I plan for this Substack to dive into plenty of different topics, some of which will be chiefly literary or historical, leaving contemporary politics in another inbox. Or rather, those articles will offer a refreshing breath of air to recalibrate our relation to the fast-paced and incredibly toxic political climate in efforts to aid in the detoxification and de-amplification of that political cancer.
However, to get started I was offered a piece of advice from a friend to better clarify the vision for this Substack: define Liberal Democracy. Part of the “breaking” of democracy is an under-appreciation of (1) what Liberal Democracy is and (2) the goals of a Liberal Democracy and the larger vision’s available within this rather broad and too generally defined concept. Along with this overarching definition, a few tangents into other definitions will also help guide the political angle.
Defining Liberal Democracy
Defining liberal(ism)
The term ‘liberal’ is fraught with connotations that are both obnoxious and incorrect. In a global context the U.S. conservative pejorative use of ‘liberal’ makes little sense. Unfortunately, global right-wing or conservative leaning circles picked up this pejorative due to its overuse on social-media, a chiefly American phenomena. However, left-wing notables, mostly those from the tankie aisle, also picked up on the term. Social media debates feature ‘liberal’ or ‘neoliberal’ being thrown around with such random ferocity as an ‘insult’ the thrower’s lack of defining either term is evident.
Retracting the term ‘liberal’ from the ‘pejorative’ sense may take a bit of effort from those who define themselves under the tutelage of grifting political ideology. Unfortunately, that also taints the word for anyone who obtains a large amount of news from social media, or news channels featuring the grifters of social media.
Words are important, and in protecting democracy, defining words in discussions with friends and family is critical. The dictionary offers a grammatically nuanced yet important definition to this aim: liberal is liberalism. The key to defining liberalism lies within its inherent protection of, and thus belief in, parliamentary systems seeking to advance and protect individual liberties through the rule of law. Liberalism also inherently includes systems of reform through the rule of law which might better protect civil liberties.
Free-enterprise is also a pre-requisite for liberalism. However, this begins to get into defining a certain philosophy of liberalism, as small L ‘liberals’ definition of ‘free’ in ‘free-enterprise’ (i.e. how much intervention is required in the economy) evolves sub-philosophies in liberalism and economics.
Philosophies of liberalism go beyond the economic aspects of ‘Liberalism’. And yet, I have rarely met a ‘liberal’ who agrees on all tenants of one ‘branch’ of Liberalism. There is often a mix of ‘liberal’ ideas between philosophical tents; which is in-fact one of the politically beautiful goals of Liberalism! Thus, keying in on the terms ‘rule of law’ and ‘individual liberties’ provides an opportune time to move onto defining democracy.
Defining democracy
Democracy is another tricky subject. Although their inherent definitions often mean democracy and liberalism go together, there are philosophies which allow for democracy without liberalism. I will once again turn to the dictionary to provide the nuanced definition of democracy:
Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
Democracy thus, through the rule of law, necessitates free elections in which constituents elect representatives (a representative democracy) to office to protect civil liberties and craft laws which protect and advance civil liberties, among the other jobs of a politician. Most democracies feature a mix of representative democracies with direct democracy through referendums, in which laws are voted on by the people. Again, several versions of ‘democracy’ exist in the world. Notably the U.S. utilises a system different compared to the British Parliamentary System, and the Taiwanese System, while slightly modelling the U.S. in some aspects, features its own unique applications of democracy.
Moreover, most democracies have been moving to widen the definition of democracy beyond the political systems, and including the human right of freedom of information. This is a particularly important notion to ensure minority groups obtain accurate and honest information, while being allowed to share information with the larger majority public. Freedom of press and information, and thus fighting and extinguishing disinformation are critical junctures to democracy that intertwine directly into contemporary political toxicity.
The key concepts to ‘democracy’, however, are ‘free-elections’ established through the ‘rule of law’ which aim to protect individual rights.
So, what is ‘liberal democracy’?
The critical intersection of ‘liberalism’ and ‘democracy’ is thus the ‘rule of law’. Democracy cannot exist without the rule of law and justice allowing for universal suffrage and free-elections; provisions critical to allowing for individuals to have a representative voice. Liberal democracies thus also necessitate freedom of information and freedom of expression1, two human rights which intrinsically support one another. A free-election cannot occur without freedom of expression allowing freedom to run for office, and a good-will election cannot occur unless there is free flow of information to inform voters.
One other feature of a liberal democracy is critical to its function: Independent judiciaries. The independence of the judiciary allows for the check and balance to an executive branch and the parliamentary system which exist in most constructed liberal democracies. An independent judiciary allows for fair trails, the preservation of justice, and preventing (via a system of citizens to challenge illegal and illiberal attacks on individual human rights) lawmakers from abusing their power in election.
