The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad

After January 6, 2021:I must re-evaluate Zakaria's Brilliant book -- he told us Illiberals would use democratic elections, processes, and ideals to corrupt democracy into autocracy. Very visionary warning years before 2016 election and the disaster of President Trump. Thank you for program and books.I have watched and viewed Mr. Zakaria's TV punditry & journalism over the years and I felt his point-of-view interesting enough to spend some of my precious leisure reading one of his books. I was overall disappointed when I read this in 2010. In 2003 there were more crucial issues affecting the future of freedom than what was addressed by this book.What is `illiberal democracy'? When the procedures are democratic & constitutional, but result is a racist, fascist regime this defines `illiberal democracy'. Zakaria's example is the Nazi take-over of a weak Weimar govt. in 1930s Germany (when hyperinflation had demoralized the voters).At Home: I would also argue that the last Bush regime of 2001-2009 and its contemporary U S neo-conservative coalition (of 90s to present) were illiberal. Geo W Bush was elected by coalition composed of 3 largely authoritarian, top-down power elites:1) Politically-organized religious fundamentalists,2) Economic interests of `military-industrial complex' (Ike's phrase)3) Interests of multinational corporate lobbies & ultra-wealthyThree of the most obvious Bush regime attacks upon middle-class freedom include: -- legitimacy and partisanship of Supreme Court deciding outcome of 2000 election -- the Patriot Act's effect upon privacy & `negative' freedom of expression (a post-9/11 trade-off with increased needs for national security)-- the untargeted Bush tax cuts, which had a profound effect, relieving Corporate America & the ultra-wealthy of significant financial obligation to govt. at the expense of social programs benefiting American lower & middle-classes and debt left to future generations. I find the weaknesses of Future of Freedom are mostly in Zakaria's choices of threats to freedom. By defining freedom and liberty as `negative' in the classical & bill of rights' sense - `the freedom from restraint', Zakaria has avoided discussion of recent threats to America's extraordinary accomplishments involving `positive' liberties. For example, American public institutions based upon 'freedom of opportunity' include 1)affordable public education 2) social security and other govt.-managed safety nets, 3) civil service, merit-based employment opportunities.All of these protect courageous dissenters of the lower & middle classes when they become marginalized by powerful special interests(or, ostracized by the `tyranny of the majority'). All of these, as expressions of positive liberties, provide public-supported opportunities which allow upward economic opportunities to individuals with merit & motivation. Traditional America values the individual. Aside from origins and class, America is the 'land of opportunity' because its system of government enables individuals to make achievements and contributions commensurate with their talents.Of course, there are problems of bureaucracy & redundant or ineffective programs. There are no `market forces' as in the private sector to keep these programs vibrant. Meritocracy can easily devolve into 'welfare for the masses' or oligarchy based upon inherited privilege. Perhaps one of the omissions which makes Future of Freedom a timid and often irrelevant analysis for 2003 is Fakaria's indifference to the consolidation of mass media by multinationals like Fox / Murdoch. To the detriment of public and independent broadcasting / broadband channels, this policy allowed a single Big Media conglomerate to become the dominant news source / point-of-view in many major U S markets. This was on-going in early 2000s and supported by Powell & FCC as govt `de-regulation'. This is an area where Zakaria is most knowledgeable. However,Zakaria cannot be harsh on this issue. Zakaria has chosen to be a network pundit. Timidity is what is expected from mainstream network TV / Time-Warner. Those who care about a strong diverse news media must thank PBS' Democracy Now for their harsh commentary on this issue and the wisdom of the U S Supreme Court in overturning the FCC's actions. Zakaria relates to and 'believes' in a 'civic-minded' technocratic elite that is somewhat insulated from the short-term interests of elected politics. This may be a way to improve many of the current problems of grid-lock partisan politics and the pervasive influences of lobbies and special interests. In the end I think that a strong pluralism best serves the freedoms that we expect from western-style democracies. I consider 8 to be fundamental:1) Constitutional federalism with checks-and-balances ata)federal level between executive, judiciary & legislative, and bill of rights that is enforced by judiciaryb)separation between federal and state authority as outlined in Constitution2) a strong independent free press which allows out-of-mainstream opinions from far left / far right3)tolerance of a wide range of religious institutions & viewpoints, protected by bill of rights and enforced by exec / judiciary (without allowing the 'establishment of a state sect'). In fact, a 'wall of separation' between church & state is an ideal.4)strong affordable secular public-financed education -- especially impressive are the land-granted state systems of America and the post-WWII G I education benefits. Future voters must be trained to think rationally about complex political policies and issues. While standards may be mediocre, America has attempted to provide mass public education on an unprecedented scale.5)a social safety net to protect those of lower / middle classes from recession, unemployment, other short-term crises6) a strong productive economic middle-class with opportunities for small business, self-employed professionals,7) A strong 'civic-minded' state-of-the-art military that understands that military action cannot be taken by committee or consensus but that the military must abide 'rule of law' and civilian 'chain of command' when it is involved in any major diplomatic or foreign mission. This is especially true in nascent democracies which Zakaria discusses as so many become military dictatorships.8) a business / corporate elite which does not spend ridiculous amounts of $ on lobbying, advertising, and public relations campaigns trying to evade competition & taxes. The funds are better spent helping govt. improve the infrastructure that business needs, by pursuing targeted tax credits that produce efficiency /competitiveness and innovation, and by accepting its civic obligation to pay reasonable taxes rather than to 'create loopholes'. This is the way to ensure that U S remains a competitive economy and can afford the 'civic-minded' institutions described above.& Abroad:Zakaria's hypothesis: There is a 'window of GDP' ($3k to $5K per capita income) during which probability of liberal democratic institution-building is likely to succeed and be sustained. This seems plausible and may be warranted by evidence.A counter-case, for example, the tiny S. Indian state government of Kerala, has achieved high quality of life standards on a very low GDSP; this was achieved within the largest democratic nation -- India. While Kerala may not be a sovereign nation, I would think that these facts might intrigue Zakarias. It is estimated that 20% of Kerala's 'GDSP' comes from Services -- its highly educated residents send home $ earned working abroad in the Persian Gulf States. Is it wishful thinking to wonder if this model might have viability in select, poor nations (if they can educate their citizens to a level that makes them viable as expatriate service-providers)?

