Why is Liberal Democracy in Crisis?

By Henry Srebrnik, [Summerside, PEI] Journal Pioneer

In his book The People v Democracy: Why Our Freedom is in Danger and How to Save It, Yascha Mounk of Harvard University stresses that liberalism and democracy are separable.

Voters often want things that are democratic but not liberal, in the most basic sense, which has nothing to do with left- or right-wing policies. For example, they may elect a government that promises to censor speech they dislike, or back a referendum that would curtail the rights of an unpopular minority.

At the same time, plenty of liberal institutions are undemocratic. Unelected judges can often overrule elected politicians, for example. Liberals see this as an essential constraint on the government’s power.

Even the people’s chosen representatives must be subject to the law. In a liberal democracy, power is dispersed. Politicians are not only accountable to voters but also kept in line by  courts, journalists and pressure groups.

A loyal opposition recognises the government as legitimate but decries many of its actions and seeks to replace it at the next election. A clear boundary exists between the ruling party and the state.

This system is now under siege. In many countries, voters are picking leaders who do not respect it, and gradually undermine it.

After decades of steady expansion of rights and liberties, the pro-democracy watchdog Freedom House has recorded sharp reversals, with the share of nations dubbed “free” declining since 2007.

Countries in every region of the world have suffered setbacks, in areas such as free and fair elections, the independence of the press, the rights of minorities and the rule of law.

Although the liberal democracies in the west are fairly rich and peaceful, many of their citizens are disgruntled. Globalisation and technology have made them fear for their jobs.

In the United States, voters who in a previous generation would have identified with their factory, or union or working-class community now find their factory jobs gone, their unions withered, their neighborhoods emptied. Many voted for Donald Trump.

The 2016 vote for Brexit echoed a similar set of grievances and suspicions among Britons, including the resentment of the distant elites in the European Union, as well as in the British government, holding sway over their lives. 

It didn’t help that the European Union’s highest court, the European Court of Justice, ruled that Britain could unilaterally reverse its decision to split from the 28-nation political bloc, in a ruling that gave a boost to anti-Brexit campaigners.

In France, President Emmanuel Macron, who came to power as an outsider bent on shaking up France’s political establishment, is now viewed by his critics as an aloof, technocratic would-be monarch. 

His efforts toward reform have fanned the flames of public discontent and the result was massive anti-government protests and violence in the heart of Paris. Thousands were arrested.

Anti-government protests occurred in other European countries in 2018. Belgium, for instance, faced political upheaval caused by its adoption of the United Nations Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration.

The issue has become politically poisonous in the era of President Trump and rising far-right leaders in Europe in the aftermath of the 2015 migration crisis.

Along with the United States, the governments of Australia, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Israel, Poland, Slovakia and Switzerland have announced that they will not sign the proposed pact or that they will delay a decision.  It has also become controversial in Germany, Italy, Latvia and the Netherlands. 

It is not just bigotry. “Uncontrolled immigration, along with economic globalization, are the major factors behind the growing distrust plaguing liberal democracies,” contends political scientist Mark Lilla of Columbia University in New York, a self-described liberal.

After all, as Peter Ludlo, at the Center for Logic and Epistemology of the University of Campinas in Brazil, notes, “ignoring economic inequity, corporate imperialism, and widespread institutional corruption” causes extreme distress in society.

The appeal of despotism arises “when people come to realize that traditional institutions have failed them. People become desperate, and they seek answers outside of democratic institutions.”

The political earthquakes now convulsing many liberal democracies represent a rejection of the established political order and dissatisfaction with the status quo. Will things get even worse?