Is Liberal Democracy the Best System - Essay Example

Is liberal democracy the best system? Introduction If we talk about the good political system for a modern society, we can hardly define what the best one is. We are only humans and can’t be perfect, thus we can’t create a perfect system. The government always tended to violate human rights by providing restrictions, which arouse unrest in the masses, while the government is not the basis of the society. It is important to remember that the society is based first of all on plain citizens, whose rights and liberties should be defended. The political regime should preserve the right of every citizen. Thus it would be expedient to admit that liberal democracy can be called the best system or one of the best as it is “a form of representative democracy in which elected representatives who hold power are limited by a constitution that emphasizes protecting individual liberties” (What is a liberal democracy). In spite of the drawbacks of liberal democracy, this political system is practiced in the developed countries in the world. Churchill stated that democracy is “the worst form of government except all others”. This statement is widely discussed. According to Tom Somerville “This statement is often accepted as a political truism. After all, one cannot argue with a great figure of British history who faced down fascism and dealt with slippery Stalin. But in a markedly different world from that inhabited by Churchill we must begin to question this ‘truism’ if we are to address the pressing crisis in political apathy, participation, meaning and isolation felt across the West” (Somerville). Let’s discuss this topic to reveal if liberal democracy is a really good regime for society. We can define something as the best only theoretically as one can’t impose his/her own views on others. The perfectness of liberal democracy can’t be officially recognized or fixed and every country chooses its regime basing on its historically acquired traditions. Therefore, we can’t state what regime is the best first of all because such an immovable approach would represent the deviation from democratic principles, according to which every country and every person is free to choose his/her political views. For example, we can theoretically state that the regime of military dictatorship that is practiced in North Korea is too strict and dictatorial. It represses the human rights and does not allow people to conduct private business. We can’t declare about that officially as military dictatorship in North Korea is historically established and if it still exists, people must be satisfied with it. Moreover, some states, where Islam is the main religion consider democracy to be incompatible with their beliefs. We can’t define if it is good or bad, we can state only theoretically that the democracy is the best regime for the modern world. However, such evaluations testify that liberal democracy is much more beneficial for people than other systems. Monarchies and military dictatorships have much more drawbacks than liberal democracy has. If to analyze liberal democracy in terms of its benefits we can’t but state that the main advantage of this regime is defending the rights of all the people, no matter if they belong to majority or minority. In the country that practices liberal democracy the main decisions are taken according to the will of majority but at the same time the rights of minority are carefully and reliably protected. It is not possible to make all the country’s citizens satisfied with the laws, but it is possible to regulate the country’s mood by offering compromises that is the main task of liberal regime. Abizadeh Arash raises a very interesting topic in her article “Does Liberal Democracy Presuppose a Cultural Nation? Four Arguments”. The author states: “at best, a shared cultural nation may reduce some of the costs liberal democratic societies must incur; at worst, cultural nationalist policies ironically undermine social integration. The failure of these cultural nationalist arguments clears the way for a normative theory of liberal democracy in multinational and postnational contexts” (Arash 497). Speaking about the liberal democracy in particular and the democracy in general we can’t but mention the distinction between the direct and liberal democracy. Here we can see what many people call the drawback of liberal democracy. The fact is that direct democracy is often considered to be fairer as it provides every citizen with the right to participate in elections. Liberal democracy in its turn does not provide citizens with such an opportunity as it allows only choosing a representative to act on behalf. The good example of such system is Electoral College in the United States of America that consists of elected representatives from each state and senators, who are responsible for choosing the President and Vice President. A plain citizen can’t vote at presidential elections. This system has existed for ages and notwithstanding that it is proved to be efficient and historically created, now many Americans express their dissatisfaction with it. They consider it to be unfair that the citizens are deprived of the right to vote for their President. “Returning now to Churchill’s statement; it seems that Liberal Democracy may have been the ‘best’, if flawed and in-terms of foreign policy highly hypocritical model, in Churchill’s era. But today this system is tottering as voters either refuse to take part in elections or vote for anti-austerity candidates from the far-left and right. Furthermore the encroachment of the state into the civil liberties of its citizens has caused anger and frustration, but ultimately