Although Liberalism is closely associated with the modern development of democracy and democratic institutions, there have been a number of problems in its relationship with democracy. Rousseau saw democracy as being fundamentally majority rule. In Rousseau’s view even if 99% of the people supported one course of action, it would not necessarily be for the common benefit if it were simply the sum of the self-interested motives of the individuals who formed the majority. In short, we could say that Rousseau was showing a preference for consensus politics rather than simple majority rule. Rousseau therefore rejected democracy as a satisfactory system of government, except in the unusual circumstance that a small community of enlightened individuals take into account the interests of others as well as their own. Rousseau regretfully rejected democracy with these famous words; “Were there a people of gods, their government would be democratic. So perfect a government is not for men.”
The ‘democratic solution’ to conflict is recourse to numbers and the application of majority rule, the principle that the will of the majority or greatest number should prevail over that of the minority. In other words, democracy comes down to the rule of the 51 percent, a prospect that Alexis de Tocqueville famously described as ‘the tyranny of the majority’. Individual Liberty and minority rights can thus be crushed in the name of the people. The relationship between Liberalism and democracy may be summed up by Winston Churchill's famous remark, “...democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms...” In other words, there is nothing about democracy per se that guarantees freedom rather than a tyranny of the masses. The coinage Liberal democracy suggests a more harmonious marriage between the two principles than actually exists. Liberals strive after the replacement of absolutism by limited government; a government by consent. The idea of consent suggests a democracy. At the same time, the founders of the first Liberal democracies feared mob rule, and so they built into the constitutions of Liberal democracies checks and balances intended to limit the power of government by dividing those powers among several branches. For Liberals, democracy is not an end in itself, but an essential means to secure Liberty, individuality and diversity.
Liberals have expressed reservations about democracy, not just because of the ‘tyranny of the masses’ but also because of the make-up of the majority in modern societies. J.S. Mill was very precise when he stated that political wisdom is not equally distributed, and that it is largely related to education. The uneducated are more liable to act according to narrow class interests, whereas the educated are able to use their wisdom and experience for the good of others. He therefore insisted that elected politicians should speak for themselves rather than reflect the view of their electors, as it would be more accurate. He also proposed a system of plural voting that would disenfranchise the illiterate and allocate one, two, three or four votes to people depending upon their level of education or social position.
Most 18th and 19th century Liberal spokesmen feared popular sovereignty, and for a long time suffrage was limited to property owners. Benjamin Franklin spoke for the Whig Liberalism of the founding fathers of the United States when he stated, “As to those who have not landed property then allowing them to vote is an impropriety.” John Adams, in his ‘Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America’, was more explicit, finding that, if the majority were to control all branches of government, “Debts would be abolished first; taxes laid heavy on the rich, and not at all on others; and at last a downright equal division of everything be demanded and voted.” French statesmen such as Francois Guizot and Adolphe Thiers expressed similar sentiments well into the 19th century. In Britain, the important Reform Act of 1867 did not completely abolish property qualifications for the right to vote. In France, although the Revolution of 1789 proclaimed the ideal of universal manhood suffrage and the July Revolution of 1830 reaffirmed it, there were no more than 200,000 qualified voters in a population of about 30 million during the reign of Louis-Philippe, the “citizen king” installed by the ascendant bourgeoisie in 1830. In the United States, it was not until 1860 that universal white male suffrage prevailed. In most of Europe universal male suffrage remained a remote ideal until late in the 19th century.
By the 20th Century, however, a large proportion of liberals had to come to think of democracy as a virtue. The earliest of liberal justifications for democracy was that it provides a means of checking the power of the government. John Locke developed a theory of protective democracy by arguing that voting rights should be extended to the property, so the people could then defend their natural rights against government. If government, through taxation, possess the power to seize property, citizens are entitled to protect themselves by controlling the composition of the tax-making body; the legislature. In other words, democracy came to mean ‘government by consent’, operating through the mechanism of a representative assembly. This idea developed into the notion of universal suffrage by utilitarian theorists, such as Jeremy Bentham and James Mill.
Liberal Democracy refers to political systems in which there are attempts to defend and increase civil Liberties against the encroachment of governments, institutions and powerful forces in society. The liberal element in liberal Democracy is the belief in limited government, the idea that the individual should enjoy some protection from the subjective action of public officials. The democratic element represents the fact that the government should be accountable to the people which it represents. Liberal Democracy tries to restrict or regulate government intervention in political, economic and moral matters affecting the population. Liberal Democracy also tries to increase the scope for religious, political and intellectual freedom of citizens. It questions the demands made by vested interest groups seeking special privileges. Liberal Democracy tries to develop a society open to talent and which rewards citizens on merit, rather than on rank, privilege or status. Possibly the most important factor is that it tries to maximise the well-being of all or most citizens.
Liberalism is compatible with democracy as long as democracy does not fall into a ‘tyranny of the masses’ or a ‘rule by the mob’ society in which some minority needs are not cared for. A suitable compromise is Liberal democracy, which helps people gain the individual freedom they wish to have so that they can pursue their self-interest, and at the same time makes sure that government does not become too powerful, because of all the checks and balances which have been put into place.
Bibliography
Political Ideologies – Heywood
Politics – Heywood
Modern Political Ideologies – Vincent
Political Ideologies – McNaughton
Politics Review article – ‘Liberalism Uncovered’ by Mark Garnett