Comments on: Fareed Zakaria’s “Rise of Illiberal Democracy” http://expostfacto.historytools.org/fareed-zakarias-rise-of-illiberal-democracy/ Unsolicited Historical Commentary Tue, 06 Jan 2009 23:00:05 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Carl http://expostfacto.historytools.org/fareed-zakarias-rise-of-illiberal-democracy/#comment-1036 Carl Fri, 04 May 2007 03:23:07 +0000 http://expostfacto.historytools.org/fareed-zakarias-rise-of-illiberal-democracy/#comment-1036 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. 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.

]]> By: Jared http://expostfacto.historytools.org/fareed-zakarias-rise-of-illiberal-democracy/#comment-1030 Jared Thu, 03 May 2007 16:04:35 +0000 http://expostfacto.historytools.org/fareed-zakarias-rise-of-illiberal-democracy/#comment-1030 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. 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.

]]> By: Brian Knaak http://expostfacto.historytools.org/fareed-zakarias-rise-of-illiberal-democracy/#comment-1028 Brian Knaak Thu, 03 May 2007 15:23:31 +0000 http://expostfacto.historytools.org/fareed-zakarias-rise-of-illiberal-democracy/#comment-1028 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." 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.”

]]> By: Nicole Short http://expostfacto.historytools.org/fareed-zakarias-rise-of-illiberal-democracy/#comment-1008 Nicole Short Wed, 02 May 2007 20:11:58 +0000 http://expostfacto.historytools.org/fareed-zakarias-rise-of-illiberal-democracy/#comment-1008 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. 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.

]]> By: Nathan Zietlow http://expostfacto.historytools.org/fareed-zakarias-rise-of-illiberal-democracy/#comment-1004 Nathan Zietlow Wed, 02 May 2007 15:52:44 +0000 http://expostfacto.historytools.org/fareed-zakarias-rise-of-illiberal-democracy/#comment-1004 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. 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.

]]>