In today’s society, Liberalism, which mirrors the concept of the absolute importance of the rights of the individual human as opposed to a collective body (Heywood, A (1997, 2007) p45), is a major issue that threatens democracy, and the existence thereof. The threats associated with Liberalism are, ironically, resultant from the ideologies and principals allowed for by democracy itself, and have become major threats to democracy’s very existence, and may ultimately lead to its downfall, or at least the reform thereof.
Democracy is a form of government whereby the demos, or people of a nation, elect representatives who govern the country in the interests of the people, or “government by the people” (Heywood, A (1997, 2007) p15). Individualism is by definition, the belief in the “primacy of the individual over any social group or collective body” (Heywood, A (1997, 2007) p196). It has become a major threat to democracy because, in today’s terms, people are becoming more insular in their existence and on the whole, are more concerned with their own well being than with that of their neighbour, nation, or society. People are not concerned in undertakings that do not benefit themselves, and will over-look laws and general ways-of-being if such lore comes into conflict with their own interests. Identity and self-expression as one concept seems to drive Individualism. Such separatist behaviour, observed daily on any university campus, is detrimental to democracy, because in order for democracy to exist effectively, people are required to act as a group, though not in the socialist sense. Democracy requires participation from all members of a nation; it requires every single citizen to act as a functioning part of the nation. Democracy requires each member of a state to uphold the laws that govern the state, and to uphold each law to its fullest sense. Such a requirement cannot, and will not be preserved, if the forthcoming generation of society is overly concerned with a sense of self, and which upholds the notion of “I” rather than “We” in the moral code that governs their somewhat existentialist existence.
Corruption, which is the disregarding of law and protocol, usually to promote personal agenda, is associated with Individualism because it is a (hostile) “me first” mindset (Ball, T and Dagger, R (2006) p79), and is a serious threat to the calibre and legitimacy of a democracy. In each democracy, there are laws that must be abided by, by every single member of the nation. When those members of the nation, especially those in positions of power, such as in government or big business, disregard the laws of their country, they undermine democracy’s survival. Democracy requires each individual to abide by the laws of their nation, but above this, it requires people to act not in the interests of themselves but in the interests of everyone else in the nation. As Liberalism allows for increasing instances of individualist and insular behaviour among people, exemplified by corruption whereby such behaviour is performed in the interest of oneself, the existence of democracy becomes ever more burdened.
Freedom is “the core value of liberalism,” and is “given priority over equality, justice or authority” (Heywood, A (1997, 2007) p47), though it too is, ironically, a threat to democracy. Too much freedom is detrimental to the functioning of democracy because it grants people the belief that their own individualist existence is more legitimate than that of another entity’s, and therefore, in the extremist sense, justifies any action that would prove the course thereof. In light of this, individual freedoms need to be limited, however, over-governance and control undermines the sense of democracy, which again enforces the key underlying factor in the functioning of democracy, which is that people need to act in the interests of all, and not only in the interests of themselves.
Liberalism allows for individual freedom, but “rests on a conception of all human beings as being fundamentally rational human beings” (Ball, T and Dagger, R (2006) p44). In today’s society, people are beginning to act increasingly insular, and this behaviour is the most significant threat to democratic governance because democracy requires participation from each individual who must act in the interests of society as a whole. Therefore, while Liberalism is the primary concept in the build of democracy, it has been warped into a new sense of being far beyond what so many revolutions fought for. Society has become less and less concerned with Liberty, Freedom and Fraternity, and overly concerned with only the sense of “I,” which will ultimately lead to the failure of democracy altogether.
Graham Robert Pote is a Politics, Film and Law student at the University of Cape Town.
Tags: democracy, government, liberalism
3 Comments
Mmm, yes and no. Liberals and libertarians would argue that equality, justice and authority is best served through a system that allows as much personal liberty as possible, has a fairly restrained state that regulates and encourages free economic activity and civil participation.
I don’t think anyone argues for absolute liberal principles which would equate to anarchism (some tradition libertarians were associated with this position).
The degree of economic and individual liberty and freedom that should be allowed varies among different strands of liberalism and libertarianism. You will find that the meaning of liberalism and libertarianism has changed from its initial conceptions around the enlightenment period to where we find ourselves today, as we evolved our understanding of concepts like state, democracy, constitutional democracy, individual rights, collective responsibility, economic models and so forth.
Today you find a variety of positions that claim some aspects of classic pure liberalism and libertarianism. Just have a look at wikipedia or any other source on liberalism to see that the concept has evolved into many specific perspectives according to historical context and according to which systems proponents believe gives best agency to these ideals .
Many liberals acknowledge that the state has an important role to play but differ on how much and in what context. Some liberals argue that the state can play and interfere in areas which classic liberalism wanted the state to stay out of, if the states encourage liberal principles through its policies and regulations (Blair 3 way type of approach).
You can therefore argue that in SA for instance, a party like the DA with liberal credentials acknowledges that you cannot have pure free market economy in SA nor absolute libertarian values on property rights and affirmative action – given our past and socio-economic configuration.
Therfore, they argue for compromise positions like willing seller willing buyer which speaks to economic redress and liberal ideals of property rights.
SA in many ways has a liberal democractic constitution and macro economic policy with element of socio-economic redress and social responsibility built into the system and allocated to government.
In the US you have elements of libertarianism in both parties – republic (economics) and democrats (social). Therefore liberal institutions like the Cato institute claim to be non-partisan and will support parties around specific principals rather than in general.
There are no pure liberal states anywhere, but many parties that advocate liberal principles in their policies. Governance simply doesn’t allow for pure ideological experiments and often lead to failure in societies where it is applied.
So you are right that pure liberal principles wouldn’t work in most countries, but liberal democracy in which ever form might the best amongst a set of imperfect ideologies.
An interesting question is how far liberal politics can take you in SA purely in terms of electioneering?
Dude have you read on liberty, or for that matter any actual liberal theory? Individual autonomy and rights stand as essential pillars of freedom and, for that matter, democracy. They are inseperable. Slapping on some comunal ethic to liberal thinking is entirely incompatible with liberalism!
To James: As referenced throughout the text I have written, I have read about liberalism. Don’t confuse liberty for liberalism, especially in its modern sense & definition, to which I am referring. Try re-reading the article so as to understand what I’ve said about it, because I think you’re missing the point bud. I never said that democracy and liberalism are not related; what I said was that the modern form of liberalism, in the selfish sense, is a threat to democracy because it offers a mindset that emphasizes the “I” over the broader society. I hope you’ll be able to see that if you’ve re-read the article!
One Trackback
[...] second “issue” of The Soapbox has now been posted. Hot off the presses we have a treatise on the dangers liberalism poses to democracy, a look at how Facebook friend requests are accepted regardless of whether you know the person, and [...]