Illiberal Democracy And Its Rapid Rise
When Abraham Lincoln spoke of democracy in the Gettysburg Address, the world was given the first ever idea of what democracy is but also what it should be. The system of government, where every single citizen votes for their desired leader through free and fair elections. But for ages, democracy has been used as a one-word replacement for a larger theory, that of a ‘liberal democracy’, making it much more than just an electoral mechanism. This extended meaning includes the way of governance in these ‘democratic’ states, stating that these elected leaders shall uphold laws, rights and duties of the society that are bound by the state’s constitution. Combining the theories of democracy and liberalism is what probably makes this system ideal for a free society, something that has been propagated by the West for quite some time. Moreover, a democratic state shall also have independent functioning of the three (or four) pillars- the executive, legislature and the judiciary (also the media). However, democracy in this pure form is not as intuitive as it seems to be. Liberal Democracies are seen to descend into a peculiar form of administration which seems to be a partial, guided and a morally emptier version of the original one, known to many as Illiberal Democracies.
An Illiberal democracy, as many theorists like to put it, is a kind of contradiction to the basic form. A democracy used to crush democracy itself. A state which is not liberal is not essentially a democracy at all. A liberal democratic state here emphasizes on the separation of powers between the administrative bodies and total independence of the courts, universities and the media. The word ‘liberal’ further talks about the nature of economic or social policies taken up the government and the basic system of governance in these states which together should uphold political liberty. Illiberal democracies essentially tend to hamper the very fabric of a democratic system by obstructing the independent functioning of governing bodies and disregarding the constitutional mechanisms of the state, resulting in an unfavorable accumulation of power. Majority of the countries in the world today happen to adhere to democracy as their ideal mode of administration, but the liberal aspect remains merely as a theory in most. Most of the constitutionally democratic countries of the Global South and those of Eastern Europe (much recently) have fallen prey to this wave of illiberal democracy.
The morally perfect version of democracy as we know it is something that is till date still limited to the rich West. If we plan to extend the basic definition of a democracy beyond the system of electing a proper government and to all social, economic and constitutional policies then we might as well call this as an idealist concept, as hardly any nation probably ticks them all. As Fareed Zakaria states in his work The Rise of Illiberal Democracy, “Of course elections must be open and fair, and this requires some protections for freedom of speech and assembly. But to go beyond this minimalist definition and to label a country democratic only if it guarantees a comprehensive catalogue of social, political, economic and religious rights turns the word democracy into a badge of honour rather than a descriptive category.”
Owning to the majorly free and capitalist nature of most liberal democracies what we encounter is that there will almost be no such government devoid of either corruption, monarchy, repressive actions imposed by the state or even strict control over courts, education or media. Therefore, most democracies will probably fail to purely stick to the ‘free’ and ‘capitalist’ aspects as liberal democracies are supposed to be. Even flag-bearers of western ideals like UK and France have failed in this endeavour. France for years had state monopoly on Television, The United Kingdom has an established Monarchy and even a religion, but yet keeping people’s liberty intact. Among other examples, post-colonial countries such as India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and some African states have had state monopolies, continued subjugation of the press and educational bodies for years, and widespread bureaucratic corruption. Countries like Iran and Turkey, which are known for having a much more liberal democratic system compared to the Middle East, are a theocratic state and have been responsible for state sponsored violence, respectively. With the fall of the Soviet Union in 1990, states such as Belarus and even Russia have become what is best described as near-tyrannous democracies. Lastly, democratic nations in Latin America have imposed extreme socialist measures on their people that in some cases like Bolivia which has even resulted in nation-wide poverty. This rise which started around fifty years from now, is alarmingly evident in the current international scenario with more and more countries subscribing to illiberal democracy in Europe and to some extent even the United States. Hence, ‘liberalism’ in governance is best described now as a goal for administrations, something that they should strife towards for if we were to include that into the basic notion of democracy, the theory will hardly be of any analytical significance.
