Subscribe to Desicritics
Book Review: The Future of Freedom
K. M.
Fareed Zakaria’s book The Future of Freedom - Illiberal Democracy at Home & Abroad is a critique of democracy. Zakaria notes that democracy is not the same thing as constitutional liberty. He notes that democracy is a process of selecting governments whereas constitutional liberalism is about selecting government’s goals and refers to the Western tradition of seeking to protect an individual’s autonomy and dignity against coercion. Drawing examples from history and from around the world, he argues that societies that had liberal institutions, the rule of law and protection of property rights were able to turn into liberal democracies, whereas in societies that did not have such institutions, democracy allowed tyrants, demagogues, dictators and autocrats to cement their power. He argues that the presence of the church as an independent authority from the state helped in preventing concentration of power and allowed liberal institutions to develop. Similarly he argues that the political strength of the landed aristocracy in England was good for liberty as it helped to institutionalize property rights and kept the monarchy weak, while the political strength of the state in France was bad for liberty as it kept society dependent on the state.
Zakaria picks several examples of countries around the world that tried to democratize too early - before developing the necessary social institutions, or before becoming sufficently wealthy - and failed. He also notes that the wealth necessary for a liberal democracy must be earned wealth and not the wealth obtained from taxing a canal or exporting oil.
Regarding the Middle East, Zakaria denies that there is anything specific about Islam that makes its followers more susceptible to authoritarian rule. He also rejects the idea that Islamic terrorism has anything to do with poverty in the Muslim world. He notes that until the 1940s and 1950s, Arab countries seemed to be doing better than several other newly democratizing ones. Instead he blames the total failure of politics in the Arab region for the rise of radical Islam. He writes that with no free press and no political parties, mosques became the place to discuss politics, and the language of opposition became the language of religion. He also notes that the Arab states have allowed free reign to the most extreme clerics to give themselves legitimacy.
Regarding the American political system, Zakaria writes that since the 1960s all of America’s political institutions have democratized. He cites several examples - the selection of candidates by primaries instead of party decisions, the campaign finance laws that made candidates dependent on fundraisers, the expanded number of sub-committees, the changing of rules to allow unlimited number of bills, the open committee meetings and recorded votes and the system of referendums and initiatives. He describes how all these changes have opened up politics to the influence of special interest groups and lobbyists and how democracy has defeated itself with all its institutions being controlled not by a majority but by a variety of highly motivated minorities and special interest groups.
Zakaria goes on to describe the deep changes that democratization has caused even outside politics. He describes how religious figures like Billy Graham and Jerry Falwell have toned down religion to make it appeal to the masses. Zakaria writes that in general, members of professions such as law, medicine and accounting were public spirited individuals who operated on high standards and these standards have deteriorated with time. He blames this on the changes made to make these industries more open and competitive such as the decision to allow lawyers to advertise and to allow accountants to charge contingency fees. He writes that the internet frenzy destroyed the separation between the bankers and the researchers in the banking and brokerage industries, opening up conflicts of interest and perverse incentives. He writes that the central shift underlying these changes is the role of the elites. He writes that while elites in the earlier days saw themselves as elites and recognized their responsibilities, today’s elites are a bunch of smart college graduates, who are not conscious of their elite status and thus enjoy power without exercising responsibility. He writes how a school such as Groton which once emphasized character over achievement in its students now focuses only on achievement. He describes how in the movie “Titanic”, the first class passengers are shown to scramble into the small number of lifeboats, whereas in the actual accounts of survivors, the “women and children first” convention was observed almost without exception among the upper classes. He writes “The movie-makers altered the story for good reason: no one would believe it today.”
In his concluding chapter Zakaria writes that the 20th century was marked by the regulation of capitalism and the deregulation of democracy and that both experiments overreached. He writes that whenever a problem arose, the solution was more democracy and more regulations. He writes that the way out of the problems is to delegate democracy to mostly autonomous entities, that are limited by democracy but shielded from political pressures. He writes that the institutions and attitudes that preserved liberal democratic capitalism, built up over centuries are being destroyed in decades and if these trends continue, democracy will face a crisis of legitimacy. He finishes with “Eighty years ago, Woodrow Wilson took America into the twentieth century with a challenge to make the world safe for democracy. As we enter the twenty-first century, our task is to make democracy safe for the world.”
