Home | Community | Message Board

Original Seeds Store
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Original Sensible Seeds High THC Strains   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1
OfflineFrenchSocialist
DarwinianLeftist


Registered: 08/02/06
Posts: 883
Last seen: 16 years, 10 months
The Rise of Illiberal Democracy
    #6847251 - 04/28/07 10:33 PM (17 years, 24 days ago)

Quote:

Summary: Around the world, democratically elected regimes are routinely ignoring limits on their power and depriving citizens of basic freedoms. From Peru to the Philippines, we see the rise of a disturbing phenomenon: illiberal democracy. It has been difficult to recognize because for the last century in the West, democracy -- free and fair elections -- has gone hand in hand with constitutional liberalism -- the rule of law and basic human rights. But in the rest of the world, these two concepts are coming apart. Democracy without constitutional liberalism is producing centralized regimes, the erosion of liberty, ethnic competition, conflict, and war. The international community and the United States must end their obsession with balloting and promote the gradual liberalization of societies.


THE NEXT WAVE

The American diplomat Richard Holbrooke pondered a problem on the eve of the September 1996 elections in Bosnia, which were meant to restore civic life to that ravaged country. "Suppose the election was declared free and fair," he said, and those elected are "racists, fascists, separatists, who are publicly opposed to [peace and reintegration]. That is the dilemma." Indeed it is, not just in the former Yugoslavia, but increasingly around the world. Democratically elected regimes, often ones that have been reelected or reaffirmed through referenda, are routinely ignoring constitutional limits on their power and depriving their citizens of basic rights and freedoms. From Peru to the Palestinian Authority, from Sierra Leone to Slovakia, from Pakistan to the Philippines, we see the rise of a disturbing phenomenon in international life -- illiberal democracy.

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.

Today, 118 of the world's 193 countries are democratic, encompassing a majority of its people (54.8 percent, to be exact), a vast increase from even a decade ago. In this season of victory, one might have expected Western statesmen and intellectuals to go one further than E. M. Forster and give a rousing three cheers for democracy. Instead there is a growing unease at the rapid spread of multiparty elections across south-central Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America, perhaps because of what happens after the elections. Popular leaders like Russia's Boris Yeltsin and Argentina's Carlos Menem bypass their parliaments and rule by presidential decree, eroding basic constitutional practices. The Iranian parliament -- elected more freely than most in the Middle East -- imposes harsh restrictions on speech, assembly, and even dress, diminishing that country's already meager supply of liberty. Ethiopia's elected government turns its security forces on journalists and political opponents, doing permanent damage to human rights (as well as human beings).

...

And the examples are not isolated or atypical. Freedom House's 1996-97 survey, Freedom in the World, has separate rankings for political liberties and civil liberties, which correspond roughly with democracy and constitutional liberalism, respectively. Of the countries that lie between confirmed dictatorship and consolidated democracy, 50 percent do better on political liberties than on civil ones. In other words, half of the "democratizing" countries in the world today are illiberal democracies.

Illiberal democracy is a growth industry. Seven years ago only 22 percent of democratizing countries could have been so categorized; five years ago that figure had risen to 35 percent. And to date few illiberal democracies have matured into liberal democracies; if anything, they are moving toward heightened illiberalism. Far from being a temporary or transitional stage, it appears that many countries are settling into a form of government that mixes a substantial degree of democracy with a substantial degree of illiberalism. Just as nations across the world have become comfortable with many variations of capitalism, they could well adopt and sustain varied forms of democracy. Western liberal democracy might prove to be not the final destination on the democratic road, but just one of many possible exits.

...

Elections, open, free and fair, are the essence of democracy, the inescapable sine qua non. Governments produced by elections may be inefficient, corrupt, shortsighted,

irresponsible, dominated by special interests,
and incapable of adopting policies demanded by the public good. These qualities make such governments undesirable but they do not make them undemocratic. Democracy is one public virtue, not the only one, and the relation of democracy to other public virtues and vices can only be understood if democracy is clearly distinguished from the other characteristics of political systems.

