Liberal Democracy
Content
Will Malson Pols 101 A
Liberal Democracy
1/4
Liberal Democracy
Liberal democracy is a joining and permutation of the philosophy of classical liberalism and the idea of popular sovereignty. Loosely defined, it is a variant of democracy in which decisions via the majority (direct or representative) are the sole determinate of the course of policy, provided that course does not violate liberties or rights (as defined by a constitution). [1]Using this definition and concept as a foundation, this paper will be used to identify the key strength and weakness of liberal democracy, via its logical pattern and ethical examples: namely, its foundation and protection of individual rights, and its (potential) tendency to thoroughly violate and trample the very rights it was founded upon.
One of the most important strengths of liberal democracy is its grounding in individual rights. This can be classified as a strength (and not merely as something to codify it with) because respect for human rights is something universally recognized as good: hence the term human rights. Liberal democracy is in a unique position to claim such a foundation. It can be proved more or less from the ground up, starting with the concept of human dignity. If all humans have equal value (rather than aptitude), then neither are we of greater worth as a human being than another, nor are we of less worth. In order to preserve this concept of human dignity, we must have certain rights ± human rights. For purposes of this proof we will look at one in particular: freedom of expression: specifically, freedom of speech. Furthermore, we can stipulate that humans have the inherent right to draw a social contract: to define our ruling body, as a government only governs by the consent of the governed. Recognizing our right to speak freely
Will Malson Pols 101 A
Liberal Democracy
2/4
and to define our government, we logically come to the conclusion that we must all have a say in the government that will rule over us: if we do not, then we do not have the freedom of expression, and our human rights are violated. In that regard, democracy is the only form of government that preserves the social contract and our other basic human rights. Furthermore, liberal democracy is constantly faced with a specific challenge: as it is classic liberalism combined with popular sovereignty, a liberal democratic system must always strive to ensure majority rule and to respect minority rights. [2] Fortunately, liberal democracy has a good track record of doing so, and in such a way as to not disregard economic issues, but instead measurably increasing economic gains and anti-hegemonic corporative domination. Liberal democracy has been able to combine constitutionalism with capitalist values (property rights, individuals, Hobbesian assumptions underneath all contract, etc.). Liberal democracy has been able to close that gap between economy and morality via a somewhat neo-liberal political rationality.[3.1]
Despite the grounding in ³inalienable human rights´ that liberal democracy has, it nevertheless is riddled with problems, most of which are self-immolating in nature. First, as Agamben describes, it can quickly devolve into what he (constantly) describes as a ³state of exception´ ± a central paradigm (as he contends) of government today. According to Agamben, it is not a paradigm that is limited to authoritarian regimes, but ever more characteristic of liberal democracies. For example, post-September 11, we have become increasingly Orwellian in nature: the expansion of the state¶s powers of surveillance, control and indefinite detention, and the paranoid description and destruction of everything conceivable as a ³safety´ or ³security´ threat (or, as Foucault describes, an ³other´) crumble the distinction between authoritarian and liberal-democratic
Will Malson Pols 101 A
Liberal Democracy
3/4
regimes. Fundamental civil liberties are attacked; the rapacious exponential increase in government permeation in individual citizens lives is no longer something looked upon with disdain (by those in the government), but with much joy and glee. To borrow from a certain popculture element, securitization would be Stephenie Meyer, security and safety would be Edward Cullen (or Jacob), and politicians would be the squealing thirteen year-old fangirls. Indeed, it is not so much that liberal democracy allows (inherently) for these problems to arise, but that is welcomes them in with open arms. [3.2] Especially for Baudrillard, by the end of the 1990s with the collapse of communism, it would seem that the West (and liberal democracies in general) are not forced, but willingly accept the embedding of the former communist regimes into the system of the capitalist world market and liberal democracy as a whole. [4] Nietzsche concurs: the connection between liberal democracy and the authoritarian regimes is not only an expected outcome, but inherent in the process of the construction of liberal democracy and in its continued survival.[5.1]This can all be classified as one weakness: liberal democracy¶s self-immolating nature is something no governmental unit can ignore. To quote him directly, ³Parliamentarianism²that is public permission to choose between five basic public options² flatters and wins the favour of all those who would like to seem independent and individual, as if they fought for their opinions´ (GS 174). It would have been no surprise to him to see ³the Nazi state emerge out of the Weimar republic´, simply because individuals do not shape their own future, but are tricked into believing that they do. However, if liberal democracy can remain simply a cooperation of two conjoined twins, namely classical liberalism and popular sovereignty, there is hope for it to avoid such problems. Nevertheless, it would not be prudent to ignore the possibility of such disastrous consequences (in both the utilitarian/consequentialist
Will Malson Pols 101 A
Liberal Democracy
4/4
and ontological sense) when evaluating the cohesiveness and attractiveness (and of course the aptitude and strength) or liberal democracy as a governing system.
Bibliography
[1] Democracy and Citizenship » Glossary, Copyright © 2010 Liberal Arts Instructional Technology Services, University of Texas at Austin, http://www.laits.utexas.edu/gov310/DC/glossary.html
[2] Condoleezza Rice, Liberal Democracy, Page 426: Vital Speeches of the Day, 0042742X, May2006, Vol. 72, Issue 14/15, Pages 425-428
[3] Wendy Brown, Neo-liberalism and the End of Liberal Democracy, Theory & Event, Volume 7, Issue 1, Copyright © 2003, Wendy Brown and The Johns Hopkins University Press
[4] Douglas Kellner, Jean Baudrillard, Copyright © 2007 by Douglas Kellner & the Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/baudrillard/
[5] Katrin Froese, Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Daoist Thought: Crossing Paths In-between, Published by and © 2006 by State University of New York Press, Albany, Page 166
Liberal Democracy
1/4
Liberal Democracy
Liberal democracy is a joining and permutation of the philosophy of classical liberalism and the idea of popular sovereignty. Loosely defined, it is a variant of democracy in which decisions via the majority (direct or representative) are the sole determinate of the course of policy, provided that course does not violate liberties or rights (as defined by a constitution). [1]Using this definition and concept as a foundation, this paper will be used to identify the key strength and weakness of liberal democracy, via its logical pattern and ethical examples: namely, its foundation and protection of individual rights, and its (potential) tendency to thoroughly violate and trample the very rights it was founded upon.
