Washington DC
Fareed Zakaria reminds us that government really does matter. That's why his book "The Future of Freedom" matters, too. As politicians and pundits continue to demonize government, Zakaria asserts that the form and function of government remains an essential determinant of the human condition. He believes that governments must balance power, legitimacy and effectiveness to sustain public trust. In contrast, he asserts that the pandering to short-term, poll-driven interests in the American model erodes trust in government.
Zakaria explores the tense, often misunderstood relationships between democracy and liberty. Among Zakaria’s core propositions is that democracy and liberty present substantively different views on the scope of government. A bias toward democracy finds governments accumulating power to further their own ends. Zakaria believes that an orientation based on constitutional liberalism, however, limits government power. He maintains that the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of government power today. He prefers limited government and believes a rebalancing of democracy and liberty is needed to achieve it.
Ironically, while constitutional liberalism often sows the seeds of democracy, it is democracy itself that risks expanding to the point of overwhelming the very liberties that created it. Zakaria proposes that government remain vigilant about balancing the precarious relationship between liberty and democracy, suggesting that the pursuit of democracy as an end unto itself can be illusory and even result in diminution of individual rights. In this sense, he’s reinforcing Kant’s regard for separation of powers that limit the scope of government as well as Locke’s belief in the primacy of individual property rights.
.
The author borrows from Montesquieu, Tocqueville and Madison in reminding us that government must protect against the tyranny of the majority. Interestingly, he suggests that government must also protect us against a tyranny of the minority, which takes the form of wealthy special interests. Zakaria believes that these narrow interests have a perverse effect on governance and comprise something a hidden new elite. They have eroded the power of traditional elites, too, and created a situation in Zakaria’s words where the money machine of special interests has turned watchdogs into lapdogs.
Zakaria believes that government has a role in resisting the abusive, crippling effects of these new elites. He believes that government should protect certain traditional elites, standard-bearers and watchdogs that serve in the public interest. These include mainstream media, political parties, and government regulators. He correlates the demise of political parties in the U.S. with this rise of special interests. He implies that government has a role in sustaining political parties as a true expression of public will. Having said this, Zakaria believes that government works best when it then keeps a distance from daily politics.
Zakaria contends that government’s role is to create and defend the liberties and rule of law needed to build economic wealth across the socioeconomic spectrum. He believes that spurring the growth of a business class and producing baseline levels of per capita GNP are gateways to authentic democratization. In his view, economic and judicial liberties come before democracy. As such, living under liberal authoritarianism can be developmentally preferable to any pretense of democracy that otherwise masks illiberal governance. Zakaria asks governments to understand the nature of their own wealth. In his thinking, governments are wise to defend against the perils of vast unearned wealth that can hamper authentic productivity and impede the necessary investments in educational, judicial and political infrastructure.
The author develops his propositions using historical example. He says that the rise of democracy ranks among the greatest global trends of the last century. Whereas no country in 1900 was a democracy as the term is understood today, 119 countries are now democracies.
The reader is taken through a brief history of human liberty. Zakaria reflects on the historic challenges between church and state, monarchy and aristocracy, and Protestantism and Catholicism, giving rise to Enlightenment and ultimately to capitalism. Through each of these periods, Zakaria illustrates how competing relationships among institutional players contributed to the emergence of liberty. For example, the Catholic Church placed limits on monarchical states to build its own power, but resulted in greater individual liberty. The Reformation sought to reduce the power of the Catholic Church, but also produced more liberty by giving people a path to truth unmediated by priests. It was the dynamism of capitalism, however, that ultimately brought liberty into the mainstream.
Zakaria contrasts British and French reactions to capitalism. British politics were revolutionized as capitalism became the key to social advancement. The French clung to aristocracy and placed equality above liberty, impeding the growth of open markets and, with it, the freedoms that come with the rule of law. Zakaria suggests that this is why France has had a more difficult time than Britain developing and sustaining innovation and growth.
Zakaria uses this logic to defend the liberal authoritarianism of Chile, Korea, Singapore and Taiwan in the Post-War period, where dictators built constitutional liberties to promote economic development, thus paving the way for democracy.
He contrasts Russia’s approach with that of China, believing that Moscow’s version of democracy is merely disguised illiberal authoritarianism that will not serve the country well. He adds that much of post-colonial Africa, while superficially democratic, presents similar illiberal democracies. These nations lack the economic and judicial infrastructure to protect rights, thereby reducing the willingness of individuals and organizations to work, invest and pay taxes.
Zakaria tests his historical arguments against the current situation in the Middle East. He believes his logic passes even this toughest test, suggesting that the problems there do not stem from Islam or Arabism, per se, but from the lack of liberty that hampers the development of an entrepreneurial, meritocratic business class in place of a ruling elite kept in power by unearned oil wealth. In contrast, he points to thriving Muslim and Arab communities in Bosnia, Canada, Malaysia, Turkey and the United States.
