Liberalism isn’t dead, but something went wrong
Western politics, as we know it today, is liberalism. From Labours and Tories in the UK to Democrats and Republicans in the United States, all mainstream ideologies fit in the framework of liberalism, operating in a stable structure based on democracy and the belief of social contracts, despite their stark differences and irreconcilable disagreements.
Over the last few centuries, liberalism was by far the most successful ideology — more than half of all countries today are democratic. But in recent years its success has become much less apparent — from the collapse of the Soviet Union to the Arab Spring, the liberalism of Locke and Rousseau has seemingly met its Waterloo.
The question is, why? Despite these recent failures, there’s no clear evidence to suggest liberalism is inherently at fault. Instead of blaming cultural differences as a reason why liberalism can only remain “western”, the methods used to establish a functioning democracy in many regions are flawed and even contributed to the demise of liberty. For all of us liberals, we have to think harder.
There are currently two ways of justifying liberalism — practicality and legitimacy. From the practicality point of view, democracy enables the representation of different interests in a society, which ensures fairness and adaptability in collective decision making. In this sense, liberal democracy is a means to an end. From a legitimacy approach, democracy is the only form of government because it has the consent of the people, and is, therefore, an end itself. Both approaches are widely accepted by liberals but are unfortunately absent in the process of establishing democracies in the past few decades.
When we say democracy is a means to an end, we assume the end to be life, liberty, and property, as John Locke had pointed out. But the reality is often much more complicated than political theories. Take Libya, for example, if democracy itself guarantees prosperity, why are thousands making the dangerous journey across the Mediterranean as refugees?
VICE’s short documentary on Libya’s revolution might provide an insight into this. At a mass demonstration in Tripoli, a man who once fought against Gaddafi admits he’d fight for him had he been alive, because “they toppled Gaddafi, but didn’t consider an alternative.” This is precisely the problem with our current approach to establish democracies.
At the beginning of the Arab Spring, we expected that as soon as the old establishment collapses, a calming order of peace and liberty would rise from the ruins to replace it. This belief is no less fanatic than the Leninist zeal of creating a classless society through violent revolutions. Revolution, in its very own nature, creates a concentration of power, which puts democracy at risks, because as the old anarchist saying states, “power corrupts”. There are countless examples of this in history, even as recent as the collapse of the Soviet Union, which led to oligarchy — another class of ruling elites.
Hoping a stable democracy to emerge after a devastating revolution is like tossing a coin. Sometimes it goes well, like the American revolution, or it goes very wrong like its French counterpart, which ended in Napoleon becoming an emperor. It’s evident that Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya all landed on the wrong side of the coin, but there are things we can do to improve the chances.
Establishing a democracy must be a gradual process. The creation of any government involves exceptionally complex and exhaustive work, not mentioning the need to balance the political power of different institutions and prevent abuses of power. Without a doubt, a devastated nation requires help from those already blessed with established liberal governments, and a high level of international commitment is needed in this process of nation-building. The death of Gaddafi is not the end, but only the beginning of creating a democracy.
On the other hand, the disappointing fact is that people do not value liberty and freedom as much as they would like to think, especially in third world countries. For many who are not as fortunate as we are, their hope in life is to find shelters, food, and security for their families. For the refugees who risk their lives to have better chances in life, the kids who lost both parents in wars, or the people impoverished by years of endless conflict, it’s unlikely that the legitimacy of their government is their primary concern. And, can you blame them?
Yes, democracy is indeed a way to end their suffering. But many of us liberals talk about democracy with food in our fridge, roofs over our heads, warm clothes for the harshest winters. It’s easy for us to talk about liberalism and democracy, but for people of the war-torn nations in other parts of the world where survival isn’t a guarantee, the legitimacy approach of liberalism isn’t convincing enough.
However, to dismiss liberalism because of “cultural differences” and claim it will never work in some parts of the world is also fallacious. Cultures may be different, but human beings are much more similar than we know. From materialistic pleasures to spiritual enlightenments, no matter the cultures we are in, we all seek a good life for ourselves and our loved ones, and this little common ground in humanity is enough to breed liberalism. Cultures might affect our opinions to some extent, but like everything else in this world, cultures can change too.
I’m still in favour of democracy, but we must think harder about how to get there.
