Is Liberal Democracy a Luxury that only affluent societies can afford?

In order to answer the above question it is both important and neccessary to look at both the cultural and economic differences between the developed and developing countries. This question is trying to determine if a liberal democracy is only possible within a developed country. By doing this we will get a sense of how a liberal democracy is seen as a luxury, and if it is only possible for those developed to experience this type of society. This will lead us to the answer of, if it is only likely to have liberal democracies within affluent (developed) society and why.

Liberal democracy is a type of rule that balances both limited government and popular consent. The government is limited by a system of internal and external checks that protect citizens against the state and guarantees their liberty. Popular consent is attained through regular and competitive elections. There are a number of other characteristics that define a liberal democratic rule, such as, a constitutional government, the guarantee of civil liberties and individual rights, party competition, the independence of organised groups from government and importantly free trade.

Liberalism first arose in the early nineteenth century and was a result of a relapse of feudalism, which was substituted by a market or capitalist society, early liberalism was highly influenced by the industrial middle class. Therefore liberalism is frequently seen along with capitalism. From the late nineteenth century liberalism began to look more kindly on social aspects such as welfare reform and economic intervention. John Locke is a key thinker of liberalism in the early nineteenth century. He developed many of his ideas during the english revolution, he has been seen as defending the 'Glorious revolution' of 1688. It was this that concluded the absolutist rule and achieved the constitutional monarch in Britain. Locke highlighted the 'natural rights' of the individual; life, liberty and property. He was extremely supportive of a representative government and his theorys had a huge influence in the american revolution.

There are many aspects of liberalism such as; individualism, freedom, reason, equality, consent, toleration and constitutionalism. The two core elements of a liberal democracy are, individualism and freedom. Freedom is rated over equality, justice and authority. Liberal democracy operate a 'freedom under the law' system, as one persons freedom may be a threat to the freedom of others. Liberalists believe that the main concern of the state is the individual, they believe that each individual is of equal worth and that each hold unique identities. They beleive that individuals have the capacity to make educated judgements for themselves in moral situations. It is beleived that through tolerance and the allowance of free speech, the individual will be guarenteed liberty and social enrichment. Liberalism is morally neutral in that it allows each individual the opportunity to make their own moral decisions.

Liberal internationalism is based on individualism. This is reflected in the liberal belief that universal human rights are possible and that all individuals require a number of basic needs to be met. The UNDP have identified these as; safe drinking water, adequate sanitation, sufficient nutrition, primary health care, basic education and family planning for all those willing. Unless these basic needs are met it is difficult to develop to anything else. Within a liberal democracy it is possible to see that all these needs have been met, with added extras. Not only are basic needs met within democracies but ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Karl Marx predicted that history would end with a communist utopia, we have now seen the collapse of communism. Fukuyama (1989) has since argued that it will end with a liberal democratic utopia. Fukuyama argued in his thesis, 'The end of history' that the end of communist regimes has brought on the success of liberal democracies over all systems of rule. Fukuyama maintains that liberal democracy and the open market economy is extending world wide and is discrediting various other economies and dictatorial governments. He believes that liberal democracy is free of fundamental internal contradictions and that it has answered the deepest of human longings. He adds that it has sealed the end of social evolution. 'The triumph of the west.... an unabashed victory of economic and political liberalism....(and) the total exhaustion of viable systematic alternatives to western (neo) liberalism.' (Fukuyama 1989:3) Although highly respected, 'The end of history' has also been highly criticised. It is said that thinkers such as, Fukuyama are likely to have the belief that their own society is liberal and that they will exaggerate the number of successful liberal democracies there are in the world.

A characteristic previously mentioned of a liberal democracy is that of free trade and open markets. Liberals believe that free markets assist people in expressing their free choices and enjoying the honour of self-determination, which is one of democracies most cherished freedoms. Both the market and liberal democracies apply the doctrine that individuals can influence forces that influence them. Unfortunately markets do not balance with the gesture of common will and therefore this idea is misleading. Markets do not work for people, but works only for those people with money.