Comments
Zakaria’s critique is very welcome today in an age where democracy is often seen as unquestionably good and historically inevitable. The numerous examples he draws clearly show that it is neither. His description of the state of American politics and the role of democracy in causing it is well presented with concrete examples. He makes a number of good points in this book. And yet, there is something missing in his analysis. There are atleast three distinct phenomena that he refers to as democratization - the way people select their government and the increased amount of power that elected representatives have, the way people make economic decisions and the increased importance these decisions have in shaping the economy, and the shift from “high culture” to “popular culture”. While these phenomena are certainly related, they should not be lumped together under a single concept, especially considering that the purpose of the book is to examine the problems with democracy. It is only the first phenomenon that can accurately be called democratization. Including the other two phenomena under the same concept makes the concept useless for analytical purposes - something that Zakaria himself warns about at the start of the book.
Consider these phenomena in more detail.
Political democracy:
All over the world, government powers and policies are increasingly being determined by popular opinion (or atleast what is seen as popular opinion). Politics is increasingly seen as a struggle for inclusion and representation and not as a means to achieve a proper social organization. The focus is increasingly on ‘who gets to make decisions‘ and not on ‘what decisions are made and whether they are legitimate‘. In the absence or weakening of any limits on political power, government necessarily become corrupt, illiberal and dysfuncional. Special interest groups take over such a system and dominate all policy making. This is a problem inherent in democracy and Zakaria does well to illustrate this.
Economic changes (”consumerism”):
In the last few decades the bargaining power that “consumers” enjoy has risen steadily. We have come a long way from Henry Ford’s times (”You can have any color as long as it’s black”). This is a result of technological progress and has almost nothing to do with democracy. The only connection it has with (political) democracy is that it makes democracy more dangerous and its ill effects more catastrophic. It is impossible for people today to know about the workings of the global economy in any sort of detail. Which makes it impossible for the government (whether democratic or not) to control or regulate the economy effectively. Zakaria does not discuss these issues much and incorrectly labels this phenomenon as part of a process of democratization.
Rise of popular culture and the decline of values:
In the last few decades, high culture has declined and popular culture has risen. Zakaria uses a quote by Seabrook to describe this process “The old cultural arbiters, whose job was to decide what was ‘good’ in the sense of ‘valuable’ were being replaced by a new type of arbiter, whose skill was to define ‘good’ in terms of ‘popular’…” This decline of high culture goes hand in hand with a general decline in values - people no longer have rigid standards for judging behavior, the word ‘judgemental’ has become a perjorative and a good number of people would assert that there are no objective values. Zakaria does a good job of describing the symptoms of this trend. However he does not even attempt to examine its causes. But without an understanding of these causes, there is no way to reverse the ill-effects of democracy. Consider Zakaria’s proposed solution - the creation of autonomous regulatory bodies such as the US Federal Reserve (which he considers a success and seems to hold in high esteem). Today we see that the Federal Reserve has not been able to prevent a catastrophe and there is strong evidence to suggest that the catastrophe was in fact its own creation.
It is clear from the book that Zakaria is troubled by the general decline of values and that he respects the older value system, atleast in a general sense. He writes
It is easy to mock the Anglo-American elite, with its striking air of high-minded paternalism, born of a cultural sense of superiority. But it also embodied certain values - fair play, decency, liberty, and a Protestant sense of mission - that helped set standards for society…When powerful people acknowledge that there are certain standards for behavior, they limit their own power, however indirectly, and signal to society, “This is what we strive for.”
and a couple of pages earlier describing the decline of the elite status of the WASPs (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants)
As America became more diverse, open, and inclusive over the twentieth century, the WASP establishment faced a dilemna: it could maintain its power and refuse to allow new entrants into its sanctuaries, or it could open up to the new rising non-WASP members of society…But in the end the WASPs opened the doors to their club… Therein lay the seeds of the establishment’s own destruction… The WASPs made this move partly because they were pushed, but also because they knew it was the right thing to do. Confronted with a choice between their privilege and their values, they chose the latter.
If this description is correct, there is a paradox. The elite chose their values over privilege and yet this choice helped in the decline of their values. This paradox is at the heart of all of man’s problems. It has plagued people throughout the ages. The way out of this paradox is a code of ethics that is geared to man’s life, here on earth, by which the moral is also the practical and which when practised results in both material and spiritual reward - the code of rational egoism.
The complete expression of the constitutional liberal democracy that Zakaria wants to protect is a system of capitalism and it can only be protected with an explicit moral base. Although Zakaria presents a quite insightful analysis of the workings of democracy and its problems, he does not discuss the foundations of politics at all, and without it, his book is incomplete.
temporal
URL
October 3, 2008
07:51 PM
km:
welcome and thanks for a thoughtful review
this does not fits in with the indian experience
Drawing examples from history and from around the world, he argues that societies that had liberal institutions, the rule of law and protection of property rights were able to turn into liberal democracies, whereas in societies that did not have such institutions, democracy allowed tyrants, demagogues, dictators and autocrats to cement their power.
what does he say about it?
K. M.
URL
October 4, 2008
06:42 AM
temporal,
Thanks.
Here is a relevant excerpt:
"India has a hallowed place in discussions of democracy. Despite being desperately poor it has had a functioning democracy since 1947. Whenever someone wants to prove that you do not need to develop economically to become democratic they use as their one example - India. Much of this praise is warranted. India is a genuinely free and freewheeling society. But looking under the covers of Indian democracy one sees a more complex and troubling reality. In recent decades, India has become something quite different from the picture in the hearts of its admirers. Not that it is less democratic: in important ways it has become more democratic. But it has become less tolerant, less secular, less law-abiding, less liberal. And these two trends - democratization and illiberalism - are directly related."
Zakaria goes on to write about how India inherited most of the institutions necessary for a democracy from the British and how the Congress party under Nehru, though in control of every stage of the political process, was committed to building genuine traditions of constitutional governance.
He then describes the religious intolerance, massive corruption and a dsregard for the rule of law that have grown since the 60s and 70s. He describes how politicians in UP live like feudal lords.
In essence his argument is that in the absence of genuine institutions of constitutional governance, property rights and economic development, liberal democracy is at the mercy of the rulers, whose successors may not respect it. With the requisite institutions and economic development, liberal democracy is much more robust.
He also notes that the political diversity of India with its dozens of regions, religions and languages, actually helps in preseving democracy by preventing any one group from acquiring too much power.
kerty
October 4, 2008
11:34 AM
Could it be that democracy and Constitutional liberalism are flawed concepts lacking in humility?
Could it be that they are not universal as they might work under certain world view but can not function under different cultural contexts?
Could Fareed's analysis be flawed as he is trying to measure world with a flawed yardstick and trying to fit the world within a flawed system?
K. M.
URL
October 4, 2008
12:47 PM
kerty,
I assume you are saying that democracy and constitutional liberalism are concepts that do not apply to Indian culture (and possibly other cultures too).
Could you elaborate on why they don't apply? After all India is a democracy and does have a constitution (albeit one which places very few restrictions on government powers).
kerty
October 4, 2008
02:41 PM
KM
we have Islamic world, Chinese and Indian, and if you add nations following communism, you can safely say that overwhelming majority of world holds on to different and often hostile world view than constitutional liberalism. Therefore, when western notions and institutions are super-imposed on them, they create internal gridlocks and contradictions, and we can see them in India and other countries. Its like square pegs are being squeezed in round pegs and blaming the round pegs. Than likes of Fareeds step in to lecture them how morally flawed and institutionally deficient they are.