During the establishment of every liberal democracy that we know of today, constitutionalism became the ultimate principle to live by. However, abiding by the constitution, which formally is a codified set of laws, rights and duties, is not something that is truly exclusive to democracies. The principles and framework of a constitution varies from state to state, they may protect the freedoms and choices (economic or social) of its population or may even call for an authoritarian regime to rule the state. Therefore, loyalty to the constitutions and its laws is a concept that we cannot associate as a prerequisite for a liberal democracy in the first place. Due to such loopholes in a theory which has been glorified for ages, majorly by the West, what we see is probably an uncontrollable rise of openly illiberal democracies such as Hungary.
Since Victor Orban came into office as the Prime Minister of Hungary in 2010, the state has experienced what is called ‘democratic backsliding’. Hungary has taken up actions which has quite evidently removed democracy from the state, making it essentially a Central European autocracy. Orban meanwhile has been a public advocate for illiberal democracy with almost complete penetration of his party, Fidesz, into the state’s mechanism making Hungary a near one-party system. He has consolidated his power in the state under the very nose of the European Union which till date has been one of the strongest supporters of liberal democracy. Orban and his Fidesz party, went further to dismantle the history of the nation by devaluing the 1989 Peaceful Hungarian Revolution which established the current democratic state. To fit their majoritarian narrative, Hungary was now the state previously ruled by monarchs a thousand years ago and was supposed to have a catholic culture, irrespective of what the real diverse history is. With the state making Catholicism as the its preferred choice, the so-called democrats leave out all other minorities in the country, namely Jews, Protestants, Muslims, also members of the LGBTQ+ community who do not fit into the notion of Catholic culture. Liberty of the populace was further suppressed when Orban and his party took away mostly all the independence of the Hungarian courts and the media. Due to the general political pressure in the state, The supreme court has now become answerable directly to the Prime Minister, with most judges being well known party loyalists. Furthermore, Orban set up a media censorship board, which is yet again answerable to the Prime Minister, which was to check, penalize and fine the media for content that it ruled as inappropriate. Using the majoritarian power vested in him, democratically so, Orban and his self-proclaimed nationalist party have amended the state’s constitution to shape their narrative, hence breaking down each and every pillar of democracy that the nation’s founding fathers had promised the people. Hungary also successfully dissolved the independent fiscal board, which used to keep checks and balances and would review the government’s budget and expenditure, giving the ruling party ultimate economic control. The administration has also subjugated any dissenting voices with the widespread villainization of the European Union’s narrative of liberal democracies and its advocates such as George Soros and many universities. With such visibly autocratic actions, Hungary which many theorists like believe is in a transitional stage between a free democracy and total authoritarianism, namely an ‘illiberal democracy’.
Michael Ignatieff, the President of the Central European University in Budapest, in an interview pointed out certain early warnings for a country to look for to avoid becoming an illiberal democracy as we know it. They include various steps taken by the administrations of the world which include, passing politically inclined legislation, control over the judiciary, force being used against dissenters, shutting down universities and forcing a certain academic curriculum. In some cases, using electoral policies to give a certain political party an unfair advantage and decrease in voter turnout may also be considered as warnings. Keeping these in mind, what we understand is that many well-known, powerful nations of the world such as Turkey, India, Iran, Poland, Argentina and also the United States are on the ugly path of becoming an illiberal democracy. Democratic institutions are slowly being dissolved and power is moving into the hands of elected autocrats who happen to push for a certain political narrative, consolidating their power and taking away political freedoms from its people. A Liberal democracy has essentially become an administrative dream which does not seem possible in the near future of international politics in the 21st century. Europe which mostly had center-left or centre-right parties ruling in its constituent nations are witnessing a visible drop in support, suggesting at an imminent distress call for liberalism. Liberal values also continue to fall in nations of Asia and Latin America as they move for more and more repressive and authoritarian policies to deal with issues. Democracy in the true sense of the word is on a downward slope with administrations either ignoring or enforcing this trend, leaving it solely to the moral conscience of the international population to decide for a more concrete system in the coming future.