This definition also accords with the commonsense view of the term. If a country holds competitive, multiparty elections, we call it democratic. When public participation in politics is increased, for example through the enfranchisement of women, it is seen as more democratic. Of course elections must be open and fair, and this requires some protections for freedom of speech and assembly. But to go beyond this minimalist definition and label a country democratic only if it guarantees a comprehensive catalog of social, political, economic, and religious rights turns the word democracy into a badge of honor rather than a descriptive category. After all, Sweden has an economic system that many argue curtails individual property rights, France until recently had a state monopoly on television, and England has an established religion. But they are all clearly and identifiably democracies. To have democracy mean, subjectively, "a good government" renders it analytically useless.

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. To secure these rights, it emphasized checks on the power of each branch of government, equality under the law, impartial courts and tribunals, and separation of church and state. Its canonical figures include the poet John Milton, the jurist William Blackstone, statesmen such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, and philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Adam Smith, Baron de Montesquieu, John Stuart Mill, and Isaiah Berlin. In almost all of its variants, constitutional liberalism argues that human beings have certain natural (or "inalienable") rights and that governments must accept a basic law, limiting its own powers, that secures them. Thus in 1215 at Runnymede, England's barons forced the king to abide by the settled and customary law of the land. In the American colonies these laws were made explicit, and in 1638 the town of Hartford adopted the first written constitution in modern history. In the 1970s, Western nations codified standards of behavior for regimes across the globe. The Magna Carta, the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, the American Constitution, and the Helsinki Final Act are all expressions of constitutional liberalism.


....

The recent history of East Asia follows the Western itinerary. After brief flirtations with democracy after World War II, most East Asian regimes turned authoritarian. Over time they moved from autocracy to liberalizing autocracy, and, in some cases, toward liberalizing semi-democracy. Most of the regimes in East Asia remain only semi-democratic, with patriarchs or one-party systems that make their elections ratifications of power rather than genuine contests. But these regimes have accorded their citizens a widening sphere of economic, civil, religious, and limited political rights. As in the West, liberalization in East Asia has included economic liberalization, which is crucial in promoting both growth and liberal democracy. Historically, the factors most closely associated with full-fledged liberal democracies are capitalism, a bourgeoisie, and a high per capita GNP. Today's East Asian governments are a mix of democracy, liberalism, capitalism, oligarchy, and corruption -- much like Western governments circa 1900.

....

While liberal autocracies may have existed in the past, can one imagine them today? Until recently, a small but powerful example flourished off the Asian mainland -- Hong Kong. For 156 years, until July 1, 1997, Hong Kong was ruled by the British Crown through an appointed governor general. Until 1991 it had never held a meaningful election, but its government epitomized constitutional liberalism, protecting its citizens' basic rights and administering a fair court system and bureaucracy. A September 8, 1997, editorial on the island's future in The Washington Post was titled ominously, "Undoing Hong Kong's Democracy." Actually, Hong Kong has precious little democracy to undo; what it has is a framework of rights and laws. Small islands may not hold much practical significance in today's world, but they do help one weigh the relative value of democracy and constitutional liberalism. Consider, for example, the question of where you would rather live, Haiti, an illiberal democracy, or Antigua, a liberal semi-democracy. Your choice would probably relate not to the weather, which is pleasant in both, but to the political climate, which is not.






Quote:

Over the past decade, one of the most spirited debates among scholars of international relations concerns the "democratic peace" -- the assertion that no two modern democracies have gone to war with each other. The debate raises interesting substantive questions (does the American Civil War count? do nuclear weapons better explain the peace?) and even the statistical findings have raised interesting dissents. (As the scholar David Spiro points out, given the small number of both democracies and wars over the last two hundred years, sheer chance might explain the absence of war between democracies. No member of his family has ever won the lottery, yet few offer explanations for this impressive correlation.) But even if the statistics are correct, what explains them? Kant, the original proponent of the democratic peace, contended that in democracies, those who pay for wars -- that is, the public -- make the decisions, so they are understandably cautious. But that claim suggests that democracies are more pacific than other states. Actually they are more warlike, going to war more often and with greater intensity than most states. It is only with other democracies that the peace holds.