K. M.
URL
October 4, 2008
05:08 PM
Certainly there is no dearth of people hostile to constitutional liberalism and no dearth of people who don't even have any idea what it is (The Gulf and most of Africa for example). The point is "Is there a political system proper to man?" I presume you would answer in the negative. I would emphatically answer in the positive. Man (whatever culture he grows up in) has a specific nature. The requirements for his life are of a specific nature. The world he lives in has a specific nature. It follows that there will be certain principles (ethical and consequently political) that are universal. A political system that does not protect these principles will create conflicts and contradictions in any culture.
Zakaria doesn't bother to ask this question at all. He implicitly believes that constitutional liberalism is that system. He makes very few explicit moral judgements in his books, which is something I fault him for. No political system can be achieved or defended without a moral base.
Since you presumably dont believe that there is any such thing as a proper moral or political system that is universally applicable, I have a question for you:
Where do moral or political principles in a particular culture come from? Can they be derived rationally or must they be accepted on faith?
kerty
October 4, 2008
06:52 PM
#6
""The point is "Is there a political system proper to man?" I presume you would answer in the negative. I would emphatically answer in the positive."
There is no one size fits all. Your position is akin to semitic fundamentalism - that claims absolute truth is embodied only in some written document, everything being falsehood, that it has the sole moral and divine mandate to be law and law giver, that those who do not accept its absolutism and supremacism are heathens to be converted or banished, that it is duty of the faithfuls to spread its writ around the word and usher in kingdom of blah blah. The world is divided in us vs them, freedom-fighters vs terrorists, allies vs axis of evil, believers vs heathens. Onward xian soldiers.
"Man (whatever culture he grows up in) has a specific nature. The requirements for his life are of a specific nature."
what you may define to be the nature of man can be every bit theological and ideological, and it can be made highly self-fulfilling. Man as a fallen sinner; man as a divine being; Man as an atomized manifestation of god, the Brahma; man as a social animal, man - a rational animal, man - a sexual animal, man - an animal, period. Man - a consumer. One can coin theologies and ideologies around their chosen notion of man and seek empowerment of such ideologies to fulfill such mandate. Theology built around a nation that man is a sinner creates a self-fulfilling prophesy to condemn man to sinnership so that it can pose as savior and liberator of man. That is engineered validatation of a creed, a prophesy, not validation of truth.
"It follows that there will be certain principles (ethical and consequently political) that are universal. A political system that does not protect these principles will create conflicts and contradictions in any culture."
There is nothing universal about them. Only conflicts that occur are conflicts waged by those universalists against those who disagree with their imperialism. Its like xians offering hobson's choices - bible or war, any rejection of bible is acted upon as rejection of peace, and therefore a call for war.
"He implicitly believes that constitutional liberalism is that system. He makes very few explicit moral judgements in his books, which is something I fault him for."
Since he believes that constitutional liberalism is the universal system, he has made the moral judgement. Period. There is implicit condemnation of all other systems that are not constitutional liberalism.
"Where do moral or political principles in a particular culture come from? Can they be derived rationally or must they be accepted on faith?"
Cultures and morality and politics can never be universal. They are essentially local. They evolve at grass root levels and adept to local needs and local circumstances. Its only when you try to universalize something that is inherently not universal that leap of faith enters the picture, and accompanying fanaticism.
K. M.
URL
October 5, 2008
06:28 AM
kerty,
"what you may define to be the nature of man can be every bit theological and ideological, and it can be made highly self-fulfilling"
The point is not how I define the nature of man but whether there is a specific nature.
Consider the following statements:
Man is a conscious living being with the power to think and act.
Man must sustain his life by productive work and he needs to understand the world around him to do so.
Are you saying that these statements are not universal or are you saying that they are irrelevant to morality and politics? Note that by universal, I don't mean that everyone agrees with them, just that they are true.
If you think these statements are not universal, then there can be no further debate.
