Democracy and Liberalism
Will Cook
Democracy is almost universally considered to be the freest and fairest form of government, and the one that all countries should strive towards. But when people talk of ÂdemocracyÊ they are usually referring to Âliberal democracyÊ, and to do this is to conflate two distinct concepts: on the one hand constitutional liberalism and on the other electoral democracy. Democracy literally means Ârule by the peopleÊ, and a democratic country is one that holds free and fair elections. Liberalism is a much more nebulous concept, and one that encapsulates countries enshrining rights for their citizens and ensuring limits on the power of government. Much of what we see as desirable in liberal democracy comes from its liberal, rather than its democratic elements. 25 years ago this generalization was not so problematic, as the vast majority of countries that were democratic also embraced constitutional liberalism, leading many to believe that the two ideas naturally went hand in hand. But since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 this hypothesis has been challenged: many countries have become democracies yet also remained illiberal, prompting what Fareed Zakaria calls Âthe rise of illiberal democracyÊ 1 . This raises the fundamental question of whether liberalism and democracy are intrinsically linked or if in fact their coexistence is much more difficult to ensure. The Arab Spring has left many nascent democracies in its wake as countries have thrown off the shackles of autocracy, and has also made the questions in this essay even more pertinent. Does democracy truly make people free? And should we always welcome its spread around the world?
Though the two are unquestionably distinct concepts, there are clear and demonstrable links between liberalism and democracy. In order for a country to be considered truly democratic, it must hold elections that are both free and fair, and fulfilling this obligation requires that certain liberties, such as free speech, a free press and free association be upheld. Therefore by definition, a democratic country must also be liberal to some extent. As Marc Plattner puts it: Âeven minimalist definitions of democracy ⁄ usually include stipulations that liberties must be maintained at least to the extent necessary to make possible open electoral competitionÊ 2 . True democracy also brings with it accountability. That is to say that those in power answer directly to the people, and in theory if the people donÊt like what is being done then they can change it. Though modern democracies are a far cry from the direct system of Ancient Greece, where citizens voted on every single issue, a representative system does at least allow the populace to have an indirect say on how the government is run by choosing the people who are in power. To this end it seems implausible that a democratically elected government could systematically deny liberties for any sustained period of time, for it would soon be voted out. Particularly once they have tasted freedom, the people are loath to have it taken away. It is arguable that the Morsi government in Egypt fell because of its unwillingness to embrace liberal values in its new constitution, as the newly enfranchised people suspected that their recently elected president was not too 2 In his 1998 essay ‘Liberalism and Democracy: Can’t Have One Without the Other’, Plattner argues that the two strands of governance are intrinsically linked
1 ‘The Rise of Illiberal Democracy’, a 1997 essay in Vol. 76 of Foreign Affairs
104
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker