Liberty vs. Democracy
With all the talk of whether democracy could take root in the Arab world, I would like to raise an issue that has always puzzled me. I am no great fan of democracy per se. History has more than proved the proposition that the people are an ass, and the genius of our founders -- mostly vitiated now by years of malicious constitutional tinkering and mindless jurisprudence -- was to design a system that thwarted the worst impulses of the mob, while ensuring a competitive enough market for political power to stave off senescence. (As I said: mostly vitiated.) Absent constitutional safeguards reinforced by cultural norms, the most viciously repressive regimes often grow from wildly popular movements. For more, read Burke or witness Iran.
While for all these reasons I am no lover of democracy, I am a great fan of liberty. I was wondering what our discussions of the upheavals in the Arab world would look like if held in terms of the L-word rather than the D-word. Is liberty compatible with Arab culture? With Islam? What would a system look like in, say, Egypt, that provided property rights, free markets, transparency, and individual freedoms, while remaining compatible with deep cultural and religious values? Would it be democratic? Could it be? Could it exist at all? And if it could not exist, what does that say about the usefulness of democracy to these societies?
I confess that I have no idea. Do you?
- Comment (33)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Jan '11
Re: Liberty vs. Democracy
How would you implement a liberal government absent democracy? It would seem to me that one begets the other. I don't think I would consider a soft and benevolent dictatorship capable of supporting a liberal society. I think you definitely need some form of rule of law and government by consent of the people for a liberal government to exist.
An interesting and related topic is the chicken and egg question between political freedom and economic freedom. In America, we had economic freedom before we had our political freedom. I think we turned out pretty well. In China, they have some economic freedom, and no political freedom. Things seem alright for them, at least for now. In places like Iraq and Afghanistan, we seem to be focused on implementing political freedom first, and those places do not seem to be doing well. Can we draw any conclusions from this?
May '10
Re: Liberty vs. Democracy
I've no idea either, Daniel, but sometimes I feel as though it's our only chance, however slim.
Also, substitute "Japanese" or "Prussian" for "Arab" and your post would have been just as appropriate in 1946, and yet their cultures managed to turn.
But I just don't know...
Oct '10
Re: Liberty vs. Democracy
Daniel Frank:
[T]he genius of our founders ..... was to design a system that thwarted the worst impulses of the mob, while ensuring a competitive enough market for political power to stave off senescence.
While a distinction between liberty and democracy is important to the framing of your question, I'm not sure what you mean by "ensuring a competitive enough market for power."
I would further distinguish between Arab and Muslim, which suggests at least two different questions. Is democracy/liberty compatible with ostensible tribalism? Is it possible without separating church and state -- i.e. where one assumes the powers of state or law by virtue of one's standing in a religious hierarchy. One might have considerably more liberty under the aegis of one leader rather than another (Ayatollah Sistani, perhaps, vs. Ayatollah Khamenei), but without guarantees. There are plenty of Muslims living in the U.S., however, who don't believe that they owe first allegiance to their religious leaders personally and who regard Sharia with alarm.
You may be "no great fan of democracy," but liberty ultimately depends on the form of government you choose. The real genius of our founders lay in recognizing that fact.
Oct '10
Re: Liberty vs. Democracy
Well, liberal democracy evolved from England, when the king called local representatives to give him money. They were only to happy to do so--if he followed their demands.
The English parliamentary system evolved out of many such power struggles, into a system that recognized the basic dignity of human endeavor. People realized that my self-interest is tied directly to your rights and liberties.
The (many) faults of this system greatly informed our founders, who literally had centuries of practical experience--and some spectacular failures--to draw upon.
Sep '10
Re: Liberty vs. Democracy
Three huge problems remain in a place like Egypt.
First, the people are mostly illiterate, peasant class and tribal. They are very easily manipulated.
Two, the ones who aren't illiterate are economically illiterate and are leftists by default. They have quite a body of propaganda and lies created by real leftists and Islamists to draw upon to bolster their beliefs.
Third, these people believe in one commanding God and everything they do is ordered on top-down command and control operation. This is why their economies have never taken off.
