The system under which the rights and freedoms of the people are protected can be said to be more tied in with constitutional liberalism than democratic liberalism, however. For a democracy to be classed as such, free, open, multiparty elections must be held. The type of government elected is irrelevant. Richard Holbrooke, an American diplomat, asked the question on the eve of the 1996 elections in Bosnia, "Suppose the election was declared free and fair, and those elected are racists, fascists, separatists, who are publicly opposed to peace and reintegration. That is the dilemma." According to Zakaria, a democracy need not be liberal in the common-sense way; an increasing numbers of countries are now holding free, fair elections, and the government brought to power then disregards typical channels and rules as, essentially, a dictatorship. It can be said that for a country to be thought of as democratic, a less minimalist definition of a democracy is kept in mind, where certain human liberties must be abided by, thus rendering the term ‘democracy’ to a more descriptive, subjective category.
Constitutional liberalism, however, refers less to the style of government and more to its aims. There is much emphasis on individual liberties, as discussed earlier, and the individual’s rights to certain liberties such as freedom of speech are protected constitutionally. Veit Bader put forward a number of “generic virtues of liberal democratic politics”, common prerequisites through which one can distinguish a liberal democracy from other sorts of regimes, but not one liberal democracy from another. He argued that every liberal democracy has the same cultural fundamentals, such as the belief to respect the rights of others, to engage in public debate while listening to the opinions of others, to resolve disputes peacefully, to respect democratic procedures etc. In his opinion, a liberal democracy does require a liberal democratic political culture, in other words, constitutional liberalism; a certain way of thinking must be ‘the norm’ for a liberal democracy to function. It is in this kind of society where a liberal democracy can flourish, where a presupposition of these sorts of rights already exist. In countries where no such culture existed, attempting to create a democracy results in, as Zakaria puts it, ‘illiberal democracies’, where free elections are held, a government is duly elected, but no such culture of a liberal society exists.
As already mentioned, the ideas of democracy and constitutional liberalism are often thought of as synonymous, and the idea of having one without the other, as an illiberal democracy or a liberal autocracy, is a difficult concept to grasp. However, until the 1900s, most modern countries were liberal autocracies or semi-democracies. It was not until mid-1900s that most western countries became fully democratic, with the introduction of universal suffrage. However, constitutional liberalism, or the liberal democratic culture, had been established long before, with certain human liberties becoming widely accepted. In other words, the liberal society far preceded the liberal democracy. Zakaria explores this briefly in his article, but also states that ‘Constitutional liberalism has led to democracy, but democracy does not seem to bring constitutional liberalism.’
The best examples of illiberal democracies, and more importantly for this question, where the emergence of a democracy has not led to or been preceded by a liberal democratic culture, are in Africa, Latin America, and parts of Asia. In the early 1990s, much of French-Speaking Africa began to hold multi-party elections. However, following elections in most of the 45 sub-Saharan states, what has resulted are more illiberal democracies and more abuses of human rights and liberties than previously. Michael Chege, director of the Center for African Studies, University of Florida, after studying the emergence of democratic government in Africa, came to the conclusion that the continent had "overemphasized multiparty elections … and correspondingly neglected the basic tenets of liberal governance." Similarly, in the Islamic world, democratisation has resulted in an increasing role of theocratic politics, eroding previous long-standing freedoms and human rights. Iran’s government, for example, was elected more fairly and freely than most in the Middle East, yet imposes incredibly harsh restrictions on speech and even dress. Another interesting example to note has been the differences between British and French colonies in Africa. Myron Weiner, for example, commented on how all larger third world countries with established democracies were at some point British colonies. Although colonial rule is by nature undemocratic, these countries would have had a tradition of civil liberties under British rule, and thus managed the progression to a liberal democracy far easier than, for example, colonies under French rule. Finally, if one examines the situation in many East-Asian countries today, there are many startling similarities between the way these countries are governed today; a mixture of democracy, liberalism and capitalism, and the way Britain was governed in the late 1800s.
Although at first glance the opening statement does not appear to say anything in particular, much of the western world does still seem to believe that forcing democracy on a country will result in a more liberal, fair state, no matter what past that country has. However, it appears obvious that certain fundamental prerequisites must exist for a liberal democracy to function properly. To return to Bader’s “generic virtues of liberal democratic politics”, the presuppositions he has drawn upon all existed in today’s fully-fledged liberal democracies long before they became so. Without a liberal democratic culture, liberal democracies cannot function, and become illiberal democracies, more dangerous than authoritarian states and dictatorships as the leaders have the legitimacy of being elected.
Bibliography
Axtmann, Roland, Liberal Democracy into the 21st Century (Manchester, Manchester University Press, 1996)
Bock, Gisela et al, Machiavelli and Republicanism, (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1990) 293-309
, Joseph H. Carens, Political Theory, Vol. 25, No. 6. (1997), pp. 814-820.
Wintrop, Norman, Liberal Democratic Theory and its Critics (London : Croom Helm, 1983)
Levine, Andrew, Liberal Democracy: a critique of its theory, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1981)
Carter, A. and G. Stokes, Liberal Democracy and its critics: perspectives in Contemporary political thought (Cambridge, Polity, 1998)
Arash Abizadeh, ‘Does Liberal Democracy Presuppose a Cultural Nation? Four Arguments’ American Political Science Review Vol. 96, No. 3 (September 2002)
Zakaria, Fareed ‘The Rise of Illiberal Democracy’, Foreign Affairs November, 1997 http://www.fareedzakaria.com/ARTICLES/other/democracy.html
Wikipedia
Locke (1975) in Axtmann, Roland, Liberal Democracy into the 21st Century (Manchester University Press 1996) pp17
Skinner (1990) in G. Bock et al. Machiavelli and Republicanism (Cambridge University Press 1990) pp 295
Wikipedia; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy
Cited in , Zakaria Fareed ‘The Rise of Illiberal Democracy’, Foreign Affairs, (November 1997)
Cited in , Joseph H. Carens, Political Theory, Vol. 25, No. 6. (1997), pp. 814-820.
Cited in Zakaria, Fareed ‘The Rise of Illiberal Democracy’