this creeping surveillance culture (which is ironically pursued in the name of freedom) will not be stopped by the state itself” (Somerville). Furthermore, liberal democracies are very often accused of supporting the interests of bourgeoisie. There is an opinion that it provides many opportunities for elite in particular, while plain citizens so not have such privileges. Direct democracy in its turn preserves the interests of majority. It gives all the people the right to take part in any voting. People can vote for the President not depending on their status. They should not be members of elite in order to do that. In the countries with direct democracy a group of plain citizens can disprove the laws issued by the government. Each law is accepted only if people approve it, in some countries they do that in electronic regime. Thus, is direct democracy better than liberal? We can’t and should not state that the opportunities it gives to citizens work for benefit. Only technologically developed states can use electronic voting, finally if to look at the issue closer, the law is a one rule for everybody and if it should be easily changed, it can’t be called law. Only people who have some authority and corresponding knowledge should decide on such serious issues. That is why the benefits of liberal democracy can be traced here also. “The basis for these liberal beliefs is the importance liberals attach to the individual and his/her rights and responsibilities. Every single person is important. Liberals believe that people must decide for themselves and not be told what to do all the time. They must be free to lead the life they want to lead, provided that in doing so they do not limit someone elses freedom. In other words, your right to swing your arms freely stops where you start hitting someone” (Naumann). The accusation of liberal democracy of supporting the bourgeoisie’s interests is also not grounded enough. First, this accusation contradicts the definition of liberal democracy, according to which, the interests and rights of every citizens is highly protected, no matter if he/she is a member of elite or not. Secondly, liberal democracy does not impose any rules or restrictions, which deprive plain citizens of the right and opportunity to become a member of elite. Elite is not chosen finally and irreversibly. Everything depends on you: if you want people to respect you, to listen to your opinion and to take it into account, you should and can deserve this and the liberal democracy provides you with the both stimulus and opportunity. Elite does not have any definite privileges but still there is a stimulus for citizens to follow the example. Liberal democracy tries to preserve the interests of the majority and the minority at the same time, while direct democracy usually issue laws, which satisfy only a half of the population that can lead to civil war especially in developing countries. Conclusion Thus, after the critical discussion of liberal democratic regime we can easily come to the conclusion that this regime can be called the best for the modern world. “Liberalism, as the name implies, is the fundamental belief in a political ideal where individuals are free to pursue their own goals in their own ways provided they do not infringe on the equal liberty of others” (Naumann). Certainly, we can state this only theoretically, especially in the condition of crisis: “ultimately the present crisis in both Liberal Democracy and the global economy is an issue for both supporters and opponents of the prevailing order, as well as those who erroneously consider themselves indifferent.  In fact every citizen of the world could find their present rights severely infringed upon, denied or removed in the name of ‘special circumstances’ in the economic or political spheres” (Somerville). The elite must have an authority and be respected by people, but it should be also chosen by the people. This is the main democratic element of liberal democracy. Those who think that direct democracy is better than liberal democracy are free to have their own opinion as many people still protest from the depriving them of the right to vote for their President. On the one hand their position is understandable, on the other hand if to look at the United States that has used Electoral College for ages, we can make a conclusion that the outcome is not bad. Such views can’t be imposed, but if to talk about the democracy itself, we can’t find a better regime for the modern world. Democracy, liberal or direct, means the development, growth and success for every country. Unfortunately, people accept democracy not in all the parts of the world. Many countries still have the regimes, which suppress people and do not provide them with definite rights. Moreover, the government of these states is sure that democracy can’t be applicable to their country. It is obvious that developed countries can’t and actually have no right to impose their own regime, but we should hope that the democracy, liberal or direct, can and will win. Works Cited Arash Abizadeh. "Does Liberal Democracy Presuppose a Cultural Nation? Four Arguments." American Political Science Review 96.3 (2002): 495-509 Naumann, Friedrich. Basic Principles of Liberalism and Liberal Democracy (n.d.). Web. 12 Apr. 2013. http://www.ipd.fnst.org/webcom/show_page.php/_c-1041/_nr-3/i.html Somerville, Tom. Liberal Democracy; the best we can do?, redpolitricksphilosophy, 2012 Web. 12 Apr. 2013. http://redpolitricksphilosophy.wordpress.com/2012/06/17/liberal-democracy-the-best-we-can-do/ What is a liberal democracy? (n.d.). Web. 12 Apr. 2013. http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-a-liberal-democracy.htm Read More