rigid hierarchies, censorship, one-party rule or ideological control.

It is open because it admits criticism. It is open because it allows change. It is open because it recognizes that no authority possesses all the moral, political, economic or scientific knowledge needed to direct everyone’s life.

An open society needs several conditions:

This does not mean absence of norms. An open society is not chaos. It requires rules, responsibility, rights, due process and equality before the law.

Openness means those rules allow coexistence among free persons, not subordination to a truth imposed by power.

Open society vs closed society

A closed society is a rigid order where the person is defined by collective belonging, hierarchy, dogma, compulsory tradition, party, class, official religion or historical destiny.

In a closed society, dissent is treated as threat. The critic is suspect. The heretic is dangerous. The opponent is a traitor. The foreigner, the different person or the non-aligned citizen becomes a symbolic enemy.

A closed society often operates through:

An open society works differently.

It does not demand unanimity. It allows disagreement. It does not lock the person into a fixed identity. It allows people to change religion, party, profession, community or social position. It does not treat criticism as rupture of order, but as a mechanism of learning.

The difference is not between a society with values and a society without values. The difference is between values defended through persuasion and general rules, or values imposed by political coercion.

Bergson, Popper and the origin of the concept

The expression “open society” is mainly associated with Karl Popper, but it has an important antecedent in Henri Bergson.

Bergson distinguished between closed society and open society in a moral and philosophical sense. Closed society is linked to group obligation, belonging and internal cohesion. Open society points toward a broader, less tribal and more universal morality.

Popper turned the concept into a central political category in The Open Society and Its Enemies. His concern was totalitarianism, historicism and ideologies that claim to know the destiny of history.

For Popper, the problem with those doctrines is that they can justify coercion in the name of a higher mission. If a party, leader or theory claims to know the final meaning of history, opponents stop being legitimate adversaries and become obstacles against collective destiny.

The open society, by contrast, begins from a critical attitude: human beings can be wrong. Institutions must allow errors to be detected, debated, corrected and governments replaced without violence.

The point is not that an open society never makes mistakes. The point is that it does not turn its mistakes into sacred dogmas.

Rational criticism and correction of errors

An open society needs rational criticism.

This means that ideas, laws, policies, institutions and rulers must be open to discussion. No doctrine should be shielded from questions. No party should present itself as owner of truth. No government should treat criticism as a moral crime.

Rational criticism is not aggression against society. It is a way of protecting it.

A country learns when it can discuss its errors. A university learns when it can research without an official line. A free press learns when it can test competing versions. A market learns when consumers and producers correct decisions. A political institution learns when it can be audited, replaced or reformed.

The practical consequence is this: an open society replaces the infallibility of power with mechanisms of correction.

This connects with Popper, but also with John Stuart Mill. Freedom of discussion makes it possible to discover errors, avoid dogmatism and protect minority opinions that may contain part of the truth.

Freedom of thought and freedom of expression

Freedom of thought is the core of an open society.

A person must be able to think without permission. They must be able to believe or not believe. They must be able to change their mind. They must be able to reject official history, official morality, official ideology or the official interpretation of the common good.

Freedom of expression allows that conscience to enter public space.

Without free expression, criticism remains locked inside. Without a free press, power becomes opaque. Without academic freedom, research becomes repetition of dogmas. Without freedom of association, people cannot organize to defend legitimate causes, ideas or interests.

That is why censorship closes a society.

It does not only prevent speech. It prevents learning. It forces simulated loyalty. It encourages self-censorship. It makes public truth depend on power rather than research, debate and contrast.

An open society can tolerate harsh, uncomfortable or mistaken opinions. What it cannot tolerate without harming itself is the state deciding what may be thought or said for reasons of political convenience.

Pluralism: different people under common rules

Pluralism is not mere decorative diversity.

It is the institutional acceptance that different people may have different ideas, religions, values, life projects, political preferences, economic interests and forms of association.

An open society does not require everyone to adopt one total shared identity. It requires common rules that allow coexistence without violence or privileges.

Here the nuance is important: pluralism does not mean all ideas are equally correct. It means ideas must be open to discussion, criticism and refutation without an authority imposing orthodoxy through coercion.

Nor does it mean absolute relativism.

