Zakaria on the Possibility of Too Much Democracy
In the movie The Patriot, Mel Gibson plays a veteran of the French and Indian Wars, Benjamin Martin. The movie begins in the first years of the American Revolution. The South Carolina assembly is debating whether to join the war for independence. Wearied by his war experiences, Martin pleads with the assembly to attempt reconciliation with England yet again. When reminded of King George's transgressions, Martin snaps back, "Why should I agree to swap one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away?" Actually, a similar remark has been attributed to Byles Mather, an 18th century Loyalist from Boston, but Gibson probably delivered the line better. What is interesting is how strange to a modern American's ears the phrase rings. How can one enjoy a democracy and suffer a tyranny at the same time?
The United States and most Western democracies have managed to sustain liberal democracies, democracies that not only permit the populace to control the government, but also restrain democratic governments from limiting personal freedoms. It is sometimes hard to imagine that it is also possible to have illiberal democracies where the people are sovereign, but the people choose to use that sovereignty to limit personal freedoms. The idea that personal liberty and democracy can be in tension with one another is the theme of Fareed Zakaria's new book, The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad. Americans rightly seek to promote democracies and as a John Kennedy promised "will bear any burden ... to assure the survival and success of liberty." It is incumbent upon us, especially now that we are reluctantly engaged in nation building in Iraq, to consider the consequences of the balance between democracy and freedom.
Zakaria begins by citing a question posed by American Diplomat Richard Holbrooke, "Suppose elections are free and fair and those elected are racists, fascists, separatists... That is the dilemma." The question is not just theoretical. It is very likely that in some parts of the Middle East, if given a free choice, the people might very well elect to form a theocratic regime, not only hostile to American interests but eager to ignore freedoms of religion, speech, and association to enforce compliance with a certain vision of an Islamic society.
Zakaria traces the history of the notion of individual freedom to Constantine deciding in 324 to move the capital of his empire from Rome to Constantinople, so the empire would be centered nearer the growing centers of trade and wealth. The pope, however, remained in Rome. The move underscored separation of religious and political authority. The Renaissance, the Reformation, and the rise of capitalism all helped expand the personal zone of privacy and autonomy at the root of personal liberty.
Latest Articles