Those who *want* Democracy and/or Liberty are like so many American Idol contestants who want to become famous - ain't gonna happen.
Jul '10
Re: Liberty vs. Democracy
Well, anyone who has ever been to a Middle Eastern market knows that there is no command and control operation going on there; if anyone understands the invisible hand, its your Egyptian market stall owner.
I like this distinction between liberty and democracy. Frankly, if I had to pick I would take rule of law, including trial by jury--all the basic rights found in Magna Carta--rather than one man, one vote.
May '10
Re: Liberty vs. Democracy
These are precisely the questions I hoped to discuss.
How would you implement liberal government without democracy? Well, one way to do that is with a republic. A republic is not strictly speaking a democracy. It may contain non-democratic or even anti-democratic elements, such as an appointive legislative body with life tenure, such as the House of Lords. (Hayek proposed an alternative model in his Constitution of Liberty.) There are other historical models, such as the Roman Republic, that were undemocratic and still (by the standards of their time) liberal.
By "ensuring a competitive market for power," I meant a system that prevents power from reposing too long in one set of hands, to prevent both tyranny and the corruption and senescence that inevitably follow from it. Checks and balances, if you will.
Jun '10
Re: Liberty vs. Democracy
Franco: Three huge problems remain in a place like Egypt.
First, the people are mostly illiterate, peasant class and tribal. They are very easily manipulated.
Two, the ones who aren't illiterate are economically illiterate and are leftists by default. They have quite a body of propaganda and lies created by real leftists and Islamists to draw upon to bolster their beliefs.
Third, these people believe in one commanding God and everything they do is ordered on top-down command and control operation. This is why their economies have never taken off.
I beg to differ. I don't have the numbers, but there does exist a middle class that is both educated and economically savvy. This group will be Egypt's salvation should it come to pass. The majority of people in the countryside are dirt poor and illiterate, I'll agree. But they are by temperament also fatalistic and passive. To me it comes down to a fight between the Egyptian middle class and the urban members of the Muslim Brotherhood. Professor Rahe's most recent post gives me hope. If the middle class can organize, we might yet see a legitimate democratic revolution.
Dec '10
Re: Liberty vs. Democracy
Democracies, even crappy Democracies don't declare war on other Democracies. Democracies and Republics are also the only two forms of government in which Capitalism can take root.
Liberty and rule of law are of course ideal, but if we are talking about foreign countries I will take a crappy Democracy over a "good" dictatorship any day.
Oct '10
Re: Liberty vs. Democracy
Noted economist Hernando de Soto has written several books covering this issue. You cannot secure liberty without property rights and the corresponding culture and institutions surrounding these rights (pricing, transparency, transferability, etc...).
The examples in South America (and even Egypt in his 2003 book "The Mystery of Capital") demonstrate that your chicken / egg premise concerning the tradeoff of promoting liberty or democracy is perfect.
India is a great example. It was a functioning democracy that had low economic growth and stiffled liberty under socialist-leaning leaders that strangled the market place.
Dec '10
Re: Liberty vs. Democracy
Daniel, it seems when you say "democracy" you are talking about universal suffrage representative democracy, such as our contemporary US democracy.
History to date seems to indicate that universal suffrage democracies become nannyish socialist/collectivist welfare states that limit liberty and that will likely not be economically sustainable. People seem to want "equality" of outcome more than "liberty".
I think there is a large spectrum of democratic forms of government to choose from and some may both better preserve liberty and provide for better overall economic welfare than what we now have, but they won't promote a "just" degree of "equality" of outcome.
For example, there is the concept that people should earn the right to vote, that it can be forfeited, and subsequently earned back. Here's another... should people on the government dole or who are employed by the government be able to vote?
Also, there is a problem with the concept of "equality" and the insistence on equality of outcome and on economic equality -- the Left calls this "social justice". They are happy to trade away (other people's) "liberty" for "equality" of outcome ("social justice"), and so is a large portion of the voting population.
Dec '10
Re: Liberty vs. Democracy
Is liberty compatible with Arab culture? Perhaps. I think so.
Is liberty compatible with Islam. I don't think so. Islam, I believe, translates to "submission". More technically, there is the issue of rule of law, especially private property.