Several decades ago I spent two years in the Peace Corps in a "Democratic" West African country. The experience was a real eye-opener for me, and lead me to believe most of what Dr. Zakaria discusses in the first half of his book. Just as a human being does not come into the world fully formed and at it's maximum capabilities, a newly created nation is often wanting in the financial, legal, and educational institutions needed to successfully support democracy in today's world. Those of us lucky enough to live in one of the modern democracries need to recognize that an effective democracy is more than polling stations and the universal right to vote. As discussed by Dr. Zakaria, a benign dictator who puts in place the institutions and infrastructure needed to economically develop his country can be better for a poor developing nation than a lousy democratically elected government.We tend to forget that our American form of government was not created spontaneously in the colonies, but was the result of hundreds of years of evolution in Western Europe. In forging our foreign policy, we need to spend more time assisting new nations in putting in place the institutions necessary to ultimately support democracy, and less time worrying about elections. Once earned per captia income reaches a cetain level in a developing nation(about $6000), a new democracy stands a much better chance of survival than in very poor country.In the second half of his book Dr. Zakaria launches into a less well-written discussion of how democracy has degraded in America. As a Californian, I have to agree with his comments on the breakdown of our state's government. However, I think that Dr. Zakaria downplays the uncontained greed of local governments, which in turn lead to the landmark Proposition 13, and the resulting (mis)governance in our state by popular initiatives in the last two decades. Dr. Zakaria makes some provocative suggestions for changing our government by having more decision making done by non-elected bodies.I recommend this book to anyone interested in how we could improve our foreign policy as we embark on nation-building.

La démocratie ne se réduit pas aux elections.De nombreux dictateurs furent élus (Hitler et Khomeiny entre autres).Il faut qu'elle garantissent les droits des gens.L'Etat de Droit est aussi important que le processus electoral.Une des meilleures analyses de la Démocratie depuis celle de Isaie Berlin.Indispensable a tous ceux qui ont un avis sur la démocratie sans la connaitre.

Diante do atual cenário político brasileiro, compreender as estruturas e processos de formação das Illiberal Democacies pode nos ajudar a avaliar os caminhos políticos do pais.

In this age when deriding elites has become the norm, there is an American intellectual who boldly emphasizes the importance of elites to any society. The current generation would have been poorer without this book.The chapter "The Death of Authority" is the best. "We behave as if society is so democratic...that it does not have a governing elite... the rich and powerful will always be with us."Sadly, Mr Zakaria is wrong about India, just like most people who look from afar and form their views. For example, VS Naipaul had a low opinion of India (which he seems to have tempered later) and Nelson Mandela supported reservations at the time of Mandal agitations in 1991 (which he seems to have regretted after knowing the whole picture). The eminent scientist the late S. Chandrasekhar was supportive of the 1975 Emergency!Zakaria holds Narendra Modi culpable in the 2002 riots (pages 106-113). Now that the US has welcomed and embraced Modi, by his own definition of liberal democracy, will Zakaria call the US an illiberal democracy?On the whole, one of the best books on our times. People like Mr Zakaria are India's loss and America's gain.

This book tells the story of liberty and democracy. In its first chapters Zakaria describes how these two separate developments are related and how they influenced the world at large. These first chapters are mainly backward looking, they tell us what has happened in the last few centuries in Europe, America, Russia, China, and the Islamic world with regards to liberty and democracy.One of the most interesting parts of this first part of the book is the section where Zakaria describes the three phenomena that have helped spur the development of liberty and democracy in many places: a technological revolution, growing middle-class wealth, and the collapse of alternative systems and ideologies that organized society. These topics return many times in the other chapters of the first part of the book, and they are enormously helpful in understanding what has happened in the past and how new democracies have come into existence.However, the final chapters of this book really made it worthwhile. The important point that Zakaria tries to argue for is that over the last few decades at some places in our Western societies we have added too much democracy and openness. He therefore proposes to add more distance from the vox populi to the democratic processes. Moreover, he argues that a bit of secrecy is actually good for the quality of the decision making process.To illustrate the fact that the quality of the decision making process has deteriorated because of the influx of democracy, Zakaria tells the story of the opening up of the deliberations of the internal committees of America's Senate and House of Representatives in the 60s and 70s of the previous century. One result of this development was that pressure groups got the possibility to lobby for their own particular subjects, thus making it way harder to come to bipartisan agreements and proposals. This used to be, at least according to voting results, definitely easier to accomplish before the changes.A strong point of this book is that Zakaria not only describes these developments and why they're wrongheaded, he also proposes changes to our democracies to amend things before anything goes completely wrong. For example, he proposes to make more use of discussions behind closed doors in the Senate and the House, so that deliberations cannot be influenced by all kinds of different pressure and lobby groups. The book contains many of these examples.In conclusion, this book has made me rethink my standpoint towards direct forms of democracy. Where I used to believe that direct democracy was the way to go, this book helped me see that it obviously has positive sides, but that when there is too much of it, it also has significant downsides that are easily overlooked, especially if you're trying to find other causes for today's imperfect Western democracies. In other words, this book has helped me to see that an elite - a group of people that leads instead of follows the will of the people - definitely is needed in most democracies.

wonderful, kids loved it. thanks...