K. M.
URL
October 5, 2008
06:39 AM
kerty,
Just as a matter of curiosity on my part, since you believe that democracy or constitutional liberalism are Western notions at odds with Indian culture, could you elaborate on what you consider to be the appropriate political system for India?
kerty
October 5, 2008
01:28 PM
KM
"Man is a conscious living being with the power to think and act. Man must sustain his life by productive work and he needs to understand the world around him to do so. Are you saying that these statements are not universal or are you saying that they are irrelevant to morality and politics? "
Just look around you and tell me if 'nature' you ascribe to man is found in every person you see. Be honest. When you speak about nature of man, or dimensions of man, you will find that man can be multi-faceted, multi-dimensional, and you risk creating reductionist and nagationist caricature of man when you pick any one facet of man and try to generalize or universalize it. You will have to stoop down to lowest common denominators in search of commonalities that could be universal, or scale to civilizational rhetorics that are unreal - we know how universal those theological and ideological claims have been as people thru out history have been all too willing to kill for their disagreements on these matters.
As I said earlier, morality and politics can not be universal. That is like one size fits all mono theism. Even if there is absolute truth out there, people are never going to see eye to eye and agree on it. All morality and politics are local, always has been - that is why man has historically sought to form communities and nations around them. Each community, each nation has to evolve as they see fit, chart their own course as they see fit - that is the true definition of independence, liberty, freedom.
K. M.
URL
October 5, 2008
03:45 PM
I certainly see the two statements I mentioned as applicable to every man (I also see them as extremely important for morality and politics). You have not answered whether you consider these as universal. Without an answer, this debate cannot proceed.
You have also not answered my question about the appropriate political system in the Indian context.
"Each community, each nation has to evolve as they see fit, chart their own course as they see fit - that is the true definition of independence, liberty, freedom."
This is too broad to be useful as a definition for a political system. To define a political system, you will have to address issues like: What should individuals and groups do when they disagree? Who forms laws? By what principles? Who implements laws? etc... Surely asking for some specifics in a particular cultural context is not too much?
kerty
October 5, 2008
04:18 PM
KM
"Just as a matter of curiosity on my part, since you believe that democracy or constitutional liberalism are Western notions at odds with Indian culture, could you elaborate on what you consider to be the appropriate political system for India?"
I do not have answers to your question and it is not for me to prescribe what is an appropriate system. I can only critique what is presented to us as a system.
Democracy is a power-transfer mechanism - power is transfered to state and state redistributes it to empower certain things - constitution is a charter to guide that process - rival factions vie to re-engineer the nation by dis-empowering certain things and empowering certain things.
It is socialist by nature as it is primarily interested in redistribution of power. Thus, it inherits all the known weaknesses and limitations of socialism - that it dis-empowers everything in the end, reduces everything to lowest denominators instead of elevating anything to highest denominators. State and statist ideologies are the only thing that grow.
Here are few known issues - I am in a hurry, so I can not articulate them all or articulate them thoroughly, may be later on.
(1) It politicizes. It devices winner-takes-all numbers game and instantly dis-enfranchises the rest. So it raises stakes for everybody and forces everything in nation to be politicized.
2) It puts premium on numbers game. It creates rat race to produce numbers. Quantity over quality.
3) Your vote does not count - an uninformed and idiotic opinion/vote can nullify an informed and wise opinion/vote. Unless your vote falls on the side of a winner, it has not value. Even if your candidate wins, his will be only one vote among many others and unless his vote is part of a majority vote on vital issue, his vote too will mean nothing. Thus, at every level of political process, system of dis-enfranchisement and marginalization exists, as if elections are meant only to rob power and centralize it
4)It mainstreams fringe. The fringe acquires more power than the mainstream - because those fringe can provide the much needed margin of victory. Thus small and fringe factions acquire power to make or break. Rival factions are reduced to wooing and mainstreaming every fringe thing.
5)It is divisive. It is wedded to majority rule, thus creating minority vs majority divisive rivalry. It robs power from people and than pretends to empower whoever would do its bidding. It breeds vote bank politics, minoritism, victimization. It atomizes the nation into a collection of warring minorities and creates winners and losers out of them - those who do its bidding are thrown small crumbs of power, rest demonized as victimizers and exploitators.
