Illiberal democracy

[homersapien 12,226]

Very interesting interview on the nature and future of democracy. 

http://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/1/18/14250364/democracy-liberalism-donald-trump-populism-fareed-zakaria-europe-fascism

Fareed Zakaria made a scary prediction about democracy in 1997 — and it's coming true

Twenty years ago, CNN’s Fareed Zakaria wrote an essay in Foreign Affairs titled “The Rise of Illiberal Democracy.” His thesis was that democracies around the world were surrendering to illiberal reforms, and that the strands holding the traditions of democracy and liberalism together were rapidly eroding.

“From Peru to the Palestinian Authority, from Sierra Leone to Slovakia, from Pakistan to the Philippines,” he wrote, “we see the rise of a disturbing phenomenon in international life — illiberal democracy.”

Zakaria’s piece made an important distinction between democracy and liberalism, constructs that are often conflated. Democracy is a process for choosing leaders; it’s about popular participation. To say that a state is democratic is to say little about how it is actually governed.

Liberalism, by contrast, is about the norms and practices that shape political life. A properly liberal state is one in which individual rights are paramount. It protects the individual not only against the abuses of a tyrant but also against the abuses of democratic majorities.

You might think of liberal democracy as democracy with legal buffers. It’s what you get when the Hellenic ideal of individual freedom is buttressed by the Roman devotion to rule of law, or what some today would call constitutionalism.

Wherever it springs up, illiberalism assumes a familiar form: more corruption, greater restrictions on assembly and speech, constraints on the press, retribution against political opponents, oppression of minorities. All of these things are bad, but they’re not necessarily undemocratic. Putin’s Russia is spangled with repressive and illiberal policies, and yet Putin is overwhelmingly popular among Russians. He is, like many near tyrants, a populist.

The illiberal trend Zakaria noted in 1997 has, if anything, accelerated. The Western world isn’t becoming less democratic, but it is becoming less liberal. Even more alarming, what was a trend is now an increasingly fixed reality.

The belief that the democratic experiment was destined to end in something like liberal democracy was just that: a belief. There is nothing inexorable about the logic of democracy; it is just as likely to culminate in tyranny as it is freedom.

As Zakaria put it, “Western liberal democracy might prove to be not the final destination on the democratic road, but just one of the many possible exits.”

Read the rest at: http://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/1/18/14250364/democracy-liberalism-donald-trump-populism-fareed-zakaria-europe-fascism

[autigeremt 7,204]

Liberty through a democratic republic is the best form of democracy in my book. 

[AuburnNTexas 7,315]

A lot of truth in this article. We see the erosion on both the left and right an example is what happened at Berkley with the rioting. We have seen it in the Press where depending on the Press outlet instead of doing the news they are editing the news to a political viewpoint some do it on the left some do it on the right. We have seen it within our government where the party out of power obstructs to hurt the other party sometimes even when they agree with something. The Senate in the US used to be collegial but because of partisan obstruction of one party we saw the nuclear option and it appears we may soon see it the other way. it is sad.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

I think he is attempting to explain politics in a vacuum and, therefore misses the mark by a mile.

I think what we are seeing today, is something we have seen before.  I think this discussion occurs under the same conditions in a random, yet predictable cycle.

You cannot effectively have this discussion without considering the most basic, fundamental, factors influencing the economy and, how that relates to government and society.

IMHO, this has little to do with liberalism or, "illiberalism".  It is much more fundamental.  The current political environment is a product of economic realities and, how those realities play out in government, the media, society.  Attempts to explain, are often linked to politics but, should be contemplated in the most fundamental economic terms.

This is about an economic environment that is currently promoting the concentration of wealth and income.  Is is creating a disparity that leads to an inevitable, reconciliation.

The nature of this environment is ripe for bringing out every ideologue, "nut case" with a loud, demonstrative demeanor promising a "new, better" way or, return to the "old" ways.

Our supposedly competing ideologies have become fraudulent.  They are self-serving servants of power.  Therein lies the real problem.  Instead of balancing all societal interests, with the goal of serving the common good, for the betterment of society, BOTH are actively, methodically, serving the interests of power.  Both actively seek the consent of the economic power that truly defines the real members of the party.

The reason our government exists is well defined.  It is grounded in both the concepts of liberalism and conservatism.  It clearly exists as a means of promoting, rewarding individual ambition while, limiting the abilities of that ambition to function ruthlessly, unfairly, destructively.

The answers lie in addressing fundamental economic realities.  The ideological nonsense only serves to further the anger, confusion, division, continuation.

When we stop looking at politics in the inane rhetorical, ideological sense and, begin to look at politics in more concrete realities of economics, the nature of power, human nature, society, we might have a chance at truly understanding our government, society, ourselves.

We are in a political war with ourselves.  It is ideological, ridiculous, destructive, anti-American.  It is a disgrace to our founding and, will almost certainly end in extreme upheaval.   

 

 

 

[homersapien 12,226]

15 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

I think he is attempting to explain politics in a vacuum and, therefore misses the mark by a mile.

I think what we are seeing today, is something we have seen before.  I think this discussion occurs under the same conditions in a random, yet predictable cycle.

You cannot effectively have this discussion without considering the most basic, fundamental, factors influencing the economy and, how that relates to government and society.

IMHO, this has little to do with liberalism or, "illiberalism".  It is much more fundamental.  The current political environment is a product of economic realities and, how those realities play out in government, the media, society.  Attempts to explain, are often linked to politics but, should be contemplated in the most fundamental economic terms.

This is about an economic environment that is currently promoting the concentration of wealth and income.  Is is creating a disparity that leads to an inevitable, reconciliation.

The nature of this environment is ripe for bringing out every ideologue, "nut case" with a loud, demonstrative demeanor promising a "new, better" way or, return to the "old" ways.

Our supposedly competing ideologies have become fraudulent.  They are self-serving servants of power.  Therein lies the real problem.  Instead of balancing all societal interests, with the goal of serving the common good, for the betterment of society, BOTH are actively, methodically, serving the interests of power.  Both actively seek the consent of the economic power that truly defines the real members of the party.

The reason our government exists is well defined.  It is grounded in both the concepts of liberalism and conservatism.  It clearly exists as a means of promoting, rewarding individual ambition while, limiting the abilities of that ambition to function ruthlessly, unfairly, destructively.

The answers lie in addressing fundamental economic realities.  The ideological nonsense only serves to further the anger, confusion, division, continuation.

When we stop looking at politics in the inane rhetorical, ideological sense and, begin to look at politics in more concrete realities of economics, the nature of power, human nature, society, we might have a chance at truly understanding our government, society, ourselves.

We are in a political war with ourselves.  It is ideological, ridiculous, destructive, anti-American.  It is a disgrace to our founding and, will almost certainly end in extreme upheaval.  

 He wasn't trying to explain "politics", he was talking explicitly about democracy and how it can evolve in illiberal directions just as easily as a liberal direction, as most of us - including me - tend to assume.

And it has everything to do with liberalism and illiberalism - that's the central point of his thesis.

I don't know what you think the subject of this piece was, but he certainly didn't "miss it by a mile".

 

[icanthearyou 4,468]

7 minutes ago, homersapien said:

 He wasn't trying to explain "politics", he was talking explicitly about democracy and how it can evolve in illiberal directions just as easily as a liberal direction, as most of us - including me - tend to assume.

And it has everything to do with liberalism and illiberalism - that's the central point of his thesis.

I don't know what you think the subject of this piece was, but he certainly didn't "miss it by a mile".

 

And because he did so, in a political vacuum, he did miss the mark by a mile.

[maxwere 82]

54 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

The reason our government exists is well defined.  It is grounded in both the concepts of liberalism and conservatism.  It clearly exists as a means of promoting, rewarding individual ambition while, limiting the abilities of that ambition to function ruthlessly, unfairly, destructively

Help me with your definitions ICHY, b/c I want to like what you are trying to say.  How do you define liberalism, conservatism?  Ideology?  Government?  Social order?

Government rewards who?  and by what means?  The US government?

If you are referring to a judicial (non executive/legislative) government, then I wholeheartedly agree.  We have nothing close to the sort of just government that applies sanctions the same way to all people.  If so, there would be 10x as many banksters as pot dealers in jail.

[homersapien 12,226]

On 2/2/2017 at 11:29 AM, icanthearyou said:

And because he did so, in a political vacuum, he did miss the mark by a mile.

OK.  What did he miss?

What is the political vacuum he failed to fill?

[icanthearyou 4,468]

Just now, homersapien said:

OK.  What did he miss?

What is the political vacuum he failed to fill?

I have already explained.  Please read again.

[homersapien 12,226]

22 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

I have already explained.  Please read again.

Well, to be honest, I couldn't make much sense from it.

I didn't see how it related directly to Zakaria's piece.  He wasn't trying to address all of the elements that impact our political system.  He was simply stating that, if circumstances (such as you addressed) were right, then a popular democracy has just as much potential to lapse into an oligarchy/authoritarian system as any other.  

It is not as self-correcting as we may have assumed in our "ideal" of democracy.  It's not even more likely to evolve toward a more classically liberal system - which stresses individual freedom - than any other.   

I find it depressing to consider.  It's like discovering the hoped-for results of the American experiment are not necessarily likely, much less inevitable.  The arc of history may not bend toward justice.  The model is flawed.

That was what the article was addressing.  Not the details of how we may have gotten here.

 

[homersapien 12,226]

On 2/2/2017 at 10:56 AM, icanthearyou said:

The reason our government exists is well defined.  It is grounded in both the concepts of liberalism and conservatism.  It clearly exists as a means of promoting, rewarding individual ambition while, limiting the abilities of that ambition to function ruthlessly, unfairly, destructively.

