The Future of Freedom: Understanding Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad - Political Science Book for Researchers & Policy Makers

_The Future of Freedom_ by Fareed Zakaria is a wonderfully well-written look at the crucial differences between liberty and democracy.Democracy is without a doubt the dominant form of government today; in 1900, there wasn't any nation on Earth that we would call today a democracy, one in which every adult citizen can vote, now there are 119, comprising 62% of the world's countries. However, many of these are not liberal democracies. A liberal democracy not only has free and fair elections but also the rule of law, separation of powers, and a protection of basic rights such as free speech, the right to peaceably assemble, and freedom of religion - restrictions on what government can do. This bundle of freedoms, often called constitutional liberalism, does not intrinsically have anything to do with democracy and hasn't always gone with it; Hitler was elected after all. Today exist what Zakaria termed illiberal democracies; democratically elected regimes that routinely ignore constitutional limits on their powers and deprive their citizens of basic rights. Why are so many newly democratic governments sham democracies and why is it so hard to develop legitimate, effective, stable democracies? There are concerns in the developing world of radical Islamist theocracies coming to power. In other instances where ethnic tensions exist racist and sometimes genocidal governments come into power, technically reflecting the will of the majority but unrestrained from carrying out horrible policies.Even the United States has seen an erosion in the popularity and effectiveness of government; despite our society being more democratic than ever, with a Congress more transparent than it has ever been, presidential candidates now picked purely by primary results, and even many economic, religious, and cultural institutions extremely responsive to public moods and trends (Zakaria provided a fascinating look at the democratization of such diverse things as the stock market, banks, American Protestantism, museums, and even the Book-of-the-Month club). California, once hailed for its very democratic ballot box initiatives, wherein the public could bypass government and essentially write its own laws, is now saddled with crumbling infrastructure and nearly bankrupt institutions. Why is this?The answer to the question is that these new governments and our own in the United States lack or have weakened vital nondemocratic guiding forces. In the West limitations on government long preceded any real move towards democracy; constitutional liberalism came first and indeed it was vital that it did so. For centuries in the West countries were becoming what he termed liberal autocracies; the Catholic church, Europe's landed aristocracy, the struggles between Catholics and Protestants, and the rise of capitalism imposed limits on the authorities of kings, not producing a democracy but furthering a developing trend of placing limits on and making demands of government, whether it be a monarch in medieval times or the majority in later centuries.Nondemocratic guides and buffers are lacking in many nations, from resource rich "trust fund" states like Saudi Arabia that remain underdeveloped politically (no need to tax citizens, but then no need to provide much in the way of liberty or good governance either) to states like Russia where popular autocrats such as Putin use elections as "legitimized power grabs" and have centralized political power and greatly weakened checks like independent courts, legislatures, and the press.Our own system of government has many vital nondemocratic institutions; the powerful Supreme Court is unelected, the Bill of Rights is a powerful constraint on the wishes of the majority, and the unelected Federal Reserve leaders wield enormous power. In the recent past many more informal social and political institutions existed as vital guides and buffers to public policy - from doctors to lawyers to churches to the all important political party. Though not perfect, they were often comprised of dedicated, public-spirited individuals, insulated to some degree from the constant ebb and flow of day-to-day public opinion, and with the time, inclination, and experience to handle complex technical issues, issues that the American people delegated to their elected officials (or who in turn delegated to unelected officials). They were elites, and while Americans on the one hand professed a great dislike for the elites, on the other hand it desperately needed them.With the opening up of many institutions in the United States in the belief that more democracy was always the solution, these elites have been replaced by new elites and not for the better. Tax policies for instance may have been decided in smoke-filled committee rooms in Congress, and the lack of transparency was not always good, but now that committee meetings are completely transparent, things are worse, not better. Reformers thought that it would be a good thing for the American people to see how their representatives voted on every issue; in reality the average person doesn't have the time or interest to follow this, but special interests do. In the past votes may have been secret; now lobbyists can deluge individual representatives with faxes, phone calls, and emails to preserve this or that subsidy. The party elites in Congress and policy elites on committees have been replaced by lobbying and special interest elites, people far less well known and a lot less accountable to the American people.California is now in the unique situation of having close to 85% of its budget tied up by legislation, largely the result of publicly voted on initiatives. If the average person won't trust themselves to write a will or do their taxes, why do they think they can write complex legislation? Laws in the past once had to face an arduous process of approval, with lots of give and take, compromise, and could be phased in; initiatives are stark, sudden, and without compromise.Zakaria called for a restoration of balance between democracy and liberty, that there is such a thing as too much democracy, and elites must realize that they have civic responsibilities and act accordingly. Decision making in some vital areas must be distanced from day-to-day politics and leaders must sometimes ignore public opinion.