Out of the functioning and moving components of a liberal democracy, the independence of the judiciary may be the most under appreciated. While Hong Kong’s independent judiciary has dissolved, there is a reason lawyer and currently jailed pro-democracy activist argued Hong Kong’s courts were the location where democracy could be preserved or eradicated under “constitutional positioning”. Consequently, Hong Kong’s National Security Law is a direct attack to kill that independent judiciary. For actual liberal democracies, ‘clear and present danger’ politicians’ attacks on the independence of the judiciary ought to be a grave warning.
Kleptocrats and Oligarchs
Time for a few tangents before getting to the final point and illustrating a liberal democracy by showing the dangerous alternative. One of the largest threats to a liberal democracy is kleptocracy.2 In summary, kleptocrats are thieves; very rich thieves. They specialise in using shell companies, abandoned property, empty apartments, and tax evasion to gain personal power and wealth. Saudi Arabia is notoriously an oligarchy run by kleptocrats. Pre-2014 Ukraine was a haven for Russian oligarchs and kleptocracy.
Aside from the immorality of kleptocrats, their existence is a problem for democracy. Additional power and national resources divulged in power-brokers creates kingmakers in politics. Kingmakers whose financing may simply determine who wins certain legislative positions or even the presidency. While legislative efforts attempted to crack down on these kleptocrats several times, their leverage in democratic capitals continues to be another form of a ‘clear and present danger’.
Where does Federalism come in?
Federalism has an important place within some liberal democracies. Federalism, however, is not a prerequisite for democracy, despite the misconception it is. In the United States’ context, James Madison (Federalist Paper 39) established the concept the Constitution morphed the many states into one union, not under a federalist state with a ‘federation’ of independent states, but as part of a federal system in unity. Other systems follow closely to this system. Europe features a ‘federal’ alliance system in the sense of independent states under one banner is the European Union. Several European countries follow a ‘federalist’ system with governing power distributed to regions. The chief difference between systems is the articulative strength of the central government and its duties in governing.
Although democracies do not have to be federalist, in theory, federalism in the correct setting allows for more democratic action. Displacing the legislative power which will decide most day-to-day actions into elections at district and state level allows for more representative opportunities. In this instance, smaller government branches create additional representative opportunities for citizens to participate within. There is thus more opportunities for checks and balances on the social contract, as well opportunities for ‘laboratories of democracy’ to improve upon the social contract.
The Illiberal Democracy alternative
The alternative to a liberal democracy is not a direct path to authoritarianism or totalitarianism. The meddling path is the one which most countries opt to take first: an illiberal democracy. This form of government - taken to its extreme in Turkey and Hungary - features democratic institutions which have been corrupted. Oligarchs fill these institutions with ‘yes-men’ who give answers within de-legitimised institutions which still carry the air of institutions. These oligarchs create a culture of fear and subservience.
Institutions and organisations become merely operative, some attempting to restore democracy, and those working against democracy to create less avenues for the freedom of information, and freedom to share information. Press freedom is so important, as once illiberalism begins to insert itself, a free press is among the first non-governmental institutions to dissolve; either the press itself, or people’s perceived trust of the press.
The first governmental organisation to dissolve is often the independent judiciary. As mentioned with regards to Hong Kong and Benny Tai, the connection between a lack of an independent judiciary and the rise of illiberalism is under-appreciated. A stacked judiciary has the ability to dramatically reinterpret foundational documents and provisions to provide exclusive power to one leader and punishment for those who oppose that leader. This is not always direct punishment (sanctioned jail time) but voter-suppression or the deprivation of human rights. Phillipino President Rodrigo Duterte’s ‘War on Drugs’ is one example of extreme laws being sanctioned under ‘National Security’, allowing the military to target anti-Deterte and pro-democracy activists under false pretenses. The lack of an independent judiciary allows the abuse of legal norms and the creation of new, illiberal norms.
If there are patterns of illiberalism on the rise, there is a subsequent demand to pay attention to these patterns and halt them where possible. Supposing liberal democracies will win is nearly a recipe for political tragedy; not because any one force of politics is simply inevitable, but those passionate for dictatorship will consume a liberal democracy left unpracticed by the apathetic.
There is clearly going to be debate about the ‘limits’ to freedom of expression. There are other blogs and legal scholars who are far more equipped to discuss the classification of ‘hate speech’.
At this point I have cited several articles from Anne Applebaum at The Atlantic. She may be one of the most masterful authors and historians of our time at crafting the importance of democracy and liberalism. For an illustrative history of the campaigns of terror and ideological strictness in the Soviet Union I recommend her books Gulag and Iron Curtain.