The United States and the Western world are usually present as models of democracy. With their multiparty political systems and free elections, these countries have empowered their citizens and allowed them to participate in shaping how they are governed. These countries stand in sharp contrast to the rest of the world. There are dozens of nations where no elections are held and citizens endure brutality and repression under autocratic regimes. Asia, Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Africa are among the regions that are dotted with autocratic governments that suppress any attempts to build democratic institutions. It is worth noting that democracies and autocracies are not the only forms of governments. Illiberal democracies are another form. Combining elements of both democratic and autocratic governance, the illiberal democracies are an emerging trend that underscores the challenge of sustaining democracies and the appeal of autocratic systems.
Defining Illiberal Democracy
In his text, The Rise of Illiberal Democracy, Fareed Zakaria (1997) offers an enlightening discussion on the governance landscape across the globe. He gives special focus to illiberal democracy and the impact that it is having on civil liberties and how populations are governed. According to Zakaria, illiberal democracy is a governance system that marries democracy with autocracy; it is composed of various elements of democratic governance and some aspects of autocratic regimes (Zakaria, 1997). Allowing the people to vote in free and fair elections is the main feature of democracy that illiberal democracy borrows. Zakaria offers the example of various countries in such regions as Asia and Africa which have moved away from one-party and autocratic systems and towards democracy through free elections (Zakaria, 1997). Another feature of democratic governance that constitutes illiberal democracy is respecting and recognizing the will of the people. The governments elected through the free elections pledge to represent the interests and champion for the welfare of the electorate. Curtailing political and civil liberties is the primary feature of autocratic governance that illiberal democracy shares (Zakaria, 1997). For instance, a nation that holds free elections may interfere with the judiciary or crack down on civil societies. This example indicates that it is indeed possible for a nation to encourage and conduct free elections but refuse to grant its people the liberties that usually accompany democratic governance. Authoritarianism is not the only issue that characterizes illiberal democracies. According to Zakaria, these governments are also defined by high levels of corruption, inefficiencies and irresponsibility. Iran, Belarus and Kazakhstan are among the nations that Zakaria identifies as being illiberal democracies (Zakaria, 1997). While their leaders are elected through open democratic exercises, these nations do not entertain such elements of democracy as an active opposition or an independent judiciary.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Illiberal Democracy Shedding Light on Democracy
The discussion that Zakaria offers in his text goes beyond merely outlining the traits that characterize illiberal democracies. Thanks to the discussion, one is also able to recognize the role that illiberal democracy plays in shedding light on democracy as a form of governance. Among the issues regarding democracy that illiberal democracy highlights is that democratic governance is a continuum. On the one hand are Western nations which have achieved true democracy (Zakaria, 1997). In addition to holding free elections, these nations also grant and safeguard fundamental civil liberties that are enshrined in the constitution. On the other hand, there are other nations which are ruled by autocratic leaders who stifle basic rights and refuse to allow elections to occur (Zakaria, 1997). Between the democratic and autocratic governance systems are other models that Zakaria describes as semi-democratic. Essentially, these governance systems are neither fully fledged democracies nor autocracies. Instead, they are governance structures that are made up of features that define the two systems. The understanding that democracy is a continuum is made possible through the concept of illiberal democracies. Thanks to this concept, one is able to understand that a nation can be democratic while still holding on to traits of autocracy.
Another lesson that one learns through the concept of illiberal democracy is that democracy can be the gateway to autocracy and dictatorship. Zakaria observes that a number of autocratic governments were the result of such democratic processes as free elections. Those who enter office through these processes vow to represent the people (Zakaria, 1997). However, exploiting the mandate that they have been awarded by the people, these rulers embark on a campaign of brutality and authoritarianism. Zakaria offers Iran, Palestine and Pakistan as some of the nations that have slipped into autocracy thanks to democracy. Despite conducting elections, these nations are under the rule of governments that have embraced a theocratic model (Zakaria, 1997). It is evident that in discussing illiberal democracy, Zakaria set out to caution his readers about the dangers of complacency. Individuals need to recognize that the mere fact that a nation’s people participate in free elections does not necessarily mean that they will witness democracy.