At the most innocuous level, consider shariah finance. If charging interest is a sin within Islam, that suggests that others are allowed to borrow an individual's property, without any compensation. At the most extreme level, the Shiites believe that when the 12th Imam returns, the faithful people will call upon him to do so, then he will redistribute all accumulated wealth.
Whether it is the borrowing of another person's property without compensation, or just the taking of an individual's property without compensation, property rights appear to be incompatible with Islam.
Dec '10
Re: Liberty vs. Democracy
Democracies (and Republics) only acknowledge and defend preexisting liberty. If the people have never experienced liberty, and perhaps do not even know of its existence, how will a change of government help that? We created the government we have as a bulwark against illiberal governance (yes, I know the joke's on us) because we knew liberty was our natural state. In my view, liberty must come first in the hearts and minds of the people even if it is not extant in their reality.
Nov '10
Re: Liberty vs. Democracy
Given that Islam means "submission", compatibility with liberty might not be assured...
Dec '10
Re: Liberty vs. Democracy
About Egypt...
What is happening in Egypt may be as much about "equality", economic equality, as it is about "liberty".
If I had to guess, I'd guess the average protester is concerned about economic "equality" first (housing, food, clothing, etc), liberty second, and democracy last. This is another one of the many reasons why it is unlikely a democracy, as we define it, will emerge any time in the foreseeable future, if ever,
Edited on Feb 1, 2011 at 1:11pmNov '10
Re: Liberty vs. Democracy
Nickolas:
Also, there is a problem with the concept of "equality" and the insistence on equality of outcome and on economic equality -- the Left calls this "social justice". They are happy to trade away (other people's) "liberty" for "equality" of outcome ("social justice"), and so is a large portion of the voting population. · Feb 1 at 12:50pm
Ironically, whereas the radical left bemoan inequality of economic status, they embrace inequality of political power. You can't redistribute other people's wealth without imposing the threat of force from the state. So, the radical left do not advocate social "justice" as an alternative to social "injustice", but rather one form of social "justice" in exchange for another form of social "injustice".
Nov '10
Re: Liberty vs. Democracy
Do you think that the people congregating on the streets of Egypt might now be getting a taste of liberty? Although they are collectively coordinated, I don't get the feeling they are gripped by rigid groupthink. From the TV coverage, I think I see many local deviations from the overall script, many independent voices. If so--if the Egyptians are getting a taste for personal autonomy--might that make them less amenable to clerics seeking to manipulate them as a single body singing from the same hymn-sheet?
Dec '10
Re: Liberty vs. Democracy
As I understand it the trible Arabs were roughly democratic. I don't think that women got a vote, but then women didn't vote in this contry at first either.
Christians were not allowed to charge interest for a long time. It was called usury. Now only excessive interest is called usury. Modern Muslims charge interest; they call it something else.
The Koran (however you spell it) forbids price fixing. I think Arabs have a pretty good idea of the market.
Oct '10
Re: Liberty vs. Democracy
All three of the modern monothestic religions, Judiasm, Islam and Christianity, share the concept of covenant, the foundational principle of federalism (from the Latin foedus: covenant or treaty). Democracy, as promoted by American Liberals, is anti-federal in that is seeks to elevate the "general will" of the supposed majority over the objections of even a rightous minority, whereas classical liberalism, the ideal of preserving the liberty of the individual while promoting the general welfare of the society, is well served by federalism with it's proper understanding of mutual obligations, rights and responsibilites, jurisdictional authority, etc.
I believe that Federalism, within the religious context of the Abrahamic covenant (that which was made to Abraham, the common ancestor of the Arabs and the Jews, with Christians included as as spritual/adopted heirs of Abraham), is really the only hope of a stable regional polity in the Middle East, and should be the guiding force of public policy vis a vis Islam here in the United States.
Dec '10
Re: Liberty vs. Democracy
Aodhan, I honestly have no idea if they're tasting the first sweet fruits of liberty or not. I can only hope they have some inkling of the idea that governments are instituted among men to defend certain rights rather than to deliver certain socioeconomic benefits. If the former, huzzah; if the latter, oh hell.