When divining the cause behind this correlation, one thing becomes clear: the democratic peace is actually the liberal peace.

....

The distinction between liberal and illiberal democracies sheds light on another striking statistical correlation. Political scientists Jack Snyder and Edward Mansfield contend, using an impressive data set, that over the last 200 years democratizing states went to war significantly more often than either stable autocracies or liberal democracies.




Quote:

The American system is based on an avowedly pessimistic conception of human nature, assuming that people cannot be trusted with power. "If men were angels," Madison famously wrote, "no government would be necessary." The other model for democratic governance in Western history is based on the French Revolution. The French model places its faith in the goodness of human beings. Once the people are the source of power, it should be unlimited so that they can create a just society. (The French revolution, as Lord Acton observed, is not about the limitation of sovereign power but the abrogation of all intermediate powers that get in its way.) Most non-Western countries have embraced the French model -- not least because political elites like the prospect of empowering the state, since that means empowering themselves -- and most have descended into bouts of chaos, tyranny, or both. This should have come as no surprise. After all, since its revolution France itself has run through two monarchies, two empires, one proto-fascist dictatorship, and five republics.




The rest is at: tiny url

Is liberalism more important then democracy?


--------------------


"Both liberty and equality are among the primary goals pursued by human beings through many centuries; but total liberty for wolves is death to the lambs" -- Isaiah Berlin

Edited by FrenchSocialist (04/28/07 10:58 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: The Rise of Illiberal Democracy [Re: FrenchSocialist]
    #6847725 - 04/29/07 12:41 AM (17 years, 24 days ago)

Quote:

Is liberalism more important then democracy?




Yep.




Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinehow.psilly.of.me
Stranger
Registered: 01/31/22
Posts: 11
Loc: Ann Arbor, MI
Last seen: 1 year, 8 months
Re: The Rise of Illiberal Democracy [Re: Phred]
    #27722886 - 04/06/22 06:32 AM (2 years, 1 month ago)

Trying to get ten posts. Figured I'd do it in the non shroom related threads. Apologies.


--------------------
Well he said, "Your minds infected," but I said, "You lack perspective." -Ben Caplin

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineiggyhiggy
Stranger
Registered: 03/30/21
Posts: 333
Last seen: 2 months, 9 days
Re: The Rise of Illiberal Democracy [Re: how.psilly.of.me]
    #27725242 - 04/08/22 04:56 AM (2 years, 1 month ago)

The point is very interesting. I'm sorry I had not time to read all the article, but i've been thinking about similar questions for long.

The first thing, though, is to understand what democracy and liberalism means.
Both the terms have been, rather than misused, interpetaded in different ways in different places and times, generating paradoxical outcomes.

As an example, USA are paradigmatic of what a liberal democracy should be from a western EU definition; but it seems that in USA the word 'liberal' took a 'left' nuance that in EU has not.
As another example, many countries 'imported democracy' (a model of democracy) wich has been identified with the mere exercise of presidential election to determine who is in charge. But lack of mutual control between authorities meke the people's choice ineffective.

It's very complicated, and i'd like to discuss this further.
My first taken would be that there is not double side implication between liberalism and democracy, despite what most of Western World think

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinechristopera
Stranger
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/13/17
Posts: 14,471
Last seen: 24 minutes, 16 seconds
Re: The Rise of Illiberal Democracy [Re: iggyhiggy] * 1
    #27725316 - 04/08/22 07:05 AM (2 years, 1 month ago)

The traditional use of "liberal" as a scholar would use it is not well understood here, not by the general populous anyways. You mention the paradigm that is the liberal democracy, and a lot of conservatives (political leaning) would absolutely scoff at the idea that our democracy is "liberal." Mostly because they don't understand the historical context of the term.