The answers lie in addressing fundamental economic realities.  The ideological nonsense only serves to further the anger, confusion, division, continuation.

That is exactly the sort of systemic assumption Zakaria's piece challenges.

The government exists at the pleasure of those with the power to control it, period.

In an liberal democracy that is the people.  In an illiberal democracy, it is an oligarchy. 

[icanthearyou 4,468]

18 minutes ago, homersapien said:

That is exactly the sort of systemic assumption Zakaria's piece challenges.

The government exists at the pleasure of those with the power to control it, period.

In an liberal democracy that is the people.  In an illiberal democracy, it is an oligarchy. 

I agree.  However, the mere terminology lacks enough context to adequately explain.  How did we get from point A to point B?  

I believe an answer of being too "illiberal" is lacking.  The motives of power are highly relevant.  They are not exclusive to our form of government or, too democracy.

Is there really such a thing as an "illiberal democracy"?   Doesn't that seem conceptually flawed.  Is "illiberal" a symptom or, the cause?  Is the choice democratic, intentional? 

Where does tyranny really come from?

[metafour 4,978]

7 minutes ago, homersapien said:

It is not as self-correcting as we may have assumed in our "ideal" of democracy.  It's not even more likely to evolve toward a more classically liberal system - which stresses individual freedom - than any other.   

The fact that you actually think that a "classically liberal system" stresses individual freedom is mind blowing.  A liberal system stresses individual freedoms that are aligned with what the group-think deems as appropriate.  Everything else is violently silenced...like an authoritarian state.  Your classical liberal freedoms go as such: women's rights matter as long as you conform to what the pre-set notions of women's rights are; so if you're a woman who is against abortion or practice other "right wing" beliefs, then you are free game to be beaten, pepper sprayed, and to have your hair set on fire.  Gay-rights matter, again, as long as you are a gay who conforms to group-think...otherwise, as proven by Milo, you have no rights...not even first amendment rights to speak freely.  Get it? That isn't "individual freedom", its authoritarian freedom to tow the company line.  A radical BLM terrorist can get in front of a crowd of people and proclaim how "we need to start killing people", "we need to kill white cops", and "white people give us all your sh*t" and no one bats an eyelash...yet a white male who makes an offhand politically incorrect joke in the workplace is grounds for termination of employment.  The fruits of "individual freedom", folks.

[homersapien 12,226]

31 minutes ago, metafour said:

The fact that you actually think that a "classically liberal system" stresses individual freedom is mind blowing.  A liberal system stresses individual freedoms that are aligned with what the group-think deems as appropriate.  Everything else is violently silenced...like an authoritarian state.  Your classical liberal freedoms go as such: women's rights matter as long as you conform to what the pre-set notions of women's rights are; so if you're a woman who is against abortion or practice other "right wing" beliefs, then you are free game to be beaten, pepper sprayed, and to have your hair set on fire.  Gay-rights matter, again, as long as you are a gay who conforms to group-think...otherwise, as proven by Milo, you have no rights...not even first amendment rights to speak freely.  Get it? That isn't "individual freedom", its authoritarian freedom to tow the company line.  A radical BLM terrorist can get in front of a crowd of people and proclaim how "we need to start killing people", "we need to kill white cops", and "white people give us all your sh*t" and no one bats an eyelash...yet a white male who makes an offhand politically incorrect joke in the workplace is grounds for termination of employment.  The fruits of "individual freedom", folks.

You are confusing 'classic liberalism' with 'social liberalism'.  

http://www.chegg.com/homework-help/definitions/classical-liberalism-53

I totally expected someone would conflate the two and was actually surprised it hadn't already happened.

Anyway, if you have a better term for what classic liberalism represents, I am open to hearing it.

Nice rant though!  Bet it make you feel better.  

[homersapien 12,226]

36 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

I agree.  However, the mere terminology lacks enough context to adequately explain.  How did we get from point A to point B?  

I believe an answer of being too "illiberal" is lacking.  The motives of power are highly relevant.  They are not exclusive to our form of government or, too democracy.

Is there really such a thing as an "illiberal democracy"?   Doesn't that seem conceptually flawed.  Is "illiberal" a symptom or, the cause?  Is the choice democratic, intentional? 

Where does tyranny really come from?

I am not following you at all.

Maybe focus on one question or point?

[icanthearyou 4,468]

5 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I am not following you at all.

Maybe focus on one question or point?

You just responded to the most glaring example of why there is a fundamental lack of context.  

[homersapien 12,226]

28 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

You just responded to the most glaring example of why there is a fundamental lack of context.  

Sorry, still clueless.  

Even more so, as that sentence makes no sense to me.

[doc4aday 1,887]

I do not watch the news...never ever. Whatever will happen will happen regardless if I watch it or not.