Fareed Zakaria - The Rise of Illiberal Democracy - Research Paper Example

Fareed Zakaria article “The Rise of Illiberal Democracy”, Civil Rights, and Women Suffrage Movements Fareed Zakaria: The Rise of Illiberal Democracy As per Zakaria’s article ‘The Rise of Illiberal Democracy’, democracy ought not to be defined in terms of what it is, but by what it is not. (Zakaria 23: Online) Democracy is certainly not the tyranny of the majority. Democracy is certainly not the justification for suppressing and constraining the universal and fundamental rights of the people, minorities and contrary opinions, because it is sanctified by the consent of the majority or is made to look so. Democracy is something much broader and holistic in its scope. It is a model of governance in which no individual, group or institution is endowed with absolute power so that it may ignore the aspirations expressed as seemingly disparate and conflicting opinions. Democracy is about liberty, separation of powers and assimilation and recognition of diverse opinions. Liberalism according to Zakaria is primarily an antithesis of absolutism in the political, civil and legal sphere (Zakaria 24: Online). Liberalism is a political doctrine that not only tolerates dissent and political, religious and ethnic pluralism, but goes a step ahead to recognize the opinion of the minorities and conflicting opinions, and extends them a fair opportunity and environment to have a say in the socio-political life of a nation. It is a political doctrine that gives every individual and group the access to some inalienable rights like the right to expression, assembly, religion and property. Illiberalism, simply speaking, is a way of politics, which curtails on the essential and fundamental rights of some or all segments of a society that includes the quintessential liberties like the freedom of speech, property, religion and assembly. (Zakaria 27: Online) Liberalism is the actual rule of the people, without any exception, not an arrangement in which an individual or a party rules by proxy and justifies the annihilation of civil liberties in the name of popular support and validation. For instance, Singapore is a liberal democracy in the sense that tough it offers limited political choices to its citizens; it does recognize and support their essentially human aspirations and rights, irrespective of their ethnic background or religion (Zakaria 25: Online). Modern Russia is actually an illiberal democracy in which the ruling party has usurped and appropriated political authority both horizontally and vertically, and has severely curtailed the civil and political rights such as the right to speech, expression, assembly, and dissent (Zakaria 28: Online). In the context of the American constitution, liberalism certainly came first, followed by democracy (Zakaria 29: Online). Fear of absolute power and authority was the guiding spirit behind the architecture of the American constitution. That is why the American constitution provided for a clear cut division of powers between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. It was unlike the British polity where the ministers are also a member of the House of Commons and the powers of the executive, the legislature and the judiciary tends to overlap or diffuse. In America the secretaries of state and the other government officials are not the members of the Congress. This arrangement negated the concentration of power in any one pillar of the American democracy. Civil Rights Movement The American civil rights movement that unfolded in the period 1955-1968 and aimed at the abolition of racial discrimination in the American socio-political setup and restoring the voting rights for the African Americans in the Southern States is an apt example of the liberal strains woven in the American democracy (Dierenfield 17). The very Declaration of Independence that can be considered the bedrock of the American constitution states that human beings have “certain inalienable rights”. To put it simply, the architects of the American constitution well understood that people have certain essential and universal rights, and to qualify for those rights, the only qualification needed was being human, no matter of what race, color or ethnic background. This very arrangement for extending certain essential rights to the citizens, irrespective of whether the enjoyed popular or political support or not is a wonderful example of American constitutional liberalism, that not only came before democracy, but in a way was well protected from the possible excesses of democracy. So the leaders of Civil Rights Movement, be it Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, WEB Du Bois or Rosa Parks, were in fact not defending something that was an aberration to the spirit of American constitution, or was contrary to the intentions of American democracy (Dierenfield 42). Their very success was in a way certified beforehand by the fact that they aspired to achieve objectives and goals that were in tandem with the quintessence of the American constitutional liberalism