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?
Christian,
I think you make a lot of interesting points. I agree that threats to national security push countries to re-examine many of the institutions assumed to be commonplace. Many existential threats of the 21st Century, like terrorism, force nations to question the efficacy of their government and policy. Also, it is true that the concept of democracy is essentially a ideological spectrum across the world, extending from more illiberal democracies, like Russia, to liberal democracies, like the United States. Perhaps if there is actually any governmental “end goal,” it will fall somewhere along that spectrum. However, as the world continues to rapidly change, it is impossible to know what this perfect balance will be.
I think the intertwinement of capitalism and democracy is a relationship we can explore further. What intrigued me while reading Illing’s conversation with Zakaria was Zakaria’s astute observation that there has been a shift away from a professional and moral obligation to disclose the honest truth towards a democratic market that is spurred by the incentive to turn a profit. To me this illustrates the perils of democracy interacting with capitalism. Then again, Zakaria earlier alludes to Aristotle’s “mixed regime” and how that that is perhaps the most ideal hybrid of government –– seemingly contradicting the article’s latter statement of democracy’s consequential embodiment of capitalism. To me, the debate manifests itself: what is the most optimal form of democracy? How do we achieve that?