6) It disempowers all in the end - Like communists who demonize and disempower people who create wealth or have wealth, and finally everybody is reduced to be wealth-less pauper. Similarly, it treats anything that is source of power or has power as a threat and rival, as it disempowers and chases them away by pitting them against have-nots until nothing else is left with any power. Be it, civilization vs multi-nationalism, nation vs state, nationalism vs constitutionalism, upper-caste vs lower caste, rich vs poor, family vs individual, man vs woman, hetero vs gay, rural vs urban, majority vs minority - they are all divide and destroy mechanisms - for a time being, underdog side may feel that it is being empowered, but in the end, it is all about making both sides powerless, dependent, subservient.
6) Is is infallible and not subject to change - its like a revealed religion. You can not question it, you just have to accept it. Nothing but divine reverence and obedience would do. Because few self-proclaimed enlightened persons in ancient period decided what constitution should look like for all time to come - they were the chosen ones to decide for rest of humanity. They did not have to convert people - they just had to deliberate in a cave and reveal. If you do not accept it, you have to be put to death. To impose it, they didn't need to convince humanity but only few deciples, But If you need to change any part of it now, than you who will have to convince and convert entire humanity before such change can be acceptable. So you have no say, your beliefs and dissent do not count. In order for you to reject any part of it, you are required to convince and convert entire humanity and only of they agree, you can disagree with it and change it. What do you call that? I do not think there is any label for it yet.
7) It is about unipolar Empire-building. As nations and its people are disempowered, and as power from them is centralized and transfered in constitutional liberalism and state - they too become mere cogs and get subjected to same power-transfer mechanisms and centralization to higher levels - super-power nation-state. As you know, constitutional liberalism is a global movement with its own center of power, anchored in some super-state. The definitions, labels, lexicons, interpretations - they have to originate from such super-state. You will need lobbyists to make your case, you will need to convince the power centers of super state, you will need to appease people and media barons of such super-state to influence the super-state. Rule of law means laws of the super-state.
Freedom and constitutionalism are not new to India. You can not produce so much diversity in every sphere without having a culture of freedom and autonomy. For centuries, the Vedas acted as sort of high-level and broad constitution guiding Indian civilization - nobody knows who wrote vedas, people interpreted it in their own ways, many people were able to even reject the authority of vedas and follow their own substitute. India comes with such a legacy. Indians are not conditioned to follow one set of books, one set of interpretations, one set of laws or customs, one set of authority centers. India needs something more liberal than constitutional liberalism. And constitutional liberalism is anything but liberal.
This is a lengthy and complex subject, so it is hard to be concise or do justice thru fly-by comments. There is more to it. But I got to run.
kerty
October 5, 2008
07:57 PM
#12
End part of point (6) should read as under:
In order for you to reject any part of it, you are required to convince and convert entire humanity and only if you get entire humanity to agree with you that it can be amended. That you do not even have a right to reject or dissent unless whole world agrees with you. What do you call that? I do not think there is any label for it.
commonsense
October 5, 2008
11:17 PM
in my non-humble opinion kerty has to specify even a a hint of an alterative or alteratives. otherswise, it is simply, the usual hyperbole.
universal human nature is precisel the fact that unlike other species, we produce and reproduce our own conditions of existence: material, ideological, cultural, religious etc. And we as humans strive to have some measure of control over our lives. In what way is this a local and not a universal trait of humanity? How exactly is this semitic, anti-semitic or bullfrogish?
commonsense
October 5, 2008
11:22 PM
what kerty (desh plus others) are struggling to claim is this: (to use a long quote from somebody called Amardeep Singh's blog that gets it right)
""Hindutva ideologues stake their claims to make "Hindu India" into a "guru of nations" on the notion that only Hinduism is compatible with modern science, while all the "Semitic" faiths have been proven to be false by modern science. Hindutva's self-serving and entirely fallacious equation of Hinduism with modern science -- Hindutva's central dogma -- can be summarised as follows:
Hindu dharma is rooted in the eternal, holistic or non-mechanistic laws of nature discovered "in a flash" of insight by the "Vedic Aryans." These laws have been affirmed by modern science and therefore, Hinduism is uniquely scientific. Because the Hindus live in accord with a scientifically proven order of nature which unifies matter with higher levels of spirit, they are more rational and ecological as compared to those of Abrahamic faiths who derive their moral laws from an imaginary supernatural being, and who treat nature as mere matter, devoid of spiritual meaning. Because Hinduism is so scientific, there is no need for an Enlightenment style confrontation between faith and reason in India. To become truly and deeply scientific, Indians -- indeed, the entire world -- must embrace the teachings of the Vedas and Vedanta.""