My favorite dichotomy involving that is when conservatives like to blast education for having liberal tendencies. I am like yeah, of course it does, that is literally the goal of education. To free or liberate the mind.


--------------------
Enjoy the process of your search without succumbing to the pressure of the result.

A Dorito is pizza, change my mind.

Bank and Union with The Shroomery at the Zuul on The internet - now with %'s and things

I’m sorry it had to be me.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineThe Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 34,046
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 18 minutes, 28 seconds
Re: The Rise of Illiberal Democracy [Re: christopera]
    #27725362 - 04/08/22 07:57 AM (2 years, 1 month ago)

Liberalism without democracy is just feudalism with a couple extra steps


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinechristopera
Stranger
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/13/17
Posts: 14,471
Last seen: 24 minutes, 16 seconds
Re: The Rise of Illiberal Democracy [Re: The Ecstatic] * 1
    #27725373 - 04/08/22 08:10 AM (2 years, 1 month ago)

Ohhh la la, you're going to get laid in the farm fields.


--------------------
Enjoy the process of your search without succumbing to the pressure of the result.

A Dorito is pizza, change my mind.

Bank and Union with The Shroomery at the Zuul on The internet - now with %'s and things

I’m sorry it had to be me.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineiggyhiggy
Stranger
Registered: 03/30/21
Posts: 333
Last seen: 2 months, 9 days
Re: The Rise of Illiberal Democracy [Re: The Ecstatic] * 1
    #27725376 - 04/08/22 08:15 AM (2 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

The Ecstatic said:
Liberalism without democracy is just feudalism with a couple extra steps



In the classical signification of liberism, basically yes.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBrian Jones
Club 27
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/18/12
Posts: 12,455
Loc: attending Snake Church
Last seen: 5 hours, 48 minutes
Re: The Rise of Illiberal Democracy [Re: iggyhiggy]
    #27728511 - 04/10/22 09:13 AM (2 years, 1 month ago)

My understanding is Liberalism is designed to sometimes deny rights in an effort to avoid a more undesirable outcome. If we had a pure majority rules democracy it would sometimes be better, but has the potential for disaster. That is covered in the OP source, and some of it is good, and other parts IDK.

Some are confused by capital L Liberalism which is a few hundred years old, with some elements a few thousand years old, and small l liberalism which is the left bank of the Democratic party. There are earlier examples like FDR, but it mainly became more of a term with that usage since the 60's.


--------------------
"The Rolling Stones will break up over Brian Jones' dead body"    John Lennon

I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either.

The worst thing about corruption is that it works so well,

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1

Shop: Original Sensible Seeds High THC Strains   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Democracy is an illusion and the media is NOT LIBERAL.
( 1 2 3 all )
havatampa 4,837 49 04/06/22 06:34 AM
by how.psilly.of.me
* Liberal vs. Conservative silversoul7 1,525 4 09/19/04 08:34 PM
by RandalFlagg
* The Media: Liberal Bias or Conservative Bias? Baby_Hitler 1,012 10 02/25/03 05:31 AM
by Evolving
* US was warned Democracy in Iraq may be "Impossible"
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Edame 6,625 79 08/19/03 08:29 AM
by GernBlanston
* Kasparov: Putin is destroying democracy in Russia Luddite 705 1 09/23/07 06:28 PM
by Disco Cat
* France the enemy of democracy Los_Pepes 2,380 13 08/17/05 05:35 PM
by Divided_Sky
* Bush: Iraq Part of 'Global Democratic Revolution' SquattingMarmot 627 1 11/06/03 04:51 PM
by Psilocybeingzz
* Bush Hasn't Learned His Democratic Lesson grib 896 7 06/18/04 04:15 PM
by Vvellum

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
1,541 topic views. 1 members, 4 guests and 11 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.028 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 14 queries.