|Massimo's other ramblings can be found at his Skeptic Web.
This column can be posted for free on any appropriate web
site and reprinted in hard copy by permission. If you are
interested in receiving the html code or the text, please send an email.
N. 49, May 2004
Liberal vs. illiberal democracy
Plato famously did not like democracy. He saw the death of his mentor,
Socrates, decided by an ignorant and fearful mob of Athenians, as the
logical consequence of giving power to the masses. While Plato’s
solution to the problem, his utopia of a state guided by philosophers
(surprise, surprise) depicted in the Republic obviously wouldn’t cut it
neither in theory nor in practice, he had a point.
Churchill once quipped that democracy is the worst form of government,
except for all the others, which reflects the attitude of most in the
modern Western world. And yet, Churchill, unlike Plato, failed to
define what kind of democracy he was referring to. Roughly speaking,
there are two fundamentally distinct kinds of democratic government:
the simple rule of majority, despised by Plato but simplistically
endorsed by many in the United States; and a constitutional democracy,
in which the decisions of the majority of the moment are constrained by
a set of rules aimed chiefly at protecting the rights of minorities,
including freedom of speech and action.
Author Fareed Zakaria, in his lucidly written The Future of Freedom,
labels the two kinds respectively “illiberal” and “liberal” democracy.
By “liberal” Zakaria doesn’t mean left-leaning (as he is quick to point
out), but rather constructed so to insure an open society, encouraging
a healthy liberal exchange of ideas among its citizens, and tolerant of
a wide (though obviously not boundless) spectrum of beliefs and
This distinction is crucial, and yet it is rarely drawn by our
politicians, who use the word “democracy” as synonymous with
unquestionable good, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary.
Indeed, Zakaria convincingly argues that -- under certain temporary
circumstances -- a reformist autocracy may be preferable to an
illiberal democracy. He points out that the most successful instances
of transition to democracy in the world throughout the 20th century
have developed gradually, beginning with relatively enlightened
autocratic leaders who saw the eventual inevitability of change. Soviet
Russia comes to mind, and China may represent the next big example.
On the other hand, democracy has notoriously failed in many instances
in South America, and especially in Africa. That, claims Zakaria, has
been because the transition was sudden, with little if any
constitutional protections. The results have been disastrous, leading
to massacres of dissenting ethnic or political minorities, and often to
the raise of a brutal dictator favored by an urgent need of
Zakaria’s book was written before the US-led invasion of Iraq, but his
points apply remarkably well to the current situation in that country.
Of course, nobody would ever think of Saddam Hussein as an
“enlightened” dictator, but it is also obvious that the Iraqi's concept
of democracy -- if indeed they do have one -- is of the illiberal type.
The Shiite clerics who are pushing the country to the brink of civil
war want immediate elections, even though clearly the minimum necessary
conditions are not in place. Why? Because they know they would easily
win a majority of the votes, which would pave the way to the
establishment of a democratically elected theocracy in that country.
Not exactly what the so-called coalition of the willing had in mind
when they embarked in one of the most ambitious operations of nation
building ever attempted (and led by a US president who campaigned
against the very idea of nation building). Then again, dictators have
come to power by (illiberal) democratic means before, just think of
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of Zakaria’s argument is that the US
itself may be moving toward an increasingly less liberal form of
democracy. Many of the guarantees put in place by the Founding Fathers
and embedded in the American Constitution are being eroded, or are
increasingly under attack by a politically and religiously conservative
(slight) majority. For instance, the US Constitution guarantees a
separation of church and state, and yet Americans are increasingly
undisturbed by the encroaching of government upon religion (just think
of the popularity of “faith-based” initiatives, school vouchers, etc.),
and stubbornly hold to clear symbols of breach of the wall of
separation (such as the phrase “under God” in the pledge of allegiance,
or “in God we trust” on the paper currency).
All of this is done in the name of democracy, adopting the narrow
meaning of the term according to which if the majority (even as slight
as 51%) wants something, it should be done. This is precisely what led
Plato to reject the democratic model to begin with, and what
differentiates successful democracies from abysmal failures. I doubt we
will see another Socrates being put to death anywhere in the Western
world, but it is significant that intellectuals, or simply independent
thinking lay people, are under increasingly vicious attack in the US
for simply having the guts to voice their dissent regarding the Bush
administration’s foreign or domestic policy. We have gotten to the
point that being religious, right-wing, pro-war and patriotic are all
seen as synonymous, simply because a narrow (and narrow-minded)
majority of Americans currently sees it that way.
It is also astounding to see that the right to marry (i.e., to be
legally recognized as a couple) is being denied to gays and lesbians by
people including those (e.g., some blacks) who until very recently had
been discriminated against in their turn by a bigoted majority. The
obvious problem with illiberal democracies is that majorities can
change, sometimes dramatically and over a short period of time. That is
why it is in the long-term interest of every member of a society to
defend the rights of the minorities. Next time around, you may be the
one to need such protection.