and were even well protected against the excesses of the majority opinion. Had the Civil Rights Movement been left to the validation by the majority opinion, it would have simply fizzled out in a matter of months. The landmarks in the Civil Rights Movement, be it the famous civil suits like Brown v Board of Education, protests like the Freedom Rides of 1961 or the 1963 March on Washington, or political campaigning like Albany Movement, Birmingham Campaign or say the Poor People’s March of 1968 actually happened or were allowed to happen because they were authentically constitutional as per the provisions of the American constitution. Varied statutory arrangements in the American constitution like the Declaration of Independence that upheld the universal rights of the citizens, the 1st Amendment that extended to all the citizens the freedom of speech, religion and press and the right to assemble and petition the government, the 13th Amendment that made way for the abolition of slavery, directly supported the approach and opinions of the Civil Rights leadership and following. The Civil Rights Movement e was not a protest against the American constitution or democracy, but was in fact a direct outcome of the constitutional liberalism that constitutes the backbone of the American democracy (Dierenfield 61). Women’s Suffrage Movement To begin with, the denial of suffrage to women was provided for in the American constitution. Yet, this was not a direct outcome that flowed from the American constitution or constitutional liberalism. The denial of voting rights and political and economic power to the women was basically a continuation of a social norm and practice that the early settlers borrowed for the European homeland and implanted in America. The Constitution simply codified and recognized this social and political arrangement. Like many other provisions in the constitution, it was a statutory appendage or vestige that was fundamentally contrary to the liberalism enshrined in the American constitution and was simply waiting for the time when it shriveled up and dropped. Actually, one American state that is New Jersey allowed for female suffrage right after the American Revolution (Dubois 32). . The fight for woman suffrage was as much a political movement as a social revolution. The Declaration of Independence discernibly supported the right of the women to vote and actively participate in the American democracy. The initiators of the Women’s suffrage movement that are Lydia Chapin Taft, Gerrit Smith, Elizabeth Candy Stanton, Lucretia Mott and Lucy Stone began their struggle, guided by this very promise (Dubois 16). The enfranchisement of the Blacks proved a beacon of hope for the women suffragettes as they perhaps closely identified with them as being the sidelined and marginalized segments of the society. Their cause was amply supported by liberal constitutional statutes such as the 1st Amendment, allowing for the freedom of expression, assembly and petition to the government and 14th and 15th amendments that accorded equal protection to all the citizens and the right to vote irrespective of their color or creed. Interestingly, the National Women’s Right Convention held at Worcester, Massachusetts in 1850 and addressed by Lucy Stone justified the right of the American women to vote on the basis of these constitutional provisions (Dubois 51). The governments in many states actually agreed with the affiliation of the Women’s Cause to the universal and inalienable rights granted by the constitution. The essential strength of the Women’s Suffrage Movement was that it was not protesting against the constitution, but actually pleading for the inclusion of women in the essential framework of the constitution, which automatically would have translated into the extension of the right to vote. In recognition with the essential democratic spirit of the constitution, which by its liberal essence, was always open to amendments and change, Wyoming, Idaho, Utah and Colorado enfranchised women in the late 19th century (Dubois 73). It was the acceptance of and provision for decent extended by the constitution, which encouraged the National Women’s Party led by Alice Paul, to protest outside the White House, the very Mecca of American political power (Dubois 79). Eventually the Congress had to relent before the liberal crux of the US democracy and recognized the women’s right to vote by passing the 19th Amendment. The very interesting thing about the history of dissent movements in the US is that they never tried to overthrow the American constitution, but rather justified their struggle in the light of the rights extended by the very constitution they intended to change. Works Cited Dierenfield, Bruce J. The Civil Rights Movement. New York: Longman, 2008. Dubois, Ellen. Woman Suffrage and Women’s Rights. New York: NYU Press, 1998. Zakaria, Fareed. “The Rise of Illiberal Democracy”. Foreign Affairs. Published by the Council of Foreign Relations. November/December 1997. 28 February 2011. < http://caracaschronicles.blogspot.com/zakaria.pdf> . Read More