Can a country be democratic without being liberal? When I first heard Viktor Orban daydreaming about an "illiberal" democracy, back in 2014, I thought it was just an oxymoron. But in recent years, hearing people constantly complaining about undemocratic processes and governments in very different situations (Brexit: pro-and-contra, the Biden-presidency, Turkey, Eastern-Europe, etc), and experiencing how the adjective "liberal" has gradually become a form of accusation, got me thinking. What do these words, "liberal" and "democracy" actually mean?
So I started thinking about the political systems we live in the West and trying to figure out what makes them work. Meanwhile, I consciously avoided opening any book or even a Wiki page on political philosophy. That would have spoiled the blue-collar intellectual pedigree of the blog, wouldn't it? Consequently, skepticism is stongly advised for what comes next.
I think the three main components that uphold Western-style societies are the rule of law, liberalism, and democracy. These are related, but not interchangeable concepts which get conflated in the popular discourse quite a bit. A joke comes to mind: one day, an older fish swims by two younger ones and greets them: "Hey boys, how is the water today?" As he passes, one of the two turns to the other and asks: "What is water?" The joke illuminates the fact that it's hard to see what characterizes something that surrounds you and taken for granted if you have never encountered the alternatives. So, for figuring out what the relationship between the three concepts above is, I tried to think about how political systems would look like that only implemented a subset of them.
First, I give some rudimentary description of each of these three concepts, as I see them, then take a look at that in what combinations they can co-exist.
The rule of law
...deserves to come first, since, as explained later, this seems to me not only the most important of the three, but also that what undergirds the other two. The expression means that there are written rules that place boundaries on personal liberty and regulate conduct between parties in all fields of life. Laws are enforced by an effective and apolitical police force, and disputes are resolved before impartial courts also independent of the political influence. If a society possesses nothing of the blessings of modernity beyond this, it's already a vastly better place to live in than people had to put up with before our era. According to most social scientists who study the development of nations (I mean the 3-4 I read), the legal guarantee of private property is the most important prerequisite of prosperity.
Liberalism
...., in a nutshell, is built upon two core ideas. Everyone is born with the same value, rights, and dignity, and secondly, everyone is entitled to live her life whichever way she chooses, as long as it doesn't violate the freedom of others to do the same. These two principles are not interchangeable, and it's easy to imagine a society where the first is upheld, but the second isn't. An ideal Christian society would be like that. Everyone is born as equal (in sin, that is), but lifestyle choices are rather vehemently constrained. The reversed situation in which people are unequal by birth but have the same opportunities and freedom seems implausible.
Democracy
...., as understood today, is representative democracy with universal suffrage. In democractic countries, political leaders are elected by the citizenry for limited terms of service. At the next election, the leaders can be peacefully voted out of office, which decision they accept and leave.
These three components, on the assumption that they are independent, can be combined in eight different ways. Which of these are viable?
System 0: weak rule of law, illiberal, undemocratic
Assigning the number zero to this combination is approprioate, because this has been the default for almost all states in human history. Historical examples are therefore are abundant and there are many countries even today that fit the bill: Russia, China, Third World countries, etc. They are fully or partially undemocratic, practically or proudly illiberal, and the courts and police are under the thumb of the holders of power.
System 1: illiberal, undemocratic, with the rule of law
Examples for societies that respect the rule of law, but are neither democracies nor liberal include most late-nineteenth-century countries in the West. The United Kingdom, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Bismarckian Prussia, ...etc. The rulers weren't elected by universal suffrage (or elected at all), poor and rich people were not treated as equals, societal pressures were stifling, but an aristocrat at least couldn't just go and kick you out of your house without a legal pretext. Which you could challenge in court. Theoretically, at least. In practice, the rule of law was lousy by today's standards, but it was definitely a huge step forward from the earlier eras.
System 2-3: weak rule of law, democratic (liberal or illiberal)
Democracy without a strong legal foundation never existed - at least not in a larger society, and probably never will. It is built on the practice of peaceful transfer of power which only works if it's enforced by law. People don't give up power without the threat of punishment, and if one does, the next one won't.
System 4-5: undemocratic liberalism (with or without the rule of law)
Like democracy, liberalism on its own never existed, either. Non-democratic countries by definition violate the principle that everyone has the same rights, and in practice, personal freedom as well. Liberalism presupposes democracy, which presupposes the rule of law. Or to look only at the relationship between law and liberalism: small communities can live without a legal system, but in larger ones, nonconformism needs the protection of the law. High level of cultural tolerance is not natural for humans.
System 6: Democratic, lawful, illiberal
Back to the idea that initiated this post. Can a country be democratic without being liberal? When I first heard Orban's latest "revelation", I dismissed it immediately (mostly for the reason that what he had in mind was simply a kleptocracy, but even he felt the need to dress it up to sound somewhat better). But I wasn't entirely right. The 1920s United Kingdom wasn't very liberal in today's sense, even though universal suffrage was granted in 1923. The 50s America weren't much better either, with institutional racism, pervasive homophobia, laws against sodomy, oral sex, interracial marriage, etc. In theory, a truly Christian democracy would be an illiberal one, too. Access to political power for everyone, but strict social norms (very illiberal ones for gays, women, atheists, etc) for all.
So illiberal democracy is a viable form of government, for a time being, anyway. In a healthy democracy, different opinions tend to percolate up to the decision-makers, constantly pushing against the consensus, which would broaden the range of accepted norms. An illiberal democracy either turns ever more liberal (which happened in most Western countries after the Second World War) or ever less democratic (e.g. pre-war Germany and Italy, or contemporary Hungary, Poland, Turkey).
System 7: Liberal democracy founded on the rule of law
Back to the water.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment