The threat to Liberal Democracy

[parochial boy]

So like most of us, I've seen a lot over recent months about populism and increasing disenchantment with the mechanisms of democracy and how all this poses some great existential threat to "Liberal Democracy".

Now, Democracy is something that is vitally important, and the key features that underpin it; free speech, a free media, the rule of law and a rule of law that is applicable to all equally are as well. However, these are not features that are unique to, or define, Liberal Democracy specifically.

Liberal Democracy is, at the end of the day, a project that relies on Liberalism, and liberalism is itself and ideological outlook. I'm not differentiating here between American left-liberalism or European righ-liberalism as partisan political ideologies or affiliations, but as the Liberal ideology as a whole. This is an ideology that rests on certain assumptions, in particular around the primacy of  individualism as the core building block of society. It assumes, normatively, that interactions between individuals create society, and that progress, or what is morally "right" relates to the experiences of humans as individuals.

Now, there is much that is laudable about this, as well as much to condemn, but the point is, this ideology is not a requirement of democracy, and you can have democracy, and freedom, and equality and everything without the ideological trappings of Liberalism.

The problem here is precisely that by asserting that democracy can only exist with liberalism, and that only a "Liberal Democratic" structure is a legitimately democratic one, you are already undermining yourself, and the ideals of democracy, by suggesting that any other ideological viewpoints are incompatible with democracy and therefore illegitimate.

While the rise of autocratic populists is clearly troubling from a democratic stanpoint, it is hardly surprising in a scenario where autocracy is assumed to be the only alternative to a form of democracy that, by it's nature, creates a social structure that leads to inequality/precarity/whatever and ultimately dissatisfaction from those who do not benefit from the ideal of "individualism".

[darklordoftech]

What's to stop an illiberal regime from suppressing democracy, and what's to stop an undemocratic regime from suppressing liberalism?

[parochial boy]

That's the point, if you conceptually can't see any way of having a democracy without big L liberalism, and you are dissatisfied with the status quo, then you are clearly going to turn towards autocracy as the only alternative.

You can have democratic institutions that respect freedom, the rule of law, the ideal of everyone being treated equally, without the underpinning ideology of post-cold-war "end of history" style liberalism - but alot of the "threat to democracy" type articles treat the two things as if they were necessary to each other

[dead0man]

but the point is, this ideology is not a requirement of democracy, and you can have democracy, and freedom, and equality and everything without the ideological trappings of Liberalism.

can you though?  Maybe I don't understand what you mean by " the ideological trappings of Liberalism".

[parochial boy]

but the point is, this ideology is not a requirement of democracy, and you can have democracy, and freedom, and equality and everything without the ideological trappings of Liberalism.

can you though?  Maybe I don't understand what you mean by " the ideological trappings of Liberalism".

The jist of it is that on the one had any appeal to collectivism, or to suggesting any alternative to what has been established as the requirements for a reasonable, democratic government (for example free market economics) is a threat to democracy.

Now, you can criticise someone arguing for socialism or whatever on the idea that it will lead to worse outcomes, but claiming that someone who wants to nationalise the banks or something; or even wants to expropriate a billionaire's wealth is fundamentally trying to undermine democracy is not really true - and a lot of the narrative about "liberal democracy" being under threat suggests just that.

[Beet]

If anyone is arguing that socialism, communitarianism, paleoconservatism, or anything deviating from a form of politics that postceded 1991 is a threat to democracy, that is obviously absurd. I feel that this is a strawman of those pointing out the threat to liberal democracy. In fact, one of the biggest opponents of the new authoritarianism in the United States (Bernie Sanders) calls himself a democratic socialist.

[sparkey]

The "Liberal" part of "Liberal Democracy" isn't included because of an underlying assumption that "Democracy" can't exist if it's not "Liberal." It's included because "Liberal Democracy" is the best kind of democracy; the one where people can live and thrive most freely and prosperously. Part of that can often, in fact, include checks on "Democracy," such as checks and balances against the most democratic institutions, strict constitutional protections of rights, supermajority requirements for additional powers, etc.

I think that the best indication that OP badly misunderstands why the "Liberal" qualifier is important is here:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

These are uniformly features of liberalism, not democracy. In an unchecked democracy, we can easily imagine the majority stripping the minority of their rights to free speech, free press, and equality before the law.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I’ve started to get a similar feeling—specifically, that certain publications (Foreign Affairs, The Economist, both of which I e subscribed to) and associated modes of thinking treat the rise of “populism” as in itself an undemocratic and threatening phenomenon. This isn’t always explicit, and phrases such as “rules based order” often tend to act as stand-ins for “our way of life, liberalism”. It gets rather annoying when it appears that certain voting preferences are in and of themselves implied to be anti-democratic.

