Imposed freedom has a long history.
Plato considered the rule of philosophers, who would impose their wise decisions upon citizens, to be vastly superior to democracy.
During the Age of Enlightenment in Europe, civil liberties were, in many cases, not seized by those who later enjoyed them, but rather granted by rulers who were influenced by philosophers.
After World War II, constitutions were imposed on Germany and Japan that embedded a high degree of personal freedom.
On the other hand, there has been a definite trend over the past few decades for democratic political systems to curtail the personal freedom of the ruled.
The fault lies with democracy itself. Voters, once they have gained self-confidence, are always more likely to express negative, rather than positive, sentiments in elections.
More freedom will not be achieved anytime soon by giving a majority of voters with limited political sophistication increasing power over the political fate of a country.
The idea that an intellectual avant-garde, elected or not, could impose freedom is a much more distinct possibility than achieving more personal freedom through ever-expanding democracy.
If the intellectual avant-garde is in power only for a limited period of time, then its legacy should be a constitution that strongly limits the power of subsequent parliaments and governments to curtail the freedom of the ruled.