Liberal democracy requires liberal democratic culture. Does this statement tell us anything or is it empty words?

Authors Avatar

Liberal democracy requires liberal democratic culture. Does this statement tell us anything or is it empty words?

Democracy is one of the fundamental presuppositions in the western world. Its definition is, fundamentally, ‘rule by the people’. Although nowadays our civilisations are too large and complex for everyone to directly be involved in decision making, we rely on an elected few to put forward the views, opinions and rights of the many through carefully orchestrated channels. It is one of the buzzwords of the 20th century; democracy is synonymous with peace, equality and justice. Similarly, the term ‘liberal democracy’ has now become tantamount to that of democracy; the two are often though of as one and the same. But does a liberal democracy require a certain culture; where certain norms and values are accepted and abided by; in order to function? Or does the creation of a liberal democracy naturally precede the step to a more liberal, accepting society?

Finding a working definition of the term ‘liberal democracy’ can be difficult. The very idea of a liberal democracy appears to be in itself a contradiction; liberalism in its truest form is essentially anarchy, with no state control whatsoever over personal rights and liberties; a ‘state of nature’. For Locke ‘Liberty: ‘tis plain, consists in a power to do or not to do; to do or forbear doing as we will. This cannot be denied’  Democracy, on the other hand, is a structured system of government with laws and rules in place to essentially limit personal freedoms; for both Locke and Hobbes, ‘the law preserves our liberty by essentially coercing other people. It prevents them from interfering with my acknowledged rights, helps me draw around myself a circle within which they may not trespass, and prevents me at the same time from interfering with their freedom in the same way.’

The idea of negative liberty paints a fairly bleak picture of a liberal democracy, but Locke also argues that no one can exercise political authority over a person without their consent; that political authority in a liberal state rests on the freely given consent of the governed. Locke believes that governments exist purely to protect the interests of the governed; their rights, freedoms and liberties. When one takes this view, the terms of liberalism and democracy can be seen to merge more convincingly. In a liberal democracy, an elected representative has the ability to exercise decision making power, subject to the rule of law and a constitution that emphasises the rights and freedoms of the individual. Citizens posses rights in the public as well as private spheres, and the separation between the two is recognised. In essence, we are free to do as we please so long as it does not impose upon the rights and freedoms of others.

Join now!

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 ...

This is a preview of the whole essay