Zakaria further supports his claim that we have too much democracy by moving the argument beyond politics. He discusses the implications of mass-appeal democracy in the setting of religious and cultural standards, where today people get what they want and not always what they need. He believes society suffers when religion and culture are defined by plebiscite, which he contends are still more cases of democracy run amok. Be it politics, religion or culture, bypassing traditional mediators and arbiters in the name of democracy can hurt.
This paper presents Zakaria’s propositions and prescriptions. It does not critique them, although there would otherwise be ample room for questioning the author’s approach and assumptions. Ultimately, Zakaria says we must reassert republicanism in our governance if we are to resist illiberal democracy, rebalance the relationship between democracy and liberty, and prevent extreme democratic expression that doomed the Greek City States and created the excesses of California’s referenda and initiative-petition drives. He wants to reestablish the safeguards elected officials need to represent national interests based on intellect, ethical behavior and long-term perspective, inoculating them in some manner from the lowest-common-denominator politics of pandering. This includes rebuilding our political and civic institutions, including our political parties.
Zakaria believes in delegation. In a republican form of government, the citizenry delegates its public policy interests to elected representatives. Zakaria asserts that certain key tasks must then also be delegated to independent entities, enabling these institutions to create policy with a long-term, strategic perspective and keeping them insulated from political pandering and big-money politics. Zakaria says The Federal Reserve Bank, Supreme Court and military rank among America’s most trusted institutions for good reason – independence.
The author believes that delegated, independent authority is essential for developing nations, too, which fall prey to the whims of democratically elected officials unrestricted by constitutional liberties. Indeed, the East Asian liberal authoritarian regimes built great countries and paved the way for democracy because they worked from a foundation that first protected liberty that actually limited their own powers. That’s why Zakaria calls for 7-10 year, off-cycle appointments for key institutional leaders such as heads of central banks, certain law enforcement bodies, finance ministries and taxing authorities, such as the U.S. currently enjoys with the Fed, FBI and SEC, important considerations for developing nations.
Fareed Zakaria is asking that we reinstitute both the letter and the spirit of constitutional liberalism into the practice of democracy, thus rebalancing the tricky relationship between them. In doing so, he’s also asking that we Americans understand that democrat and republican principles are meant to work together in the name of effective governance and not separately at the altar of nearsighted, vitriolic politics.
Fareed Zakaria reminds us that government really does matter. That's why his book "The Future of Freedom" matters, too. As politicians and pundits continue to demonize government, Zakaria asserts that the form and function of government remains an essential determinant of the human condition. He believes that governments must balance power, legitimacy and effectiveness to sustain public trust. In contrast, he asserts that the pandering to short-term, poll-driven interests in the American model erodes trust in government.
Zakaria explores the tense, often misunderstood relationships between democracy and liberty. Among Zakaria’s core propositions is that democracy and liberty present substantively different views on the scope of government. A bias toward democracy finds governments accumulating power to further their own ends. Zakaria believes that an orientation based on constitutional liberalism, however, limits government power. He maintains that the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of government power today. He prefers limited government and believes a rebalancing of democracy and liberty is needed to achieve it.
Ironically, while constitutional liberalism often sows the seeds of democracy, it is democracy itself that risks expanding to the point of overwhelming the very liberties that created it. Zakaria proposes that government remain vigilant about balancing the precarious relationship between liberty and democracy, suggesting that the pursuit of democracy as an end unto itself can be illusory and even result in diminution of individual rights. In this sense, he’s reinforcing Kant’s regard for separation of powers that limit the scope of government as well as Locke’s belief in the primacy of individual property rights.
.
The author borrows from Montesquieu, Tocqueville and Madison in reminding us that government must protect against the tyranny of the majority. Interestingly, he suggests that government must also protect us against a tyranny of the minority, which takes the form of wealthy special interests. Zakaria believes that these narrow interests have a perverse effect on governance and comprise something a hidden new elite. They have eroded the power of traditional elites, too, and created a situation in Zakaria’s words where the money machine of special interests has turned watchdogs into lapdogs.
Zakaria believes that government has a role in resisting the abusive, crippling effects of these new elites. He believes that government should protect certain traditional elites, standard-bearers and watchdogs that serve in the public interest. These include mainstream media, political parties, and government regulators. He correlates the demise of political parties in the U.S. with this rise of special interests. He implies that government has a role in sustaining political parties as a true expression of public will. Having said this, Zakaria believes that government works best when it then keeps a distance from daily politics.
