On Liberalism and Democracy

  

    We live in an era of buzzwords, where words are thrown out without much thought and analysis on what they mean for maximum impact. Words like "fascist", "racist", "liberal" are said left and right in obscure ways that leave me confounded. With the events that we are living, in the MENA region in particular, "democracy" too has become a rather popular word.

However what I personally find unsettling is that "democracy" is not accompanied by its critical sibling, "liberalism."

The purpose of my first note is to draw the nuances between democracy and liberalism but also illustrate how they complement each other and that having one without the other can indeed be dangerous. I will refer to Isaiah Berlin's Two Concepts of Liberty heavily to explain my argument, as it was his work that opened my eyes on the subject.

The note will be focused on broad ideas that serve as foundations rather than specific laws, institutions and political arrangements. While the latter are of course necessary, they still need a certain mindset and perception for them to be developed properly.




So what is Liberalism?

I am using the word "Liberalism" here in its most basic form, rather than its contemporary political and / or economic one that varies heavily from place to place (hence why Sarkozy who would be considered conservative in North America, was considered "ultra-liberal" in France).  I am referring to the desire to protect individual liberty, a concept which was turned into an ideology and philosophy in Western Europe in the 17th, 18th and 19th century by thinkers such as Montesquieu, De Tocqueville, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and John Stuart Mill. They argued that "natural law" dictated that human beings had fundamental rights that had to be protected, from others as well as from the state.

Isaiah Berlin argued that there exists two liberties. The first is negative liberty. What does he mean by that? It's all the rights pertaining to our being that ought to be protected from the encroachment or violation of others. Rights like freedom of opinion, freedom of religion, property rights, freedom from being abused and discriminated against, right to consensual marriage. It's the rights of individuals pertaining to their own lives that should not be transgressed by outside forces, including the government and more poignantly, society. We can very well associate negative liberty with the private sphere. Liberalism as such is focused primarily on that aspect.

Taken to its logical extension, negative liberty and Liberalism would be fully in accordance with women's *full* rights, racial equality, freedom of sexuality, and same-sex marriage and adoption, among others.

If we are to associate one word with Liberalism that would define its "purpose" it would be: Protection. Its raison d'être, to protect the rights of individuals and their private lives from outside violation and encroachment.

So what is Democracy?  

I suspect that some might be wondering why I am making that distinction, as democracies today more or less also have these individual rights or at least promote them. That is true, but it is not a necessary component of democracy. Most legitimate democratic countries today are Liberal Democracies. It would of course be an anachronism to call them "Western democracies" as is often the case, considering India, Brazil, South Korea, Japan, Eastern Europe...etc that have either reached a similar stage or are on the right track.

Democracy in its most basic definition is not necessarily liberal. Demo-Kratia simply refers to having political power be in the hands of the people, something that existed in a very flawed way since antiquity. It is when citizens rule their polity, either directly or indirectly via elected representatives. At its core, democracies sought to empower their citizens.

This is linked with Berlin's second concept of Liberty, positive liberty. It refers to the rights that empower citizens and allow them to rule their polity. Rights such as the right to vote in free, fair and relevant elections, freedom of expression, right to demonstrate, right to stand for elections, right to organize parties or unions, and the like. It is all the rights that would allow a people to self-determine its fate. To have a decisive say in decision making.  Positive liberty, as opposed to negative liberty, would thus be based on the public sphere. That is at the core of a democracy.

If we are to associate democracy with one word, it would be Empowerment. Its raison d'être, to empower the people as a decision making body.  

So what is the relationship between the two?

Liberalism and Democracy are highly complementary. For in order for individuals to protect or acquire their rights, it is highly beneficial for them to have the freedom to express their grievances and organize with others to put pressure on the government and / or society. Indeed, looking at women's valiant struggle to win their rights almost fully in a lot of countries, we can see that Liberalism and Democracy can go hand in hand with good results. Women acquired rights pertaining to both negative and positive liberty. In their most ideal forms, the two would be tightly linked.

However, the two are not necessarily mutually inclusive, as one can exist without the other.
A government can be highly authoritarian, with one party or person monopolizing political power and decision making. And that same regime can also protect and promote individual private rights. The public would not encroach on the private. Individuals would be able to have whatever religion they wish and hold whatever opinion they want, so long as they obey the laws that they have little to no say over their content. The people would be individually free, but as a collective would be powerless and imprisoned in a system they have no legal power to alter. They would be protected, but not empowered.

Barring the ethical belief that self-determination is an inherent right of any people which would frown on such a system, this way of governance is inefficient in the long run and is bound to create a multitude of problems including popular apathy and problems of succession.  "Enlightened despotism" while it can exist (if for the sake of argument we concede that a leader weakening his / her people is an enlightened act), is not a system that can be sustained in the long run. Perhaps as a transitory phase at best.

Likewise, a democracy can be illiberal. In fact, this is the reason why I am writing this and why the talk of democracy rarely if ever accompanied by liberalism, is something I find unsettling.
A democracy can and often does limit, restrict if not completely violate individual rights, with a mandate given to it by the majority. Religious minorities, ethnic minorities, women, LGBT, and simply people with too controversial and "heretical" opinions can be (and often are) subject to persecution because that is the majority's will. Their public and even private liberties restricted or squashed completely (if not their lives) because "the people" demand it. An illiberal democracy would thus not distinguish between private and public, which if taken to an extreme, is at the core of totalitarian ideologies (yes a democracy can be totalitarian).  The people would be empowered, but individuals would not be protected.

Such a system, other than being highly immoral, is also not an efficient and pragmatic one. It's a system that would inherently stifle any individuality and creativity, based on the fear that it would offend the majority. It's a system that would discriminate against individuals based on private matters like beliefs, gender or sexuality that are not anyone's business, without any consideration for their merits and talents that can serve the public.This form of democracy is simply another form of tyranny. The tyranny of the majority. The tyranny of society, traditions and customs.

Between liberal authoritarianism and illiberal democracy, while I adamantly reject both, I fear the latter more.

So what can we conclude?

That democracy without a liberal ideological foundation is a dangerous and inefficient path to take. That for the public to interfere in private matters and restrict individuals rights based on private factors is another form of tyranny. That tyranny of society stifles creativity and genius.

In the eternal words of John Stuart Mill: “Persons of genius, it is true, are, and are always likely to be, a small minority; but in order to have them, it is necessary to preserve the soil in which they grow.”

I would go further and say that we should enrich the soil in which they grow. And since we cannot really know where and how this "genius" will arise, we ought to enrich the soil for everyone, regardless of their race, their gender, their creed and their sexuality. Equality of rights is not only moral, but it is also pragmatic. Only when individuals receive equal rights that are uncompromisingly protected, will they be fully motivated to serve their polity and participate politically.

Democracy combined with Liberalism is the most likely to reach and *sustain* Equality in terms of rights (I would also argue that it ought to reduce income disparity but that's another subject). This Equality will necessitate laws that are not based on exclusionary and / or discriminatory ideologies or religions, but rather civil law that applies to all citizens equally, indiscriminately and which transcends superficial differences in favor of a united and diverse citizenry.

The path to development and progress will necessitate a system that distinguishes between and promotes negative liberty and positive liberty. That sanctifies the private and enriches the public. That both protects and empowers citizens. That is both Liberal and Democratic.