[Beet]

I’ve started to get a similar feeling—specifically, that certain publications (Foreign Affairs, The Economist, both of which I e subscribed to) and associated modes of thinking treat the rise of “populism” as in itself an undemocratic and threatening phenomenon. This isn’t always explicit, and phrases such as “rules based order” often tend to act as stand-ins for “our way of life, liberalism”. It gets rather annoying when it appears that certain voting preferences are in and of themselves implied to be anti-democratic.

I mean it's not impossible for certain parties to be anti-democratic just because they put themselves n the ballot box, as history shows. That doesn't mean whatever Foreign Affiars/The Economist are saying is right, but simply being a "voting preference" isn't really a defense.

[Not a Partisan Hack ( ͡~ ͜ʖ ͡°)]

I’ve started to get a similar feeling—specifically, that certain publications (Foreign Affairs, The Economist, both of which I e subscribed to) and associated modes of thinking treat the rise of “populism” as in itself an undemocratic and threatening phenomenon. This isn’t always explicit, and phrases such as “rules based order” often tend to act as stand-ins for “our way of life, liberalism”. It gets rather annoying when it appears that certain voting preferences are in and of themselves implied to be anti-democratic.

I mean it's not impossible for certain parties to be anti-democratic just because they put themselves n the ballot box, as history shows. That doesn't mean whatever Foreign Affiars/The Economist are saying is right, but simply being a "voting preference" isn't really a defense.

Listen, just because people choose a person/party that has stringent policies when it comes to personal freedom doesn’t instantly discredit a place from being a liberal democracy. We’ve had controlled immigration for a long time because a small and vocal minority thought it got out of control. Was a liberal democracy being destroyed? No, they asked government to place caps on the amount of people who can come to this country.

Certain people or groups might as well have a few  policies that many wouldn’t consider “liberal”, but saying that adding a few more social restrictions doesn’t instantly make a country or area instantly “illiberal” in any sense. It’s just a few general base rules added to society. In fact, some of these base rules might make people living within a certain area more free.

There isn’t a thin line that makes a country a “liberal” democracy from an authoritarian dictatorship. And saying that people who prefer politicians with a slightly more authoritarian outlook on politicy doesn’t really change their countries into dictatorships instantaneously.

[Beet]

I’ve started to get a similar feeling—specifically, that certain publications (Foreign Affairs, The Economist, both of which I e subscribed to) and associated modes of thinking treat the rise of “populism” as in itself an undemocratic and threatening phenomenon. This isn’t always explicit, and phrases such as “rules based order” often tend to act as stand-ins for “our way of life, liberalism”. It gets rather annoying when it appears that certain voting preferences are in and of themselves implied to be anti-democratic.

I mean it's not impossible for certain parties to be anti-democratic just because they put themselves n the ballot box, as history shows. That doesn't mean whatever Foreign Affiars/The Economist are saying is right, but simply being a "voting preference" isn't really a defense.

Listen, just because people choose a person/party that has stringent policies when it comes to personal freedom doesn’t instantly discredit a place from being a liberal democracy. We’ve had controlled immigration for a long time because a small and vocal minority thought it got out of control. Was a liberal democracy being destroyed? No, they asked government to place caps on the amount of people who can come to this country.

Certain people or groups might as well have a few  policies that many wouldn’t consider “liberal”, but saying that adding a few more social restrictions doesn’t instantly make a country or area instantly “illiberal” in any sense. It’s just a few general base rules added to society. In fact, some of these base rules might make people living within a certain area more free.

There isn’t a thin line that makes a country a “liberal” democracy from an authoritarian dictatorship. And saying that people who prefer politicians with a slightly more authoritarian outlook on politicy doesn’t really change their countries into dictatorships instantaneously.

No one said it does. All political parties except maybe the libertarian party advocate some restrictions on personal freedoms, but I was only responding to the implication that just because someone tries to use the ballot box to come to power, it means they can't disrespect democracy or many of its supporting institutions, like a free press or due process. There can be anti-democratic votes.

[Lechasseur]

If anyone is arguing that socialism, communitarianism, paleoconservatism, or anything deviating from a form of politics that postceded 1991 is a threat to democracy, that is obviously absurd. I feel that this is a strawman of those pointing out the threat to liberal democracy. In fact, one of the biggest opponents of the new authoritarianism in the United States (Bernie Sanders) calls himself a democratic socialist.

Agreed