Zakaria contends that government’s role is to create and defend the liberties and rule of law needed to build economic wealth across the socioeconomic spectrum. He believes that spurring the growth of a business class and producing baseline levels of per capita GNP are gateways to authentic democratization. In his view, economic and judicial liberties come before democracy. As such, living under liberal authoritarianism can be developmentally preferable to any pretense of democracy that otherwise masks illiberal governance. Zakaria asks governments to understand the nature of their own wealth. In his thinking, governments are wise to defend against the perils of vast unearned wealth that can hamper authentic productivity and impede the necessary investments in educational, judicial and political infrastructure.
The author develops his propositions using historical example. He says that the rise of democracy ranks among the greatest global trends of the last century. Whereas no country in 1900 was a democracy as the term is understood today, 119 countries are now democracies.
The reader is taken through a brief history of human liberty. Zakaria reflects on the historic challenges between church and state, monarchy and aristocracy, and Protestantism and Catholicism, giving rise to Enlightenment and ultimately to capitalism. Through each of these periods, Zakaria illustrates how competing relationships among institutional players contributed to the emergence of liberty. For example, the Catholic Church placed limits on monarchical states to build its own power, but resulted in greater individual liberty. The Reformation sought to reduce the power of the Catholic Church, but also produced more liberty by giving people a path to truth unmediated by priests. It was the dynamism of capitalism, however, that ultimately brought liberty into the mainstream.
Zakaria contrasts British and French reactions to capitalism. British politics were revolutionized as capitalism became the key to social advancement. The French clung to aristocracy and placed equality above liberty, impeding the growth of open markets and, with it, the freedoms that come with the rule of law. Zakaria suggests that this is why France has had a more difficult time than Britain developing and sustaining innovation and growth.
Zakaria uses this logic to defend the liberal authoritarianism of Chile, Korea, Singapore and Taiwan in the Post-War period, where dictators built constitutional liberties to promote economic development, thus paving the way for democracy.
He contrasts Russia’s approach with that of China, believing that Moscow’s version of democracy is merely disguised illiberal authoritarianism that will not serve the country well. He adds that much of post-colonial Africa, while superficially democratic, presents similar illiberal democracies. These nations lack the economic and judicial infrastructure to protect rights, thereby reducing the willingness of individuals and organizations to work, invest and pay taxes.
Zakaria tests his historical arguments against the current situation in the Middle East. He believes his logic passes even this toughest test, suggesting that the problems there do not stem from Islam or Arabism, per se, but from the lack of liberty that hampers the development of an entrepreneurial, meritocratic business class in place of a ruling elite kept in power by unearned oil wealth. In contrast, he points to thriving Muslim and Arab communities in Bosnia, Canada, Malaysia, Turkey and the United States.
Zakaria further supports his claim that we have too much democracy by moving the argument beyond politics. He discusses the implications of mass-appeal democracy in the setting of religious and cultural standards, where today people get what they want and not always what they need. He believes society suffers when religion and culture are defined by plebiscite, which he contends are still more cases of democracy run amok. Be it politics, religion or culture, bypassing traditional mediators and arbiters in the name of democracy can hurt.
This paper presents Zakaria’s propositions and prescriptions. It does not critique them, although there would otherwise be ample room for questioning the author’s approach and assumptions. Ultimately, Zakaria says we must reassert republicanism in our governance if we are to resist illiberal democracy, rebalance the relationship between democracy and liberty, and prevent extreme democratic expression that doomed the Greek City States and created the excesses of California’s referenda and initiative-petition drives. He wants to reestablish the safeguards elected officials need to represent national interests based on intellect, ethical behavior and long-term perspective, inoculating them in some manner from the lowest-common-denominator politics of pandering. This includes rebuilding our political and civic institutions, including our political parties.
Zakaria believes in delegation. In a republican form of government, the citizenry delegates its public policy interests to elected representatives. Zakaria asserts that certain key tasks must then also be delegated to independent entities, enabling these institutions to create policy with a long-term, strategic perspective and keeping them insulated from political pandering and big-money politics. Zakaria says The Federal Reserve Bank, Supreme Court and military rank among America’s most trusted institutions for good reason – independence.
The author believes that delegated, independent authority is essential for developing nations, too, which fall prey to the whims of democratically elected officials unrestricted by constitutional liberties. Indeed, the East Asian liberal authoritarian regimes built great countries and paved the way for democracy because they worked from a foundation that first protected liberty that actually limited their own powers. That’s why Zakaria calls for 7-10 year, off-cycle appointments for key institutional leaders such as heads of central banks, certain law enforcement bodies, finance ministries and taxing authorities, such as the U.S. currently enjoys with the Fed, FBI and SEC, important considerations for developing nations.
Fareed Zakaria is asking that we reinstitute both the letter and the spirit of constitutional liberalism into the practice of democracy, thus rebalancing the tricky relationship between them. In doing so, he’s also asking that we Americans understand that democrat and republican principles are meant to work together in the name of effective governance and not separately at the altar of nearsighted, vitriolic politics.