An open society can defend shared values: personal dignity, rejection of violence, equality before the law, freedom of conscience, due process, responsibility and respect for the rights of others. What it rejects is an authority turning its moral or political vision into an obligatory destiny for everyone.

Criticism of power and replaceable government

An open society needs power that can be criticized.

If the president, the party, the judge, the caudillo, the community leader or the majority cannot be questioned, society begins to close. Power stops answering to citizens and begins demanding obedience.

Popper formulated a decisive political question: not only “who should govern,” but how to organize institutions so that bad rulers can be removed without bloodshed.

That change of question is fundamental.

An open society does not depend on finding perfect rulers. It builds institutions to limit, scrutinize, replace and correct imperfect rulers.

That is why it needs competitive elections, alternation in power, free press, civil society, legitimate opposition, independent courts, transparency and limits on political power.

Criticism of power does not destroy national unity. What destroys a free society is confusing unity with obedience.

General rules and equality before the law

Openness needs common norms.

An open society does not work if each group lives under different privileges or if law punishes adversaries and protects allies. It needs general, known rules applicable to all.

Equality before the law is decisive: no one should stand above the law and no one should fall beneath its protection.

Without legal equality, a caste society appears. Some can speak and others must remain silent. Some can trade and others need permission. Some can criticize and others are persecuted. Some receive impunity and others selective sanction.

The open society requires the opposite: common rules for different people.

The distinction matters because openness is not absence of order. It is order under general rules, not under privileges, selective punishments or discretionary permits.

Rule of law and legal certainty

The rule of law turns openness into institutional practice.

It means power is also subject to law. It cannot punish retroactively, change rules at convenience, use courts as weapons or leave rights at the mercy of officials.

Legal certainty allows planning. A journalist knows they can investigate without arbitrary closure. An entrepreneur knows their license does not depend on political loyalty. A family knows its property will not be confiscated on a whim. A civil organization knows it can associate without becoming an arm of the state.

When rules are unpredictable, society closes even if official discourse says otherwise.

The citizen learns to ask permission. The business owner seeks contacts. The academic avoids questions. The journalist measures every word. The dissenter self-censors.

Openness dies not only through direct censorship, but also through administrative fear.

Limited government and independent civil society

An open society requires limited government.

The state may protect rights, security, contracts and justice. But if it concentrates power over education, press, courts, associations, economy, culture and permits, it can capture social life.

The problem is not only the size of the state. It is its ability to decide who may speak, who may work, who receives permission, who is an enemy, who may associate and who remains protected by law.

An independent civil society is a barrier against that closure.

Families, churches, universities, media outlets, companies, voluntary unions, neighborhood associations, NGOs, clubs, cultural communities and private projects allow social life not to depend entirely on political power.

Tocqueville understood this point: free associations help resist centralization. When everything passes through the state, the citizen stands isolated before a huge machine.

Spontaneous order and dispersed knowledge

The open society is also related to spontaneous order.

Many human institutions are not born from complete central design. Language, science, markets, customs, reputation, associations and social practices evolve through interaction, criticism, trial and error.

Hayek explained that social knowledge is dispersed. No one possesses all the local, practical and changing information that millions of people use to cooperate.

An open society makes better use of that knowledge because it allows experimentation, correction, competition, association, research and communication. A closed society wastes it because it subordinates information, science, prices, culture or debate to an official line.

The difference appears in daily life.

A merchant knows the needs of his neighborhood. A teacher detects problems in the classroom. A doctor learns from concrete patients. A journalist investigates networks of power. An entrepreneur tests solutions. A community discovers forms of local cooperation.

When central power tries to control everything, it loses that information. When society remains open, millions of people can correct errors from below.

Social mobility and institutional openness

An open society allows mobility.

Mobility does not mean everyone obtains the same outcomes. It means a person’s position should not be fixed by caste, surname, party, guild, origin, religion, race, class or political loyalty.

A person should be able to change trade, start a business, study, move, associate, dissent, leave a community, enter another, practice a religion or stop practicing it.

Social mobility needs open institutions:

Closed societies block mobility through castes, privileges, political permits, clientelism or compulsory identity.

The liberal question is concrete: can the person change their life without asking political or tribal authorization?

Open society vs ideological control

Ideological control seeks to close thought.

