different from the dictator they had overthrown 3
classified as such 6 . The reason that the spread of illiberal democracy is so problematic is that democracy is usually justified not as an end in itself, but as a way of making people freer and happier. When democratic elections lead to illiberalism, without any protection of rights or limits on the power of government, it is hard to see how it can be said to improve lives. For democracies can also be susceptible to what John Stuart Mill called Âthe tyranny of the majorityÊ in his 1859 classic On Liberty 7 . Demagogues can use elections to appeal to the worst instincts of voters, with the result often being to stir up ethnic tensions and nationalist tendencies. Particularly when one ethnic group is in a minority, the results of majority rule can make that group actively worse off. Though Bashar al-Assad is unquestionably a brutal tyrant, his regime protects minority groups in Syria such as Alawites and Christians. Should the revolution in his country be successful, it is unlikely that the new government that takes his place will not be as sympathetic. A consensus seems to have arisen that in order to achieve liberalism, countries must first democratize. But there are those who feel that it would be a much more productive strategy to encourage the spread of liberalism first, and then hope that democracy would follow. For example, Britain was still an absolute monarchy when it signed its Bill of Rights in 1689 and its parliament began life as a largely appointed body. Only gradually did it begin to hold elections and extend suffrage to all members of society, eventually becoming the liberal democracy that we know today. Zakaria cites the Âliberal autocraciesÊ of East Asia, such as 6 In ÂLiberal and Illiberal Democracy in Latin AmericaÊ, a study by the Center for Latin American Studies at the University of Miami, it was concluded that regime transitions most often ended in illiberal, not liberal democracy. 7 Mill argued that representative government was not suited to all countries, and even supported colonialism when it came tor ruling ÂbarbarousÊ and ÂbackwardÊ peoples
But Rousseau once wrote that Âthe moment that a people gives itself representatives, it is no longer freeÊ 4 , and the spread of democracy has not always been followed by the spread of liberalism. In fact in some ways democracy and liberalism would actually appear to be conflicting values. As Zakaria points out: ÂConstitutional liberalism is about the limitation of power, democracy is about its accumulation and useÊ. Newly elected governments often tend to see their popular support as a justification for ignoring constitutional limits on their power or even discarding them altogether. RussiaÊs Boris Yeltsin, who was democratically elected, used the military to overpower parliament in 1993 when it challenged his authority. Alberto Fujimori of Peru was guilty of a similar transgression in 1992. In both cases, the fact that the president in question had a democratic mandate only served to strengthen their cause 5 . They remained popular among their people, and the fact that their regimes were democratic in no way made them liberal. Separation of powers between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary lies at the heart of constitutional liberalism. Each branch of government is able to reign in the other; making sure that no single body possesses too much power over the people. It is no surprise then that the democratic states most likely to revert to illiberalism are those who place too much power into the hands of the executive. Latin America, which mainly has presidential systems of government, is the region where illiberal democracy has been the most prevalent: A 2004 study by the University of Miami found that 10 of its 17 democracies could be 3 Though it must be said that the Morsi government was toppled by a military coup and not a democratic election, public opinion was strongly behind the move and had a referendum been held the Muslim Brotherhood would almost certainly have lost. 4 Taken from ÂThe Social ContractÊ 5 Yeltsin used the results of a 1993 referendum on the government to justify his actions
105
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker