The Ideal Government System - Essay Example

Liberal Democracies and Liberal Democracies Liberal democracy seems to be growing gradually in the 21st century. Conventional wisdom seems to be dictating that the only appropriate democracy is individualistic or liberal democracy. This ideology was established in the 17th century by political philosophers like Spinoza, Harrington, Hobbes and Locke. The glorious revolutions and the civil war were some of the English experiences that revolutionized the practices and theories of liberal democracy. It is obvious that liberal democracy has steady and firm origins in methodological individualism. The fact that this methodology views each individual as a potential or an actual sovereign person by nature then this means that this form of democracy has a political motivation aimed at improving the civic society (Ackerman, 2009). Liberal democracy can therefore be defined by identifying the culture, form, practice and theories associated with it. The paper will identify the reasons why many civic societies think it is the best form of a government. Historical Background of Liberal Democracy The origins of liberal democracy can be traced back to the 18th century. At that period only emperors and kings were the recognized rulers. The leaders thought that democracies were unstable as the government had to constantly remind people about their duties meaning that the people were unfit to make reasonable choices. Rousseau and Hobbes challenged their assumptions with the social contract vision (John, 2013). The vision supported the concepts of equality, liberty and reason. The French and American revolutions had principles with a similar characteristic, that everyone was created equally and that governments should serve people and not vice versa. European monarchies might have fought defensive actions during the 19th century but liberal democratic ideals took firm roots among the general population. In the middle of the 19th century communism became the biggest setback for liberal democracy. By 1991, when the cold war was ending, there were only a small number of communist nations left. The Soviet Union was no more and China was also abandoning any form of communism, a move that Karl Marx could have easily detected (Campbell, 2012). Francis Fukuyama revealed that liberal democracy had gained a dominant position in the government’s theories and was very popular in many of the states. There a many ways of defining liberal democracy, but professional political scientists define it using specific features like a constitution or a universal suffrage that allows power sharing between the judiciary, legislature and executive. A flourishing public society, a powerful middle class and the rule of law are some of the features characterizing liberal democracies. Another feature is the acceptance and embrace of opposition parties with the perception that one day they can form the national government (John, 2013). The concept of accepting opposition parties is based on the fact that it will give the opposition some expectations and hope that one day the “rascals” holding offices will one day be kicked out and leaves the seats to the oppositions. There is a general consensus that these features form the main principles of a state. A classic example of just how an opposition can rise to power is about the German Greens who emerged from low ranks of parliamentary opposition seats (Friedman, 2011). Currently in Europe a lot of new populist parties are rising extremely fast in countries like Finland, Netherlands and Hungary due to the Euro-crisis. The parties are hopeful that the democratic system will assist them bring changes. Advantages and Disadvantages of Liberal Democracy Many political systems are really affected by corruption, but the most surprising aspect is that liberal democracies are not affected adversely by corruption. Some of the most effective methods of curbing corruption include advocating for a free media and the freedom of information. People should be careful since some private media co-operations have their personal partisan agendas. Recently, evidence has indicated there is a lot of correlation between democracy, freedom and economic prosperity (Friedman, 2011). Countries like Qatar and Kuwait that are very rich as a result of the oil wells are examples of some of the inevitable exceptions. Recent research conducted by the World Bank reveals that out of the 80 financial catastrophes within 40 years only 5 occurred in democratic countries. Secondly, no operational democracy in history has ever been through an extremely prolonged famine, while non-democracies are often faced with refugee crises. Democracies tend to manage public goods and services in a better way unlike authoritarian systems (Milton, 2009). Proper management of public goods is the only way through which countries can overcome challenges such as poverty and famine. In Russia, for example, the amount of gas wasted annually is equal to the amount that France consumes each year (John, 2009). This wastage is a result of mediocrity in applying strict guidelines on energy saving and energy usage. The problem is caused by lack of liberal democracy because citizens with knowledge concerning energy consumption are not given a chance to contribute towards decision making. Regardless of these advantages, liberal democracy is sometimes often criticized for having a short-term focus, mainly because of the numerous elections characterizing democracies. A cabinet minister from Britain was once quoted saying that unpopular decisions were never taken seriously even if they had long-term benefits. UK politicians have for a long time been debating about the construction of a 3rdrunway near Heathrow or the 4th airport in southeast England for almost 25 years (John, 2013). The debt crisis experienced worldwide was as result of corruption and mismanagement of funds while trying to bribe the electorate. Failure of the Greek nations namely, Spain, Ireland and Portuguese to clarify openly about public finances and establish an austerity program is also another government fault though a bit different from liberal matters. Authoritarian regimes also did similar mistakes only theirs had more dire consequences. Finally, the last criticism on liberal democracies lies on the fact that it has a lot of interest on certain interest groups like farmers (Friedman, 2011). The farmers may even use the powers lobbied upon them to acquire beneficial subsidies which might be harmful to other people. Exceptional interest groups might be more or equally influential in even states that are non-democratic. The Global Financial Crisis This financial crisis is obviously neither the first nor the last crisis. The emergence of financial capitalism leads to crises mainly because of the increased credit expansion, asset price bubbles and financial speculations. The crisis is somewhat exceptional since many economies have been affected by the crisis all around the Atlantic (John, 2013). A regulatory breakdown is responsible the crisis which was as a result of deregulations and political indifferences caused by partisan political lobbyists and interests short-circuiting in an open political process. Before the crisis there was a melodramatic expansion in leverage. The financial catastrophe was also the first major household debt calamity (Fukuyama, 2009). Households blindly presumed that the property values would continuously increase without a halt and believed the whole story. The nature of the current financial system being used made the crisis to be exceptional. The complexities in securities stock exchange markets and internal integration are also responsible for worsening the crisis. The economic crisis has spoilt the repute of academic writers and tarnished the names of policy pundits who write about economics and are still within the classic scope. The crisis proved that the pre-catastrophe orthodoxies on which the economy operated on which were neo-liberal and new Keynesian views were wrong. The crisis has also raised many serious questions about the extent and duration of damage caused by mistakes done by bankers and politicians (John, 2013). There is no consensus done on the sets of global and domestic policies to determine how they are applied to ensure a sustainable and a growth-led recovery. Economists and politicians are constantly arguing about the most appropriate fiscal policies, monetary policies and the best policies that can effectively deal with debt overhangs. They are also faced with problems of reconstructing world’s financial and monetary systems, during a time when global economic powers are changing the geo-economic and geopolitical landscape (Gray, 2013). Alternatives of capitalism have not been popular among economist but the new form of capitalism being introduced is bound to bring controversy. The new capitalism intends to omit costs that not estimable or those that are un-factored Liberal democracy guarantees the preservation of fundamental human rights like the right to a fair and a free trial, right to vote, freedom of the media and freedom of speech. Non-democracies, on the other hand, do not give these human rights (John, 2008). These are some of the most crucial human rights that all human beings should be granted under the United Nations human acts law. Liberalism is somewhat different from democracy even though many democracies are spontaneously “liberal”. Liberalism can be broken down into two sections political liberalism and economic liberalism (Harvey, 2010). Democracy is about having fair and free elections but constitutional liberalism involves matters of rule of law, division of powers, protection of essential liberties of religion, speech, property and assembly. It does not matter if democracy comes before constitutional liberalism or vice versa these two are not simultaneous. Liberal Democracy versus Authoritarian Regime Liberal democracies tend to deal and solve people’s needs in a better way when compared with non-democracies. There is a higher possibility that liberal democracies might be economically and financially successful than non-democracies. There are cases where nations have divisions but still economic democracy has prevailed. Non democratic sides on the other hand might not detect any form of economic success or increased levels of GDP if a division occurs (John, 2008). North Korea and South Korea are perfect examples of nations that have had economic success and failures. South Korea being a liberal democracy experienced economic success even after the division while North Korea on the other hand is still struggling up to date to feed its citizens. Their differing economic systems are responsible for the different results (John, 2009). The point being cut across is that liberal democracies influence governments to enforce effective economic systems that are meant to replace previous economic policies that have barred economic development for decades. Recently, there has been a notion that property rights are better off under the protection of non-liberal democracies instead of liberal democracies, which is totally incorrect. All the nations using liberal democracies use the capitalist philosophy and they usually have more powerful property rights. Semi –autocracies and autocracies are subject to less scrutiny and less oversight from the opposition parties, citizens and the media (John, 2008). These forms of governments do not have standard constitutional guarantees and they can easily change laws, even those governing property rights. So the ideology that other non –democratic forms of government are more economically successful due to their ability to enforce property rights is incorrect. To prove this South and North Korea can be used as the perfect example. South Korea is a capitalist country while North Korea is a Stalinist country. There is no solid evidence to clarify that democracy guards the basis of a free market in a better way than the authoritarian regime but huge massive out cry from the mass is enough proof (John, 2008). Free markets have fundamental principles and property rights are on top of the list. At times democracy results in regular changes in political leadership so there might be a likelihood of having governments which infringe property rights. An authoritarian regime can only guarantee property rights after a long period of time when enough trust has been earned. Anti-business laws are examples of setbacks bound to affect liberal democracies. Taiwan and Korea are some of the authoritarian states which have offered adequate stability for an economy to thrive (Harvey, 2010). One of the reasons why democracy always results in economic success is because democracy is able to group interests when determining the protectionist policies to utilize. Authoritarian regimes on the other hand are often oligarchic and a lot of monopoly exists where a specific group of people accumulates a lot of power (Rawls, 2011). This specific group in return tries to accumulate wealth in their hands and follow economic policies which only waste resources by feeding their own mouths only. In most cases, where democracy seems to pursue catastrophic economic policies then there is a possibility that the democracy might change and become an authoritarian regime like in the republic of Weimar. Liberalism It is clear that there was a time when liberalism was a significant political ideology however after some period of time its significance died a little bit and has revived again recently in a new form. What many people do not know is that liberalism has been on the fore front of normative political thought and even practical politics in the western nations for the last 60 years. Right now it is even being viewed seen as a shared inheritance by professional politicians, political theorists and other important political movements found in native countries (John, 2013). This can be proved by the fact that currently no one speaks against democracy or freedom anymore. This is indeed the crucial values of liberalism as many philosophers would agree. Liberal democracy could be remotely understood as a recovery of a forgotten tradition of political and liberal thoughts or views. The term liberal got a political meaning in 19th century when Spain and Sweden established the liberal parliamentary caucuses. These young political parties at the time had a rather different approach to the term liberal. To them, liberal was like a signal to indicate they favored new democratic systems in United States and Britain unlike their conservative opponents who wished to use olden pre-revolutionary modes of government. The original phenomenon dates back to the era of political philosophers like John Locke and their political theories. John Locke was more active in this field especially because of his theological and philosophical defense on religious and popular sovereignty in the 17th century (Harvey, 2010). Liberalism has had a long history and its usage and nebulous concept has changed several times with changing regional experiences. The most common types of liberal thoughts and liberalism were the classical and modern types of liberalism (Giovanni, 2014). Classical liberalism advocated for minimum government intervention while modern liberalism was more willing to let the government participate in matters of the economy. Neo-liberalism Neo-liberalism can be defined as the re -emergence of liberalism. This definition clearly reveals that liberalism is a political ideology that has not been present in policy making processes and political discussions for a long period of time and has recently emerged in a reincarnated mode. In other words liberalism has gone through the process of preliminary growth, transitional decline and lastly through rejuvenation (Campbell, 2012). Alternatively, neo liberalism maybe viewed as a different ideology but almost similar to liberalism. Through this definition then it is obvious that neo-liberalism shares basic vocabularies and historical roots with liberalism. This ideology is also similar to political persuasion, neo conservatism and conservative ideology. Neo liberalism is an ideology that shares many historical backgrounds with liberal democracies (Ackerman, 2009). The ideology also airs out its opinion on economic liberalism. Economic liberalism is a belief that lays emphasis on self- regulating and free markets. Neo-liberalism also refers to a set of loosely defined political beliefs which prototypically and prominently include convictions that are of legitimate purposes. The state is supposed to safeguard liberty, commercial and private property rights. The state should be effective in safeguarding the rights but any form of transgression beyond the legitimate purpose is offensive and intolerable (Campbell, 2012). These beliefs are applicable in international standards especially where factors of free trade and free a markets are being implemented. The sole reason for monitoring international trade is to safeguard commercial liberty and property rights. The importance of liberal thinking even on an international perspective should not be ignored. The fate of liberal democracy lies in a performance criterion but not on an inherited sense of moral entitlement. The fact that in the 20th century it was the most popular normative paradigm means that it was useful and brought prosperity in U.S and Europe (Friedman, 2008). Leaders and politicians all around the world need to prove these both to the skeptical world and to their own disillusioned electorates. Liberal democracies are also torn between pursuing matters of national interest and pledging allegiance to worldwide norms. Issuing glib statements on the lines of commonly used philosophical phrases is not enough (Harvey, 2010). Western nations must prove that political morality is not a device that can be suspended or applied selectively whenever convenient. Dubious and suspicious together with precise exceptions made on national interests are to blame for the current liberalism crisis. The crisis has somehow rekindled the barbaric belief that authoritarianism is the best public goods provider. Conclusion Though liberal democracy might face some challenges, it is the only form of government that can solve the dual growth problem and handle the political crisis characterizing the contemporary world. Autocratic regimes might manage to hold on to power, but on a global perspective, they are still under-developed in democratic terms. Liberal democracy is more capable of maintaining sustainable growth even with population explosion issues, the increasing danger of climate change, and depletion of natural resources. It is too early to determine whether the measures put in place by EU will resolve the entire economic crisis. If the measures fail then the euro will face huge inevitable implications which might lead to total economic lockdown. During the Fukuyama’s era there were only 69 democracies right now the number has doubled, governments have realized that liberal democracies are the only way forward if people intend to live in civilized states. Activists are still marching to ensure liberal democracy receives full attention. Governments should institute proper mechanisms for ensuring liberal democracy in their systems of governance in order to reap the benefits associated with this form of governance. The mechanisms that governments adopt can also be directed towards minimizing the criticisms of liberal democracy. Liberal democracy provides the best form of governance in the modern political systems. References Ackerman,B. 2009. Social Justice in the Liberal State. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University. Campbell, J. 2012. The Rise of Neoliberalism and Institutional Analysis. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University. Friedman, M. 2008.Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago. Milton, J.2009. A Monetary History of the United States 1867-1960. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University. Friedman, T. 2011.The World is flat: The Globalized World in the Twenty-FirstCentury. London: Penguin. Fukuyama, F.2009. America at the Crossroads: Democracy, Power and the Neoconservative Legacy. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University. Gray, J.2013. Liberalism. Buckingham: Open University. Harvey, D. (2010). A Brief History of liberalism. Oxford: Oxford University. John, K. 2009.Against Liberalism. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University. John, M. 2008.The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money. London: Macmillan. Rawls, J. 2011. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University. Press. John, R.2013. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University. Giovanni, S. 2014: The Theory of Democracy Revisited. Chatham, New Jersey: Chatham House. Read More