Fareed Zakaria’s “Rise of Illiberal Democracy”
Reading: Fareed Zakaria, “The Rise of Illiberal Democracy,” Foreign Affairs (Nov./Dec., 1997).
I’ve assigned this article in a course on the “Early American Republic” in order to aid our consideration of the long-term historical consequences of this period in U.S. history. Zakaria focuses his inquiry on such political constructs as democracy, liberalism, and constitutionalism. The founders of the United States did not invent these ideas, but they did play a central historical role in fusing them into an enduring national government that has often (although by no means unerringly) expanded and protected minority rights.
By the 1820s and 1830s, the constitutional republic set into motion by the 1787 Philadelphia convention had become a democracy for white men, complete with an ample ideology to explain precisely why it was that white men — and not others — deserved the right to elect their own leaders. Despite a variety of moments during which constitutional restraints were stretched and even broken, by and large the United States remained a constitutional democracy up to American Civil War. During this period, most American political discussions took place with the understanding that the Constitution circumscribed the power of the federal government and protected the rights of American citizens.
The democracy of the early U.S. had its illiberal features. The fact that women, Indians, and African Americans lacked rights and power was no accident — to be sure — but in the North especially, where concern about slavery’s future did not inspire a cultural lock-down, women and African Americans could find spaces (often in churches) within which they could speak and act politically in hope of expanding their rights.
The United States, then, is not (and was not) simply a democracy — a nation ruled by its people. It is a liberal or constitutional democracy whose founding documents profess respect for rule of law and for individual rights.
At this juncture, it is worth asking the question again: how and why did the founding generation create a government of limited power, a government that would pursue the will of the majority while also respecting the rights of political minorities (if not, at first, other kinds of minorities)? To what extent were the founders successful in this project?
Zakaria writes with great respect for constitutional liberalism, which can and sometimes has, even in the absence of democracy, helped protect individual liberty. He expresses concern for the rise, since the end of the Cold War, of a substantial number of democracies that lack constitutional safeguards and that fail to protect individual rights and liberties — he calls these states “illiberal democracies.” Illiberal democracies, he argues, are prone to war, unfriendly to economic development (capitalism), and have with some frequency led to ethnic cleansing and similar atrocities. We need to be careful, he warns, not to mistake democracy as the only political virtue. A democracy without liberal, constitutional limitations on its power can do serious damage to its own people, to other nations, and to the reputation of democracy itself.
In short, Zakaria concludes that democracy should not be seen as an end, in and of itself. Constitutional liberalism, rather, posits the proper end or goal of a government, and democracy is only one way of reaching that goal. In making this point, Zakaria does not mean to defend autocratical forms of government, yet he is properly sensitive to the fact that democracy may not be the right form of government at all times in all places. Both self-government and liberalism have deep roots in western culture, especially in Anglo-American culture and society. The democratic republic that gradually emerged within the U.S. did not develop overnight. Zakaria implies that it would be folly to expect developing nations today to embrace full-fledged, functional democracy simply because they have the means in place to hold elections. (He wrote this essay well before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S. and the subsequent invasion of Iraq; it’s hard not see his concerns as prescient.)
May 2nd, 2007 at 9:52 am
A possible reason for the United States creating a government with limited power for only white men is because other cultures had white men dominating their form of governments. The United States did the same but used democracy. The United States wasn’t sucessful until after the Civil war even after the Civil war the United States still was having problems. After, the Civil war minorities were getting some but not all rights like those of the white men.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:11 pm
It is not difficult to see why the constitution set up a government controlled solely by white men. Women first of all were seen as covered or represented by their husbands. Indians were not considered citizens of the United States. Most blacks were slaves, therefore property not citizens either. Obviously there are contradictions, like what about widows and free blacks. Widows were still women whose ladylike principles kept them out of political matters. Finally the exclusion of free blacks was obviously racially motivated. I’m not arguing these are acceptable reasons just of their existence. Today we find these reasons or excuses to be heinous.
May 3rd, 2007 at 9:23 am
In Fahreed Zakaria’s essay “The Rise of Illiberal Democracy”, he does a masterful job of delineating between democracy and constititutional liberalism. In particular, he argues that democracy, in and of itself, involves only the selecting of a particular government. That is, democracy is neither good or bad.
But what if a majority of the electors select authoritative regimes. As Fahreed describes, “The tendency for a democratic government to believe it has absolute soveirgny can result in the centralization of authority.” Indeed democracy, itself, has led to many abuses of civil rights and liberties. Many examples will be given after constittional liberalism is defined.
Constitutional liberalism, on the other hand, seeks to protect individual liberties . He points out that this notion of liberalism comes from the original philosophical interpretations of the Greeks. Consitutional liberalism does not involve the process of elections, but the end result of actual ideals of liberty and justice.
Fahreed argues that though the world is becoming more democratic it is becoming less liberal. In his own words he states, “Democracy is flourishing: constitutional liberalism is not.” One need only look to Iran, Kazakstan, and Eithiopia to see how restrictive a democracy can actually be. The election of many Hamas officials is another prime example. Hence, it must be concluded that “democracy does not seem to bring constitutional liberalism.” Even James Madison warned of “the danger of oppression” that the majority may represent.
Fahreed also points to the fact that constitutional liberalism can be achieved without a democracy. Throughout history, ther are not many examples of this occuring, but it has been ,and is, possible. As an example he desribed the conditions in Hong Kong up until July 1, 1997.
Fahreed also appears somewhat critical of how democracy is established in the United States. In particular he points to the Supreme Court which is “headed by nine unelected men and women with life tenures. Next he turns his attention to the Senate. Noting that each state has two senators regardless of their population he labels the Senate as “the most unrepresentative upper house in the world, with the loan exception of the House of Lords, which is powerless.”
In conclusion, Fahreed stresses that we must embrace both democracy and constitutional liberalism, not one or the other To embrace one without the other will inherently deny people of their “unalienable rights.”
May 3rd, 2007 at 10:04 am
The founding fathers set up the United States to be run byy White men, because they, the people who were currently running America, were white men. As mentionewd by others this was just how it was in those days women were not allowed to vote because the thought was women were not able to handel politics and that other races were not civilized enough to be citizens of the US. Around the world at this time these ideas are put into practice, Africa a continent that by nature is not a white continent was being run by white men from, Portugal, the Netherlands, France, and England. The world was being run by white men. However, the fact that the Constitution was so broad and left short means they expected the world to change and that their society was not going to be the same as it evolved through time.
May 3rd, 2007 at 9:23 pm
The government was created in the way it was because white men were the elites present at the convention during the discussions and the ratification. Politics of the past had been nothing more then something educated men were required by tradition to take part in. It began with the ancient Roman forums that were held through out the empire to hash out the issues of the day. The founders wanted a similar system to take the reigns in this country.