That the mere fact that a nation conducts elections is not sufficient to sustain democracy is another issue that becomes clear thanks to the concept of illiberal democracy. Zakaria’s article seems dedicated to highlighting the precarious nature of democracy. He notes that there are nations which were once promising models of good governance but have since fallen under the rule of authoritarian regimes (Zakaria, 1997). Zakaria blames the failure of these nations on the lack of the structures and processes necessary to sustain democracy. For example, the rule of law, and protection of civil liberties are among the necessary ingredients for successful democratic government. Without these factors, a newly democratic nation is likely to return to its autocratic past. African nations which embraced multiparty politics and free elections in the 1990s are examples of countries whose experimentation with democracy failed (Zakaria, 1997). In a worrying number of these nations, autocratic regimes suppress basic freedoms despite having obtained their authority from their people who enthusiastically participated in elections. The experiences of these countries are clear indication that in order to establish a true democracy, a country needs to go beyond merely creating an environment where multiplicity and free expression thrive. It is also vital for these nations to create processes and institutions which safeguard the integrity of democracy and protect civil liberties.
Democracy can be its own enemy is yet another message that Zakaria conveys through his discussion on illiberal democracy. For the most part, democracy is a governance system that delivers gains for the citizenry. For example, thanks to this system, citizens are able to directly determine who rules them. However, as Zakaria cautions, democracy has certain limitations and drawbacks that could set the stage for collapse into anarchy and authoritarianism (Zakaria, 1997). For example, various Latin American nations purport to be democratic on account of the fact that their leaders are democratically elected. However, these countries have also established institutions and processes which undermine democracy. Zakaria observes that in most of these countries, populist leaders rise to power and attempt to rule in a country with multiple political parties. According to Zakaria, a combination of populist leadership and multiparty politics can be toxic and could hinder true democracy (Zakaria, 1997). Essentially, Zakaria suggests that in order for democracy to thrive, nations need to establish the appropriate political climate, institutions and structures. Populist politics is simply incompatible with democracy. The warnings that Zakaria issues find confirmation in the current political situation in the US and other nations that have been traditional models and defenders of democracy. Donald Trump’s election ushered a new era where populist leaders elected through democratic elections proceed to attack the very foundation and institutions of democracy.
As already noted, Zakaria’s article offers a passionate defense of democracy. He makes it clear that when combined with political and civil freedoms, democratic governance is the most ideal way of ruling. However, Zakaria also appears to suggest that democracy has some caveats which hamper its appeal and make it unideal. For example, he states that in fully democratic nations, leaders are required to engage in coalition building and extensive consultations as they attempt to resolve crises and ensure inclusivity. However, Zakaria also notes that in some situations, democracy could hinder progress given its complexity and the need to include all voices (Zakaria, 1997). These situations enhance the appeal of illiberal democracies. As opposed to democratic rule which erodes executive power and emphasizes inclusion, illiberal democracies allow rulers to bypass such institutions as the legislature in pushing through which agendas that are in the best interest of their people. For instance, a government that wishes to privatize public corporations could exercise its executive authority and dismiss any concerns raised by the legislature. Basically, Zakaria indicates that illiberal democracies are a compromise that may be necessary to achieve certain positive goals. By presenting illiberal democracies as ideal in certain situations, Zakaria essentially states that democracies are imperfect and may derail much-needed progress.
The focus of the discussion above has been on the role that illiberal democracies play in enhancing one’s understanding of democracy. An argument can be made that illiberal democracies do not provide any useful information on democratic governance. This argument could be based on the premise that illiberal democracy and conventional democracy are so different that no information about one can be gained from the other. While this argument seems sound, it fails to account for the indirect association between the two governance systems. As it has already been stated, illiberal democracy falls within the continuum of democracy. Furthermore, the concept of illiberal democracy allows one to recognize how democracy fails and the damaging impact that it can have on a country’s growth. Therefore, there is no doubt that the concept of illiberal democracy promotes the understanding of democracy.
In conclusion, democracy is under threat. The emergence of illiberal democracy is among the factors to blame for the decline of democracy. Across the world, more and more countries are abandoning authoritarianism. However, instead of achieving full democratic status, these nations simply adopt such elements of democracy as free elections. The governments in the countries stifle dissent and muzzle the media. Furthermore, the authorities usurp the powers of other institutions while limiting basic freedoms. By understanding illiberal democracies, one is able to recognize that democratic governance is needed today more than ever before. Therefore, no effort should be spared in promoting democratic rule.
References
Zakaria, F. (1997). The rise of illiberal democracy. Foreign Affairs, 76 (6), 22-43.