It can do so through censorship, doctrinal education, subordinated media, surveillance, propaganda, administrative sanctions, social punishment directed by power or monopoly over official history.

An open society does not require absolute neutrality toward every idea. But it does require that the state not turn one doctrine into obligatory truth.

Ideological control appears when:

The result is a citizenry that stops deliberating and begins repeating.

An open society, by contrast, allows public truth to be disputed, investigated and corrected.

Open society vs political tribalism

Political tribalism reduces people to camps.

It does not see citizens with rights, reasons and legitimate disagreements. It sees loyalists and traitors, people and enemies, pure and impure, patriots and sellouts, legitimate majority and suspicious minorities.

That scheme closes society because it eliminates the space of the legitimate adversary.

If the person who thinks differently is an enemy, censorship looks like defense. If the critic is a traitor, persecution looks like justice. If the dissenter is an external agent, debate becomes unnecessary.

Tribalism also destroys individuality.

A person stops being evaluated by their actions, arguments and rights. They are treated as a member of a category: class, party, identity, religion, region, origin or political group.

An open society needs the opposite: common rules for legitimate adversaries. It does not require affection among everyone, but it does require institutional respect for everyone’s rights.

Open society and liberal democracy

Electoral democracy is important, but it is not enough.

A society can vote and still be closed if there is no free press, independent judges, legitimate opposition, academic freedom, autonomous civil society, real alternation or enforceable rights.

The open society is better connected with constitutional democracy.

Constitutional democracy allows governments to be elected, but also limits what those governments may do. A majority can govern, but it should not be able to censor, capture courts, eliminate alternation, persecute minorities or turn rights into permissions.

This connects with liberal constitutionalism: higher rules and rights exist to prevent electoral power from becoming absolute power.

A democracy closes when the vote is used as authorization to control everything.

Open government is not government that never faces opposition. It is government that accepts being criticized, scrutinized and replaced.

Tradition, community and religion are not enemies in themselves

An open society does not require destroying traditions, communities or religions.

A family can transmit values. A church can sustain beliefs. A community can preserve customs. A cultural association can protect language, memory or identity.

The problem is not tradition. The problem is coercive imposition.

A community is compatible with an open society if it allows individual conscience, criticism, voluntary belonging, exit and coexistence under rights. It becomes closed if it coercively punishes dissent, prevents exit from the group or demands absolute moral obedience.

The nuance is essential.

The alternative is not isolated individual or total community. The alternative is voluntary community or compulsory subordination.

Open society, propaganda and official truth

Political propaganda tends to close society when it replaces debate with emotional loyalty.

It does not only seek to persuade. It seeks to order public perception: who is the people, who is the enemy, which facts matter, which questions are suspicious and which voices must be expelled.

An open society may contain propaganda, biases and strong political discourse. No society is free of political persuasion. The problem appears when the state, party or dominant coalition uses public power to impose an official truth.

Then debate stops being a competition of arguments and becomes a test of loyalty.

The article on political propaganda develops that mechanism. For this topic, one warning is enough: when power defines official reality and punishes disagreement, society is no longer open.

Venezuela and Latin America: why it matters

In Venezuela and Latin America, the open society is not an academic abstraction.

The region has experienced caudillismo, hyper-presidentialism, dominant parties, clientelism, censorship, self-censorship, propaganda, dependent justice, economic controls, extreme polarization and discourses that divide between the people and enemies.

This does not mean all countries or periods are the same. Nor does it turn the topic into a current-affairs report.

The institutional lesson is broader: a society closes when power controls too many doors.

If the citizen needs loyalty to work, society closes. If the journalist fears administrative sanctions, it closes. If the university cannot research without an official line, it closes. If the entrepreneur needs contacts to compete, it closes. If the opposition figure cannot go to an impartial judge, it closes. If the dissenter is treated as an internal enemy, it closes.

An open society requires the opposite: protected criticism, general rules, mobility, independent civil society, equality before the law and limited power.

Common mistakes about the open society

“Open society means absolute relativism”

No. An open society can defend values such as liberty, dignity, equality before the law, responsibility and rejection of violence. What it rejects is imposing a political or moral orthodoxy through coercion.

