Democracy can be used by undemocratic forces to gain power
Liberal democracy — constitutional liberty
free and fair elections
And
rule of law
separation of powers
basic liberties — of speech, assembly, religion and property
Today,
democracy is flourishing but constitutional liberalism is not
half of all democratizing countries are illiberal
1990s
great advances in democracy
But many new democracies restrict individual rights — like Iran
restrictions on speech
assembly
even dress
More
theocratic politics
eroding traditions of secularism
“if there were elections in Arab countries, the new regimes would be more illiberal than the undemocratic ones today”
Western examples too
Sweden restrict property rights — you can’t start your own hospital
France had a state monopoly on television
alcohol monopolies in lot’s of places
England has an established religion
Liberal constitutionalism — has a particular goal
protect an individual’s autonomy and dignity against coercion, whatever the source — state, church or society
Cf. US constitution:
checks and balances
equality under the law
impartial courts
separation of church and state
Historically, the factors most closely associated with liberal constitutionalism are
capitalism
a bourgeoisie
high per capita GDP
But the causality here is much debated
Constitutional liberalism can lead to democracy
this is the historical trajectory after all
but democracy does not lead to constitutional liberalism
a majority in power will not give rights to a minority
Democratic peace
is not actually democratic peace, but liberal peace
“without constitutional liberalism, democracy has no peace-inducing qualities”
Zakaria: We should not push elections to hard
it is liberal constitutionalism that really matters
protection of individual rights
Cf. “State-building” in developing countries
Westerners have encouraged strong states
too strong — too much of a threat to individuals
Constitutional government is a key to successful economic reform
US constitution
Ways in which the US constitution protects against majority rule
Federalism:
the division of power between the federal government and the states allows for a balance of power. This system ensures that local and state governments, which may be more responsive to the needs of smaller or regional minority groups, have significant powers, thereby preventing a centralized majority from dominating.
Separation of Powers:
the Constitution establishes three branches of government (executive, legislative, and judicial) with distinct powers and the ability to check and balance each other. This separation prevents any one branch, which might be controlled by a majority faction, from gaining too much power.
Bicameral Legislature:
the structure of Congress, with a House of Representatives based on population and a Senate with equal representation from each state, ensures that both populous and less populous states have a voice. This design prevents larger states from imposing their will on smaller ones.
The Bill of Rights:
the first ten amendments to the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights, explicitly protect individual rights and liberties, such as freedom of speech, religion, and assembly, and guard against majority tyranny over these rights.
Electoral College:
the system for electing the president is not based purely on the popular vote but instead uses an Electoral College, where states’ votes are weighted. This system was partly designed to balance the interests of populous and less populous states.
Judicial Review:
the power of courts to declare laws unconstitutional acts as a check on the majority’s power, ensuring that even popular laws cannot violate individual rights as guaranteed by the Constitution.
Amendment Process:
the Constitution can be amended, but this process is deliberately difficult, requiring substantial agreement across various political bodies and states, thus preventing easy changes by transient majorities.
This is quite obviously undemocratic
Undemocratic liberalism
De Tocqueville
The “tyranny of the majority”
can impose itself on everybody else
democratically decide on rules that discriminate, or even terrorize, a minority
Aristocratic liberalism
warn against the “tyranny of the majority”
how the republican tradition is very exclusionary
Quote
“The democratic tendency… leads men unceasingly to multiply the privileges of the state and to circumscribe the rights of private persons… often sacrificed without regret and almost always violated without remorse… men become less and less attached to private rights just when it is most necessary to retain and defend what little remains of them.”
John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859
afraid that the unwashed masses will take over
fear of “mass society”
but in favor of women’s right to vote
Quote
“The ‘people’ who exercise the power are not always the same people with those over whom it is exercised; and the ‘self-government’ spoken of is not the government of each by himself, but of each by all the rest. The will of the people, moreover, practically means the will of the most numerous or the most active part of the people; the majority, or those who succeed in making themselves accepted as the majority; the people, consequently, may desire to oppress a part of their number; and precautions are as much needed against this as against any other abuse of power.”
Cf. the traditional republican view:
social issues play no role in politics
The fear of class war — appropriation
the have-nots are many and the haves are few
the majority can enrich itself at the expense of the few
they can do anything they like since they represent the people
Presidents totally take over and start doing what they like
there is no check on them
they sidestep parliament
If there is a problem they appeal directly to the people
bypassing bargaining and coalition-building
Democracy and ethnic conflict
Elections too often mean that society is divided according to tribal lines
a majority ethnic group uses democracy in order to repress minority ethnic groups
little place for diversity
Cf. the electoral system in Northern Ireland
New Zealand
Electoral systems
Majoritarian system — first-past-the-post — winner-takes-all
suppresses minorities
Proportional representation
even smaller parties — ethnic groups — have a chance
Is this a contradiction in the US constitution?
