A concept that I found particularly interesting in these readings–and one that many people have touched on in their blogs–was the distinction drawn between democracy and liberalism and Zakaria’s assertion that the two do not necessarily go hand in hand. Zakaria says that “liberal democracy seems to be one of the many exits on which the democratic experiment could end,” and while I had not previously thought of democracy in this way, I very much agree with this statement. As Illing puts it, “[democracy and liberalism] are often conflated,” and I think that this is especially true in the United States; traditionally–or at least until recently, according to the World Values Survey referenced in Foa’s and Mounk’s article–I think that Americans have held this kind of exceptionalist pride in our presidential democracy and its seemingly inherent emphasis on individual rights and checks on majoritarian power.

However, it is the presidential system–something which Americans have in the past taken great pride in–that, ironically, seems to be a major cause of Americans’ disillusionment with democracy as a whole. Foa and Mounk cite several reasons for Americans’ declining faith in democracy: “stagnating incomes” and the resultant decline in American optimism, “rising income inequality,” and the increasing importance of “paid influence and campaign spending.” Although each of these is both valid and interesting, I think that the largest threat to American democracy is immobilism, a concept discussed in Scott Mainwaring’s essay. Generally, I think that immobilism gives rise to polarization, which, as we’ve discussed in class, is another significant threat to democracy. As Mainwaring explains, immobilism results from the seemingly beneficial “balance and separation of powers” inherent in a presidential democracy, from the dual sovereignty of both the president and Congress. I believe that this in turn leads to frustration, placement of blame, and polarization, which then results in greater immobilism, thus creating a vicious cycle that is difficult to break.

Fall of Liberal Democracy

It seems to me that Fareed Zakaria is on the right track, namely that democracy may not necessarily be disappearing, but liberal democracy is. When you look at the places around the world that have been recently becoming more and more authoritarian, whether that be Poland, the Phillipines, Turkey, or even to some extent America, it’s not the case that tanks are rolling through the streets and soldiers are taking people from their homes. All of those countries have regularly scheduled elections that are largely free and fair, yet authoritarianism keeps winning at the ballot box. It’s my belief that capitalism is largely to blame for this, particularly the income stagnation and general absurdity that has arisen from late capitalism. To put it in the most reductive and simplified way possible, it has caused people around the world to feel as though they have lost all agency and control over their lives and the world around them, and so they turn to populists and demagogues who promise to be their champion, in return for the people granting them even greater power. We’re seeing this scenario play out all across the globe, particularly in Europe these past couple years, though I don’t think many Americans paid attention until it happened in their own backyards. While I can see the crisis, I can’t see a solution besides the dismantling of the capitalist system, either in part (ala the return of New Deal/Keynesian economics) or completely (socialism). Democracy isn’t imperiled, but liberal democracy is currently on its knees.

liberal democracy in danger

The first article distinguishes between liberalism and democracy, and argues that countries such as the United States and Russia are becoming more illiberal, but are still democracies. I agree that the US under Trump and Russia under Putin are becoming increasingly illiberal, with attacks on the press and oppression of minorities. Civil society does not have the same positive effect that Tocqueville observed. This illiberal democracy has led to tyranny of the majority, electing populist leaders with little regard for minorities or the freedom of expression. At the same time, political parties have weakened, making it easier for populist politicians to run rampant. I would argue that these countries are becoming less democratic as well as being illiberal. As shown in the second article, American elections and policies are heavily influenced by the rich and powerful interest groups. Ordinary citizens don’t have as much say as the rich and powerful. This can hardly be a democratic process. Although I believe that liberalism and democracy are both imperiled, I think that we can return to a liberal democracy without a regime change. It will be difficult, but changes are possible within the existing system that will make these countries more liberal and more democratic. Restraints on campaign finance and lobbyists will help lead to more democratic elections and policy-making. Redistributive policies that improve lives will lead to more liberalism. Some of the majority who blamed their economic hardships on minorities might stop doing so. More leisure time and economic opportunities might lead to stronger associations and a stronger civil society that will in turn help liberalism. It is true that a liberal democracy is not inevitable, but I think we can get there if we make some changes.

Growing Dissatisfaction with Republican Government

Evidently, a great percentage of the American populace has lost faith in the U.S.’s system of republican government. Some of the reasons for the changing public opinion include rising income inequality, the perception that the government no longer serves the majority, and the loss of the hope that each successive generation will fair just as well, if not better, than the last. Presumably, the people’s perception of government is shaped so much by technology and the modern media that provides non-stop coverage of the public goings-on of Congress and the presidency. With all the coverage, this may heighten the belief that government is ineffective, and make it seem as if it is moving at a snail’s pace. Undoubtedly the loss of confidence in republican government has led to a surge in support for more pure democracy in America, which both Plato and the Founding Fathers were wary of. While being a system of fewer checks and balances and a higher likelihood of a shift towards tyranny, pure democracy is an enticing idea for many people who seek more tangible results from their government, rather than having to wait for many of the back-room deliberations and political maneuvering. Further, it is apparent that a shift away from the United State’s democratic republicanism would not necessarily be reviled by the people. While most of the foundations of the country’s government remain revered, like the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, a transition to a more authoritarian government may not receive the backlash one might think if politicians devised ways to keep the people happy. Overall, while the foundations of American government remain strong, it is important to keep in mind the growing dissatisfaction of the people.

