Mon, Jan 25, 2016 - Page 9 News List

The problem with ‘illiberal democracy’ in the geopolitical West

By Jan-Werner Mueller

Poland’s turn toward authoritarian rule has set off alarm bells across the EU and within NATO. Since coming to power in October, Jaroslaw Kaczynski’s Law and Justice party (PiS) has attacked the nation’s Constitutional Court, politicized the judiciary and the civil service and launched an assault on media pluralism.

Critics of the PiS government, which is led by Polish Prime Minister Beata Szydlo (with Kaczynski, ruling from behind the scenes as he holds no official post), have described its actions as a blitz to install “illiberal democracy,” similar to what Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has done in his nation over the past six years, but to call what is being constructed in Poland illiberal democracy is deeply misleading — and in a way that undermines efforts to rein in would-be autocrats like Kaczynski and Orban. After all, it is not just liberalism that is under attack, but democracy itself.

The concept of “illiberal democracy,” attributable to a 1997 essay by the American foreign-policy analyst Fareed Zakaria, was an effort to describe regimes that held elections, but did not observe the rule of law and regularly overrode their political systems’ constitutional checks and balances. It was an idea born of disillusion. In the heady days after the fall of communism, a kind of democratic ecstasy prevailed (at least in the West). The “end of history” had been achieved and elections, representative institutions, and the rule of law would, it seemed, always go neatly together.

However, soon newly empowered electorates were voting in majorities that used their power to oppress minorities and violate fundamental rights. The implication was clear: Democracy on its own was not enough. Liberalism — the protection of minorities and individual civil liberties — had to be strengthened.

However, the word “liberalism,” does not mean the same thing to all people. In many circles, it came to be used to describe unfettered capitalism and full freedom of choice in personal lifestyles. And it was the alternative meanings that initially allowed politicians like Orban and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to make the case for a different form of majoritarian democracy.

Erdogan, emphasizing traditional Islamic morality, started to present himself as a “conservative democrat.” Orban, in a controversial speech in 2014, declared his desire to create an “illiberal state.” More recently, during the refugee crisis, Orban announced the end of the era of what he called “liberal blah blah” and predicted that Europe would come around to his “Christian and national” vision of politics.

The phrase “illiberal democracy” is not necessarily a contradiction in terms. Throughout the 19th and 20th century, many European Christian Democrats would have called themselves “illiberal.”

However, what this did not mean is that they failed to understand and recognize the importance of minority rights in a functioning democracy (after all, minorities can become the majority in the next election). Nor did it mean that they believed unelected institutions, like constitutional courts, were somehow undemocratic. They associated “liberalism” with individualism, materialism and, very often, atheism; but being anti-liberal did not mean rejecting the importance of rights or independent institutions.

Comments will be moderated. Keep comments relevant to the article. Remarks containing abusive and obscene language, personal attacks of any kind or promotion will be removed and the user banned. Final decision will be at the discretion of the Taipei Times.

TOP top