One of the most important strengths of liberal democracy is its grounding in individual rights. This can be classified as a strength (and not merely as something to codify it with) because respect for human rights is something universally recognized as good: hence the term human rights. Liberal democracy is in a unique position to claim such a foundation. It can be proved more or less from the ground up, starting with the concept of human dignity. If all humans have equal value (rather than aptitude), then neither are we of greater worth as a human being than another, nor are we of less worth. In order to preserve this concept of human dignity, we must have certain rights ± human rights. For purposes of this proof we will look at one in particular: freedom of expression: specifically, freedom of speech. Furthermore, we can stipulate that humans have the inherent right to draw a social contract: to define our ruling body, as a government only governs by the consent of the governed. Recognizing our right to speak freely
Will Malson Pols 101 A
Liberal Democracy
2/4
and to define our government, we logically come to the conclusion that we must all have a say in the government that will rule over us: if we do not, then we do not have the freedom of expression, and our human rights are violated. In that regard, democracy is the only form of government that preserves the social contract and our other basic human rights. Furthermore, liberal democracy is constantly faced with a specific challenge: as it is classic liberalism combined with popular sovereignty, a liberal democratic system must always strive to ensure majority rule and to respect minority rights. [2] Fortunately, liberal democracy has a good track record of doing so, and in such a way as to not disregard economic issues, but instead measurably increasing economic gains and anti-hegemonic corporative domination. Liberal democracy has been able to combine constitutionalism with capitalist values (property rights, individuals, Hobbesian assumptions underneath all contract, etc.). Liberal democracy has been able to close that gap between economy and morality via a somewhat neo-liberal political rationality.[3.1]
Despite the grounding in ³inalienable human rights´ that liberal democracy has, it nevertheless is riddled with problems, most of which are self-immolating in nature. First, as Agamben describes, it can quickly devolve into what he (constantly) describes as a ³state of exception´ ± a central paradigm (as he contends) of government today. According to Agamben, it is not a paradigm that is limited to authoritarian regimes, but ever more characteristic of liberal democracies. For example, post-September 11, we have become increasingly Orwellian in nature: the expansion of the state¶s powers of surveillance, control and indefinite detention, and the paranoid description and destruction of everything conceivable as a ³safety´ or ³security´ threat (or, as Foucault describes, an ³other´) crumble the distinction between authoritarian and liberal-democratic
Will Malson Pols 101 A
Liberal Democracy
3/4
regimes. Fundamental civil liberties are attacked; the rapacious exponential increase in government permeation in individual citizens lives is no longer something looked upon with disdain (by those in the government), but with much joy and glee. To borrow from a certain popculture element, securitization would be Stephenie Meyer, security and safety would be Edward Cullen (or Jacob), and politicians would be the squealing thirteen year-old fangirls. Indeed, it is not so much that liberal democracy allows (inherently) for these problems to arise, but that is welcomes them in with open arms. [3.2] Especially for Baudrillard, by the end of the 1990s with the collapse of communism, it would seem that the West (and liberal democracies in general) are not forced, but willingly accept the embedding of the former communist regimes into the system of the capitalist world market and liberal democracy as a whole. [4] Nietzsche concurs: the connection between liberal democracy and the authoritarian regimes is not only an expected outcome, but inherent in the process of the construction of liberal democracy and in its continued survival.[5.1]This can all be classified as one weakness: liberal democracy¶s self-immolating nature is something no governmental unit can ignore. To quote him directly, ³Parliamentarianism²that is public permission to choose between five basic public options² flatters and wins the favour of all those who would like to seem independent and individual, as if they fought for their opinions´ (GS 174). It would have been no surprise to him to see ³the Nazi state emerge out of the Weimar republic´, simply because individuals do not shape their own future, but are tricked into believing that they do. However, if liberal democracy can remain simply a cooperation of two conjoined twins, namely classical liberalism and popular sovereignty, there is hope for it to avoid such problems. Nevertheless, it would not be prudent to ignore the possibility of such disastrous consequences (in both the utilitarian/consequentialist
Will Malson Pols 101 A
Liberal Democracy
4/4
and ontological sense) when evaluating the cohesiveness and attractiveness (and of course the aptitude and strength) or liberal democracy as a governing system.
Bibliography
[1] Democracy and Citizenship » Glossary, Copyright © 2010 Liberal Arts Instructional Technology Services, University of Texas at Austin, http://www.laits.utexas.edu/gov310/DC/glossary.html
[2] Condoleezza Rice, Liberal Democracy, Page 426: Vital Speeches of the Day, 0042742X, May2006, Vol. 72, Issue 14/15, Pages 425-428
[3] Wendy Brown, Neo-liberalism and the End of Liberal Democracy, Theory & Event, Volume 7, Issue 1, Copyright © 2003, Wendy Brown and The Johns Hopkins University Press
[4] Douglas Kellner, Jean Baudrillard, Copyright © 2007 by Douglas Kellner & the Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/baudrillard/
[5] Katrin Froese, Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Daoist Thought: Crossing Paths In-between, Published by and © 2006 by State University of New York Press, Albany, Page 166