Democracy–An End Goal?

Fareed Zakaria separates the notions of democracy from liberalism, claiming that the United States and other counties worldwide have moved towards states of illiberal democracy. Zakaria defines illiberal democracies as “democratically elected regimes often re-elected or reinforced by referendums that ignore the constitutional limits of their power and deprive their citizens of basic rights and liberties.” According to Foa and Mounk, citizens are disenfranchised and seemingly conscious with the illiberal democracies they live in. The two attempt to explain this phenomenon with three explanations: material wealth, increasing wealth gap, and democracy’s loss of legitimacy. Foa and Mounk conclude that democracy’s path is uncertain whilst Zakaria takes that a step further, bargaining with the idea that authoritarianism might be the most stable alternative to liberalism. Nonetheless, both of these articles are extremely relevant in determining the flaws and survival of democracy.

Democracy in practice differs between countries, making it impossible to determine its survival on the global platform. The growing threats to national security (terrorism, political violence, economic depression) push democracies to question their institutions. In class, we discussed Zakaria’s view of democratic development—a country must have order and rule before it can have freedom (democracy). However, why should democracy be the end goal? Rwanda, a country currently in the “order and rule” state is flourishing. Drawing from my gap year working for a non-profit in Uganda, I refer to Rwanda as a model for Sub-Saharan development. The economy is growing exponentially, the school attendance is the highest in the region, and the parliament seats are occupied by more women than men. Will democracy destabilize the parliaments efforts in rebuilding Rwanda? If a regime in place works and people are happy, why change it? Zakaria himself agrees that authoritarianism might be an alternative to liberal democracy. Democracy itself also has it perils, one main example being its relationship with capitalism. Capitalism, in any existing form, is inconsistent with democracy. Capitalism is based on a hierarchy, a production for profit rather than need, an accumulation of capital, a deprivation and subordination of others—elements that align with plutocracy rather than democracy. Noam Chomsky claims that Americans on the lower 70% of the income scale have no influence whatsoever on policy. Influence in politics slowly increases moving up the income scale. Globally, capitalism invites enormous disparity of influence over policy. This begs the ultimate question should every country strive for democracy even if it’s the second-best alternative?

 

Party in the Center

The recent trend of the United States towards illiberalism can be explained by the increase in political polarization. Zakaria distinguishes a liberal democracy as one that respects the rights of the political minority. Certain countermajoritarian structures are by necessity built in – think the Constitution in the U.S context, the domain of the by design least democratic branch of the government: the judiciary. But others existed informally, shot throughout our democracy. The Senate had traditions, never codified, that dictated how the chamber operated; those are now eroding rapidly, as exemplified by the ending of the judicial filibuster soon after Trump’s election. The norms of American democratic life more broadly are to diffuse to summarize, but they too have been lost, as seen in the World Values Survey cited in the Foa and Mounk reading that claimed Americans have lost faith in democracy and its institutions.

Why has this occurred? The first explanation provided by Foa and Mounk seems persuasive. Citizens are less materially secure than they were in previous generations. That insecurity has translated to a distrust of institutions –  government and the system can no longer be relied on to provide the benefits that once made life stable. This sets up one of the antidemocratic conditions Professor Malekzadeh talked about in the lecture: people believe that every election might have dire consequences for their way of life. If your ideological foes win, history might end. This partisanship is translated into who citizens vote into the Senate. The partisanship currently seen is not contrary to the people’s wishes – it is reflective of it. While most Americans are dissatisfied with Congress as a whole, they hold their own Congressperson in high esteem. They are fine with uncompromising positions, and even prefer them, as can be seen in the spate of primary challenges from the outer ideological fringes of the parties. Party apparatuses are now seen – correctly or incorrectly – as checks to the strident ideological demands of their voter bases. I don’t see this changing until the voters themselves return to a level of security close to the one currently enjoyed by members of Congress.

Populism

Fareed Zakaria and other scholars have made the point to distinguish the different gradations of freedom. Zakaria makes the distinction between a liberal and an illiberal democracy, making the point that democracy is about the process for choosing leaders, while liberalism refers to a state in which individual rights are “paramount”. The issue with democracy and politics, as we have discussed, is dealing with difference. When societies are fragmented in terms of their beliefs and backgrounds, how does a state uphold the norms of liberal democracy? Throughout history, the logical form of dealing with difference has been to have the most representation for the majority. Though the United States was weary of this manifestation of democracy from the outset (ie. the creation of the immutable Bill of Rights), it seems that nowadays the trend towards populism has created “too direct a connection between popular passions and public policy”, as Zakaria states. This trend can be seen all around the world, especially when looking at the rise of populists in the United States (Donald Trump) and in European countries like France and Germany. I think that we are going to notice this trend for years to come and see many governments be led by populist, authoritarian leaders such as Trump and Putin. Zakaria’s assertion that these leaders keep a balance between liberalism and illiberalism that keeps people satisfied is a concerning prospect. However, I’m not yet convinced that this sort of balancing game is sustainable. In part this comes from a gut feeling and an innate belief in liberal democracy, however in another way this doubt stems from 20th century history. Most of the rule under military juntas and authoritarian regimes was undone in one way or another. Some people, as in the case of Germany, actually preferred to be ruled by such powers for cultural and economic reasons (ie. an ethos of collective freedom and the devastating effects of inflation and the stock market crash). However, these beliefs were ultimately checked by the forces of liberal democracy. In this case, it was World War II, but in other cases it comes back to an understanding of basic human rights. The “No” vote in Chile was our version of “Yes We Can”, as writer Ariel Dorfman put it.  Perhaps this is too much of an optimistic view, but I do not believe that populism is the end of history as we know it. I think we are going to see periodic shifts from bondage to freedom (and all that comes in between). Hopefully, the consideration of liberal values will come sooner rather than later.