“Open society means absence of rules”

No. It needs general rules, the rule of law, individual rights, property, contracts, due process and responsibility.

“Open society is the same as electoral democracy”

No. Elections matter, but they are not enough if there is censorship, subordinated justice, persecution of opponents or absence of real alternation.

“Criticizing power destroys national unity”

False. Criticizing power is a way to correct errors and limit abuses. Confusing criticism with betrayal is typical of closed societies.

“Every tradition is a closed society”

No. Tradition, religion, family and community can exist in an open society if they respect conscience, exit, criticism and individual rights.

“Censorship protects social harmony”

Censorship can produce silence, but not trust. It closes debate, hides errors and gives power the ability to decide what may be said.

“The dissenter is an enemy of the people”

No. In an open society, the dissenter is a citizen with rights. They may be wrong, but they do not lose legal protection for thinking differently.

“Open society means globalism”

Not necessarily. The philosophical and political concept refers to pluralism, criticism, rights and open institutions. It does not automatically equal a specific geopolitical or economic agenda.

“Open society means Open Society Foundations”

No. That organization adopted the term, but the concept is older and is associated above all with Bergson, Popper and debates in political philosophy.

Frequently asked questions about the open society

What is an open society in simple terms?

It is a society where different people can think, speak, associate, dissent, cooperate and change social position under general rules and individual rights.

What is the difference between an open society and a closed society?

An open society allows criticism, pluralism and peaceful change. A closed society imposes rigid belonging, official truth, ideological control and punishment of dissent.

What did Karl Popper say about the open society?

Popper defended a critical, reformable and non-totalitarian society capable of correcting errors and replacing governments without violence.

What is Bergson’s relationship to the open society?

Bergson used the distinction between closed society and open society earlier in a moral and philosophical sense. Popper later developed its political and institutional dimension.

Why does the open society matter for freedom?

Because it protects the possibility of thinking, speaking, associating, criticizing power, changing one’s life and living with different people without ideological coercion.

What is the relationship between open society and freedom of expression?

Freedom of expression allows criticism of ideas, institutions and rulers. Without it, society closes around an official truth.

What is the relationship between open society and pluralism?

Pluralism allows moral, religious, political and cultural differences to coexist under common rules and equal rights.

Does an open society mean absolute relativism?

No. It means ideas can be discussed without coercion. There may be common values, but not an imposed political orthodoxy.

Is an open society the same as electoral democracy?

No. An open society also needs free press, independent judges, legitimate opposition, rights, civil society and limits on power.

What is the relationship between open society and limited government?

Limited government prevents power from capturing press, justice, education, the economy, associations and civil life.

What is the relationship between open society and spontaneous order?

The open society allows institutions, markets, science, associations and norms to evolve through interaction, criticism and decentralized learning.

Why does censorship close a society?

Because it prevents discussion of errors, restricts information, produces self-censorship and gives power the ability to define what may be thought or said.

What is political tribalism?

It is the reduction of public life to closed camps: people against enemies, loyalists against traitors, pure against impure.

What is the relationship between open society and equality before the law?

Without equality before the law, openness is selective. An open society needs common rules without legal privileges or political punishments.

Why does this concept matter in Venezuela and Latin America?

Because the region has suffered caudillismo, censorship, clientelism, subordinated justice and discourses that turn dissent into betrayal. An open society protects the citizen against those closures.

A free society needs openness to dissent and limits on power

An open society is not a perfect society, a permanently peaceful society or a society free of conflict.

It is a society that allows conflicts to be discussed without turning them into permanent moral war. It allows dissent without loss of rights. It allows criticism of power without treating the critic as an enemy. It allows people to change opinion, religion, trade, party or community without being trapped by a compulsory identity.

That openness requires institutions: the rule of law, equality before the law, freedom of expression, freedom of association, independent civil society, limited government, individual rights and general rules.

The alternative is not forced unity or chaos. That is a false dichotomy. The real alternative is cooperation under common rules or subordination to an official truth.

An open society protects freedom because it does not deliver social life to a single voice. It recognizes that people can be wrong, learn, debate, cooperate and correct errors.

That is why its strength is not in eliminating difference. It is in allowing different people to live together without power having the right to close their mouths, conscience, mobility or future.

Sources consulted

↑