commonsense
October 5, 2008
11:27 PM
Compare the quote above from Amardeep Singh's blog to Kerty's own:
""For centuries, the Vedas acted as sort of high-level and broad constitution guiding Indian civilization - nobody knows who wrote vedas, people interpreted it in their own ways, many people were able to even reject the authority of vedas and follow their own substitute. India comes with such a legacy. Indians are not conditioned to follow one set of books, one set of interpretations, one set of laws or customs, one set of authority centers. India needs something more liberal than constitutional liberalism. And constitutional liberalism is anything but liberal."
K. M.
URL
October 6, 2008
03:50 PM
kerty,
First, you still haven't answered my question. Do you agree that the two statements I made regarding man's nature are universal?
Second, your critique of democracy is pretty much on target except for the fact that you mix up constitutional liberalism with it. A proper constitution (the US constitution is a fairly good example) places limits on the powers of government and protects the rights of individuals (essentially the right to life and property) irrespective of the wishes of any majority. Its goal is a rule of law and not of men. Of course someone needs to make the laws in the first place. That is where moral and political principles derived from the nature of man come in. Constitutional liberalism guarantees freedom of action to every individual as long as his actions do not initiate force on others. Calling it illiberal is a contradiction in terms.
Finally, if you are neither willing to answer my first question, nor willing to even outline an appropriate political system, nothing constructive can come out of this debate. Therefore, I rest my case until you give an actual answer atleast to the first question.
kerty
October 6, 2008
06:04 PM
KM
I think I answered the questions about nature of man. The only thing I chose not to answer is what is an appropriate political system and what is universal - because I do not think there is one or there can be one. This thread is about democracy and constitutional liberalism, and not about alternative systems. I know any criticism of democracy usually gets a standard retort - what is the alternative and what else is better. It fits into its air of infallibility and inevitability. If something is defective, you try to localize it, and not try to make it universal - can we have such humility? Let respective communities and nations come up with what is best for them. It is not for you and me to tell them what is 'perfect' for them.
"Second, your critique of democracy is pretty much on target except for the fact that you mix up constitutional liberalism with it.
I do not think those who champion them see them as apart. In your perfect system, they both are wedded together, inseparable. One is an extension of the other. Neither of them can live without the other. They are inseparable in its super nation-state ie America - Please don't confuse system of checks and balances as their disconnectedness.
"Constitutional liberalism guarantees freedom of action to every individual as long as his actions do not initiate force on others."
Than why is right to bear arms and form militia so important and defended so vigorously? If state is the only thing that is allowed monopoly on use of force, than why need for this kind of check and balance against state? Clearly state and constitutional liberalism can not be trusted with monopoly on use of force, therefore need by citizens to retain ability to form their own armed militia should the need arise. Those who framed the US constitution did not want to cede all the powers or use of force to state or constitution.
K. M.
URL
October 7, 2008
11:53 AM
kerty,
"I do not think those who champion them see them as apart."
That is true. But the point of Zakaria's book is precisely to emphasize that they are indeed different and that unrestricted democracy is bad for liberty.
"Those who framed the US constitution did not want to cede all the powers or use of force to state or constitution"
Those who framed the US constitution certainly did not want to cede all powers to the state. They wanted to limit the powers of the state by means of the constitution. They did not want a democracy either. They wanted a republic. The difference was clear in their minds and in the Lockean political philosophy of their times. The difference is no longer clear to most people today and the protections guaranteed by the constitution are constantly being eroded as a result.
Add your comment