Tyranny of the Majority

I found it quite interesting that both the Illing and the Foa/Mounk articles noted the erosion of informal aspects of democratic checks as a potential trigger of the collapse of American democracy. These informal societal and cultural attributes appear to be needed now more than ever as some of the institutional checks have been done away with, most notably now having direct election of senators (Illing) and less strict campaign funding regulations (Foa). The two articles, however, seem to be at odds with each other over the biggest threat to American democracy. The Illing articles addresses President Trump’s populism, coupled with a lack of formal and informal systematic checks, as a danger. Conversely, the Foa articles points out the extreme influence of a small segment of the population, rich elites and specialized interest groups, on elections and policies. Both cases appear to be bad for American democracy, but the tyranny of the majority that the Founding Fathers were so insistent upon eradicating seems to be the bigger threat at the moment. As seen in the case of Putin’s Russia, populism can be very dangerous when the appropriate systematic checks are not in place. I believe the saving grace of American democracy will be something not even the Founding Fathers enacted, the presidential term limit via the 22nd Amendment. While the cultural aspects that have kept a liberal democracy in place might be eroding, many of the systematic checks are still in place. Even with a tyranny of the majority it would be quite a feat to dismantle the democratic system within 8 years, or two presidential terms. Culturally America seems to be at a crossroads as to which governing system should be utilized, but the institution is robust enough to weather a temporarily unsettled public.

Imperiled Democracy

I will start off this blog by reminding everyone that the people of the United States of America willingly elected Donald J. Trump to the highest office in the land. In the eyes of most, this would indicate that democracy has failed us here in the United States. Either democracy has failed the people, or the people have failed the idealistic system of government that is democracy. The outcome of each, however, is equally terrifying, and is embodied by the man serving as president.

Roberto Foa and Yascha Mounk believe that “the future of democracy is uncertain”. In the United States, people are becoming more and more disenchanted with the idea of democracy, with almost one out of every six individuals believing that an alternative form of government would better serve the nation. While this belief is absolutely absurd, Foa and Mounk raise an entirely valid point. Democracies are not as consolidated as they were in a different era. Furthermore, there is absolutely no historical precedent to indicate what occurs to established democracies when most of a nation’s constituents experience no improvement in the quality of living for an extended period of time. Fareed Zakaria mentions Aristotle’s opinion that “direct democracy (rule by the many) is every bit as unstable as rule by one or a few”. I completely agree with Aristotle, and believe that this is the primary reason that democracy is imperiled in the 21st century. In theory, it would be wonderful if we could entrust the future of a nation to the entirety of its citizens, but this is simply unreasonable (illustrated once again by the individual currently representing the United States). Once this is established, however, there emerges another problem. How can we allow only a portion of the population to shape the government without discriminating or electing members who represent the views of only an elite few? Therein lies the peril of democracy.

Candidates and Primaries

Fareed Zakaria makes the claim that “the election is a necessarily democratic process, but not the choosing of the pool of candidates.” He also seems to be implying that this is at the core of the problems that American democracy faces. While Zakaria may be correct in arguing that allowing the public to choose candidates is dangerous, he overlooks that the decrease in faith in democracy is often attributed to the common opinion that the system is rigged, or simply not functioning as it should. The implication behind these rationales is that a large portion of the public does not feel that they’re voices are being heard. If this view is truly held by a large number of citizens, it would likely be counter-productive to attempt to limit one of the democratic aspects of the election process. Changing this process could feasibly be seen as a symbolic overhaul of part of democracy’s most important institutions, which would exacerbate the problem. From a different perspective, it is important to examine how giving this power to party officials would change the selection of candidates. In the case of the Republican Party, though citizens don’t directly choose the candidate anyway, it seems likely that little change would occur. If it were completely up to the party to decide, it is likely that the same choices would be made. The Tea Party’s influence on the Republican Party has forced them to gravitate towards an extreme point of polarization, threatening those in the party who were more moderate. This means that the party must mediate between the public and its internal conflict, and in the last election the solution to the problem seems to have been to pick the candidate that matched the public opinion and the Tea Party’s agenda, not the one that best represented the party. In this way, it seems that removing primaries might be symbolically dangerous and procedurally inconsequential.