In the past thirty years or so there has been a widening gap between the rich and poor, this alone can tell us that free markets and globalisation are currently not ending equalities. It is widely beleived that it is impeding their economic and social development. It was previously believed that the free market would have a 'trickle down' effect, although this idea was discredited at the end of the nineteen seventies. Even though there was visible growth in the developing countries GDP per capita, it appeared that the money seemed to stay with the rich and elitist minorities of the countries but the majority of the countries saw no benefits. 'inequalities tended to widen as the economy grew and became more industrialized ... increasingly, the rich and powerful in the countries of the south were able to enjoy the lifestyle and consumption patterns of developed countries of the north. But large segments of the population experienced no significant improvement in their standard of living, while being able to see the growing affluence of the few.' South Commission (1990:38)

Free trade and movement of capital ensures that money will travel where ever it is most profitable e.g. to developing countries where maximum gains can be made at little costs. This means that those with money (the developed) are gaining through this system and those without money (the developing) are being used for gain but don't receive any benefits themselves. This shows us that free trade is obviously in favour of the hegemon however, how this furthers peripheral states is much less clear. For the free market to be successful within these countries it will require stability within domestic economies and monetary systems.

This is unlikely to happen as developing countries have little control over rules and their integration into the world economy. They are left to follow those rules set by the western and more liberal states, this means they have very little independence in the global economy. There is very little developing states can do to help develop themselves to western standards, or even slightly higher standards as the conditions of their loans insist on them doing things how the IMF or World Bank believe is best. For example 'in order to qualify for western aid and loans, states have to make cuts in many welfare programmes to meet the economic criteria, e.g. the poorest children in parts of Africa have to pay for primary school education.' Booth and Dunne(1999:310). This means that until they pay off their debts and become financially independent (which is unlikely to happen for a very long time) they will continue in this cycle of never developing or adjusting to world markets. This certainly goes against the universal declaration of human rights, which shows us that the concept of human rights has not been universally accepted.

As previously stated, individualism is the core principle of liberalism, it insists society be contrived to give priority to individual rights, needs and interests. In many cultures around the world, particularly the developing ones, their values and cultures are very different. In many cultures and developing societies, due to thier religious beleifs and traditions, there are multiforms of inequalities at several different levels. In many societies women are thought of as less worthy and do not possess the same rights as men. In others your class and sex will determine your right to education and so on. In this sense it is very difficult for these cultures and societies to include the many aspects of a liberal democracy to thier way of life. It has been said that the west is godless and morally wrong, there has been up roar in the wests acceptance of gay rights.

We can see that a liberal democracy is a government that is chosen by the people to promote the interests and freedoms of the people. It is beleived that within a liberal democracy all individuals are, unique but equal and have equal rights to freedom. Within a liberal democracy generally all basic human needs of the individual are met and in some cases, even surpassed. The story within developing countries is very different and very few basic needs are met. It is very unlikely that developing countries would be able to conform at present to a liberal democracy ruling. It can be seen that it contradicts many of thier traditional or religious beleifs which leads them to be resentmentful of the west and liberal democracies. The economic aspects of a liberal democracy would be very difficult for a developing country to adjust to, due to the constraints on policy making from the IMF and world bank, it would be difficult for them to set up a basis for the transition even domestically.

This leads me to the conclusion that liberal democracies are limited to affluent societies. I have reached this conclusion through the understanding that a liberal democracy is as the question states, a luxury. Within a liberal democracy the individual has many rights freedoms that just can not be given at present within developing states. The idea of total equality, free speech, welfare standards cannot be met by these countries. As previously stated, in order for a liberal democracy or even a free, open market to be of any benefit within less developed countries, domestic living standards and economies need to be stable.Without that stability thier systems will be upset and will lead to further problems within the state in the future.

Bibliography

Baylis, J., and Smith, S. (2001), The Globalization of World Politics: An Introdution to International Relations (2nd ed) (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Booth, K. and Dunne, T., (1999) , Learning Beyond Frontiers (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Bull, H. (1984b), Justice in International Relations (Ontario: Hagey lectures, University of Warterloo).

Fry, G., and O' Hagan, J. (2000), Contending Images of World Politics (Basingstoke: Macmillan Press).

Fukuyama, F (1992), The End of History and the Last Man (London: H.Hamilton)

Haskell, T. L., and Teichgraeber III, R. F. (1993), The Culture of the Market: Historical Essays (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Heywood, A. (2002), Politics (London:Palgrave).

⎯ (1998), Key Concepts in Politics (London:Palgrave).

Light, M., and Smith, K. E. (2001), Ethics and Foreign Policy (Cambridge,U.K: New York:Cambridge University Press).

Locke, J. ([1690] 1965) Two Treatises of Government (New York: New American Library).

Wheeler, N. J. (1996), 'Guardian Angel or Global Gangster? A Reveiw of the Ethical Claims of the Society of States', Political Studies, 44 (2)

⎯ and Booth, K. (1992), The Security Dilemma', in J. Baylis and N.J. Rengger (eds.), Dilemmas of World Politics: International Issues in a Changing World (Oxford:Oxford University Press).

Websites used:

http://www.undp.org/