Yes, it is
and don’t forget gerrymandering
Liberal Democracy (Parekh)
but in this clip he is actually talking about something else
Athenian democracy was not liberal democracy
this was the case with the US too
In European history:
liberalism preceded democracy by at least 200 years
Democracy had to adjust to liberalism
and not the other way around
Liberalism:
takes the individual as the starting-point
society was defined in terms of individuals — the sum total of all individuals
cf. Thatcher: “there is no such thing as society”
Individualism
the individual can be defined apart from society
cf. Rousseau: l’individu finding himself on his solitary walks
Actually a very novel and curious idea
has a particular history associated with the West
Principle of individuation:
where to draw the line between the individual and the surroundings?
for a medieval craftsman his tools where a part of him
Chinese people are a part of their families — relationalism
Hindus are a apart of the caste
Liberal individualism:
very austere and minimalist view
Features of the liberal individual:
leads a separate existence — Tocqueville — Americans living in the forest by themselves
distinct character, a unique someone
define your individuality in terms of your separateness
ontologically threatened if the personal sphere is invaded
The idea of individual rights:
politics is intended to protect the individual
like a wall around him or her
Kant on “enlightenment”
how we all start dependent
growing up is a matter of making ourselves independent
liberating ourselves from “our self-imposed immaturity”
Self-ownership
you can alienate your labor, but not yourself
we are not constituted by capacities, character, beliefs, goals and loyalties
but we choose them — they are external to us
they are not what we are, but things that we have
“Since the liberal view of the individual is conceptual prior to society, liberty is conceptually prior to morality.”
we cannot discuss ultimate goals
there is nothing that is best in itself
we are making our own choices about this
“a plurality of conceptions of the good”
Morality becomes a matter of what ends to choose
The question of interests
The state
seen as coercive, something individuals have to be protected from
The liberal state creates and maintains systems of rights that protect the individual
the state should maximize the liberty of its citizens and facilitate its goals — and this is not possible if the state pursues its own goals
we cannot agree on a shared conception of the good life
the state cannot chose the conception of one group over the conception of others
Taxation etc
the money individuals make belongs to them to do whatever they want with
the government cannot redistribute it
or use it for its own purposes
Cf. Robert Nozick
Anarchy, State and Utopia
What kind of democracy is possible in a liberal society?
classical, Greek, direct democracy is impossible
But some kind of democracy is required, and for two reasons
no one can have authority over individuals — they must somehow give the law to themselves
democracy becomes a way to control public authority — not a way of life, but a form of government
Thus, governments that undermine liberal rights
illiberal but also undemocratic
The process of democratization
Liberals for a long time very worried about a universal franchise
the great mass was poor and uneducated
what would stop them from using democracy to enrich themselves?
But countries in the process of democratizing often go to war a lot
war as a way to get the lower classes to agree to the agenda of the traditional elites
wars will make them rally behind the flag
Fear of “the crowd”
they were easily manipulated
all thought alike
the fear of “mass society”
the crowd thought together, not individually
no ability to reflect, irrational
Fear of …
conformism
collectivism
creativity and critical reflection threatened
The franchise had to be restricted somehow
protect the minority against the majority
plural votes for elites, property requirements, proportional representation
“Tyranny of the majority”
constitutionally guaranteed minority rights
elitist theories of representation and political parties
people shouldn’t actually be involved in politics
parliamentary as opposed to popular sovereignty
Representative government (Schumpeter)
in a democracy, people don’t rule — politicians rule
what is unusual is that we can get rid of them
Parekh: But what would happen if we put democracy first?
this is done differently in different countries
Western liberal democracy:
“It rightly fears unrestrained popular sovereignty but goes to the other extreme and disempowers the people. It rightly stresses the importance of non-political interests but fails to appreciate the true significance of public life”
Does liberal democracy have universal validity?
Democratic liberalism — eg. Social Democracy
“establishes a healthier balance between the individual and the community, aims at a fairer distribution of the opportunities required for full citizenship, extends participation to major areas of economic and political life, and opens up new centers of power.”
Lot’s of societies with a strong sense of community
Banghladeshi man refused access to the UK since he declared his dead brothers children as his own
but they were!
he was barred from the UK for life
Muslim society
you don’t actually have a right to the money you make — some of it belongs to the community — to the poor
you must provide for people who are hungry and homeless
you have social obligations
Muslim societies:
some things are beyond criticism — they are sacred
cf. the burning of the Qur’an in Sweden
but in a more secular interpretation they are ways of keeping the community together
“Honor”
the behavior of my daughter or sister is not only hers, it belongs to the family
we should defend it and we have rights over her if she does not
Sweden: constant discussions of “honor killings”
Honor killings/ honor savings
looking after foreigners and guests
if you lose your honor you lose everything — your standing in society
you are a social being, not an isolated individual
Hospitality
Iran
Kurdistan
Central Asia
Nikolaj with his school class
Multi-cultural societies
Allowing different communities to be ruled by different civil codes
that is, the rights of communities are recognized
not everyone is directly subordinate to the state
This makes India into a very particular liberal democracy
cf. the dhimmi/millet system in Muslim empires
Parekh: The democratic part of liberal democracy has proven much more popular than the liberal
everyone is demanding democracy, not everyone demands liberalism
liberalism easily subverts what they considered most valuable
liberalism breaks up the community
isolates individuals
encourages selfishness and aggression
The UN declaration of Human Rights as a possible framework
negative rights
but positive too
Conundrum
If we are critical of the liberal emphasis on individualism, will we necessarily end up embracing an illiberal form of politics?
is it only liberalism what keeps us safe from dictatorship?