There are two essential elements of liberal democracy that are: the government is a neutral state based on the free consent of the people and is secondly responsible for the people. Liberal democracy strives to have a responsive government believing the idea that they listen to society and implement polices which ensure equality and freedoms. (It could be argued however that a society where equality has to be enforced cannot be a free one.)
Marx criticised liberal democracy on the grounds that it alienated the people and is deficient because it is a part of capitalism. The ‘freedoms’ and policies implemented by the democratic governments were based on vacillating and uniformed public opinion. Marx disagreed with the concept that each person in society individualistic as they have civil liberties and freedoms and therefore determine social order as ‘Man is born free but is everywhere in chains’ (Rousseau).
Alienation in Marxism is where the individual feels the world around them confronts them as something as hostile and threatening; they are not at home in it. (‘The worker feels himself at home only during his leisure whereas at work he feels homeless.’)
His labour is no longer his own but is traded for money, thus leaving the worker with no interest in his work and also exercises no creativity. Workers are alienated in the workplace further when placed in specialised areas of production and are at the mercy of capitalism as they are driven into the factories to produce goods and services. Marx believed this was the principal evil of capitalism. (‘His work is not voluntary but imposed forced labour’).
Marx’s criticisms of liberal democracy are based on the fact that it is fundamentally flawed and incapable of fulfilling its functions because of its link to capitalism. For example, Marx argued that you could never have a neutral state in a society with a class system. Further more Marx claimed that the bourgeoisie and proletariat had the same civil liberties but liberal democracy under capitalism is essentially dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. It couldn’t therefore, be called a true democracy. Marx’s theory of the state criticises the executive, as it is not neutral as required for a democratic society but an instrument in the favour of the ruling class.
In conclusion, it should be noted that capitalism has changed markedly since the mid 19th century and it has been argued that Marx’s analysis is no longer valid. However, it is clear that his criticisms still have great relevance today.
It has been suggested that since the 1950’s, democracy, especially liberal and representative, is the modern accepted political system for the west. There have been many excuses for the disfunction of liberal democracy over the past century, for example the establishment of it in the first place after the war and the triumph over communism in the cold war. Now, there are no obstacles for a modern capitalist liberal democracy. If ‘all men are created equal’ then each individual should have equal opportunity to develop their talents and be equal before the law. Despite this, Marx had pointed out in his theory of the state that freedom and equality don’t seem to fit together well.
Within western democracy, power resides in the hands of groups, mainly political parties but also interest groups. It is a matter of judgement as to whether these groups operate ion their own interests or, as a reflection of popular will. Democracy is supposed to be based on the sovereignty of the people and therefore government should be an expression of the people’s will. Yet assessing the will is of the people is not easy since there is genuine dispute universally about what is right for society. The usual way around this is to say the will of the people is the will of the majority. By Marx’s criticisms, liberal democracy is not the will of the majority as that would be the proletariat but is dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Marx’s criticisms of liberal democracy are still valid and applicable to the democracy of today yet are conceptualised slightly differently to adjust to modern developments in political structure.
