|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 9:18 am Post subject: Illiberal Democracies and Liberal Autocracies |
 |
|
The Rise of Illiberal Democracy
Fareed Zakaria
From Foreign Affairs, November/ December 1997
Yes, I know this article is a bit dated. You will find that Boris Yeltzin is president of Russia according to the article. However, it is no less relevant. Many people think we are in Iraq fighting for democracy which some think is analogous to liberty; it's not. It's important to understand the difference between democracy and liberty.
Iran is probably one of the most democratic countries in the region, but Iran is certainly not a liberal(means free, not left) society. The UAE, by contrast, is an autocratic regime ruled by Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahayan. However, its people are largely free. The people of the UAE have a right to free trade, freely assemble, freely worship and the media are free too. Al Jazerra is based in Abu Dubai. It should be noted that the courts in the UAE are largely independent.
An illiberal autocracy would be Saudi Arabia. While there have been rumors of small local elections around the country, it is by no means a functioning democracy. Their rulers and religious leaders impose a belief system known as Wahabism on all the people of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Araba is neither free nor democratic; therefore it is an illiberal autocracy.
The best example of a liberal democracy in the region is, much to the chagrin to many of the posters on this board, Israel. Israelis enjoys the full range of rights whether they're Arab or Jew. One could argue conscription as why Israelis are not fully free but that would lead you to Israel's unfortunate story. The country is surrounded by countries and militias that want to see Israel's end.
| Quote: |
It has been difficult to recognize this problem because for almost a century in the West, democracy has meant liberal democracy -- a political system marked not only by free and fair elections, but also by the rule of law, a separation of powers, and the protection of basic liberties of speech, assembly, religion, and property. In fact, this latter bundle of freedoms -- what might be termed constitutional liberalism -- is theoretically different and historically distinct from democracy. As the political scientist Philippe Schmitter has pointed out, "Liberalism, either as a conception of political liberty, or as a doctrine about economic policy, may have coincided with the rise of democracy. But it has never been immutably or unambiguously linked to its practice." Today the two strands of liberal democracy, interwoven in the Western political fabric, are coming apart in the rest of the world. Democracy is flourishing; constitutional liberalism is not.
|
This is what the problem is. Democracy is one thing, constitutional liberalism is another.
| Quote: |
| Constitutional liberalism, on the other hand, is not about the procedures for selecting government, but rather government's goals. It refers to the tradition, deep in Western history, that seeks to protect an individual's autonomy and dignity against coercion, whatever the source -- state, church, or society. The term marries two closely connected ideas. It is liberal because it draws on the philosophical strain, beginning with the Greeks, that emphasizes individual liberty.< It is constitutional because it rests on the tradition, beginning with the Romans, of the rule of law. Constitutional liberalism developed in Western Europe and the United States as a defense of the individual's right to life and property, and freedom of religion and speech. |
Are people free? Does it matter whether you live in a democracy or not to be free?
| Quote: |
| The tension between constitutional liberalism and democracy centers on the scope of governmental authority. Constitutional liberalism is about the limitation of power, democracy about its accumulation and use. For this reason, many eighteenth- and nineteenth-century liberals saw in democracy a force that could undermine liberty. James Madison explained in The Federalist that "the danger of oppression" in a democracy came from "the majority of the community." Tocqueville warned of the "tyranny of the majority," writing, "The very essence of democratic government consists in the absolute sovereignty of the majority." |
This is what is happening in many places today in Africa and Latin America. The majority rules without respect for minority opinions. Also, in America's past, the Jim Crow laws were products of majority rule without respect to minority rights. Individual states abused their power of majority rule essentially.
This is lengthy article with much to comment on. I'm getting tired so I might finish later. I just posted this because some confuse democracy and liberty as being the same; they're not.
Last edited by Pluto on Wed Nov 21, 2007 6:49 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Funkdafied
Joined: 04 Nov 2007
Location: In Da House
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 9:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry I can't go too deep into this, but when I hear the phrase "tyranny of the majority" I immediately think of another phrase "ideological propaganda".
Tyranny by the majority still seems like the best compromise to me at this time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Funkdafied wrote: |
Sorry I can't go too deep into this, but when I hear the phrase "tyranny of the majority" I immediately think of another phrase "ideological propaganda".
Tyranny by the majority still seems like the best compromise to me at this time. |
That is the reason for a fair and impartial court. One of their jobs, or functions rather, is to protect the minority from the "tyranny of the majority." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 11:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| when I hear the phrase "tyranny of the majority" I immediately think of another phrase "ideological propaganda". |
What tyranny of the majority brings to my mind is the Bill of Rights and its function to protect the minority from the majority. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 1:29 pm Post subject: Re: Illiberal Democracies and Liberal Autocracies |
|
|
| Pluto wrote: |
| some confuse democracy and liberty as being the same; they're not. |
A common confusion. Especially here at Dave's. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 5:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| when I hear the phrase "tyranny of the majority" I immediately think of another phrase "ideological propaganda". |
What tyranny of the majority brings to my mind is the Bill of Rights and its function to protect the minority from the majority. |
Indeed the Bill of Rights' job is to protect the minority but it's left to the courts to interpret the Bill of Rights.
One motif that Mr. Zakaria hits on is that all liberal societies have got fair, impartial and independent courts. It's stance I generally agree with. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
