Liberal democracy
Introduction
To begin with Francis Fukuyama's, provocative thesis, that after the fall of communism in Europe and the withering of the grand ideological contests, history too has ended. In his "end of history" theory, he maintained that the western liberal democracy had become the `final form of human government'. The fact is that though not all theorists have this kind of a faith in liberal democracy, and believe that it's not the only feasible form of democracy, they are in a minority. The theoretical circles and the popular discourse have been dominated by "liberal democracy."
John Stuart mill's essay "on liberalism and considerations of representative government" is often considered as the first systematic explication and defense of liberal democracy. A prodemocrat he welcomed the progress in equality, yet identified with toqueville's warning about the tyranny of the majority. In particular he agreed with the claims that majority mass culture stifles free and informed thought and that an omnipotent majority mat oppress a minority. Mill's essay in large may be read as a sustained effort to confront this problem by the straightforward method of combining democracy and liberalism.
With the emergence of large democratic nations, he believed there was a need for the people to `limit their power over themselves', and seeks to identify the principles according to which people should set limitations. He thus prescribed against government paternalism and overt tyranny, and favored what is called "pluralist mandate", where the citizens as far as possible are able to pursue what they see as their own goods and in their own ways.
Major tenets or principle...
... middle of paper ...
...berships, liberal democrats should support multicultural group rights, since these memberships provide a `context of choice' essential for autonomous action.
F) A political sense of individualism is central to liberal democracy. It states that whatever the causal origins of people's preferences, social arrangements at least as far as the government can affect them, must respect individual freedom to act on their preferences rather than being obliged to forego this ability or to adjust their preferences to socially determined goals.
Freedom and autonomy- there are alternative conceptions of personhood, within liberal-democratic theory. The determinist and the autonomist camp, are, respectively that the state ought to enable the people as far as possible to act on their preferences or that it ought to preserve the ability of the people to revise their goals.
Liberal freedom is the absence of subjective legal or institutional restraints on the individual, containing the idea that all citizens are to be treated equally. Freedom as self-government involves an assumed individual state of independence, self-determination, superiority, and self-confidence. Participatory freedom includes the right to the individual to partake fully in the political process. Collective deliverance is agreed as the liberation of a group from outside control-from imprisonment, bondage, or domination. (Walton Jr & Smith,
Today, the definition of the term “liberal” is relatively uncontested, and its content is relatively well defined. A liberal today is someone who advocates for governmental solutions to various problems, not for unaided individual freedom. Liberals today trust and call for governmental action, not for the type of self-determination supported by Hoover. Contemporary liberals believe in individual freedom, but they typically advocate f...
Individualism regards man—every man—as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being. Individualism holds that a civilized society, or any form of association, cooperation or peaceful coexistence among men, can be achieved only on the basis of the recognition of individual rights—and that a group, as such, has no rights other than the individual rights of its members.
In relation to social obligations and advancement of society, Mill writes advocating the expression of one’s opinion as the main driving force. Mill states, “If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in sile...
In On Liberty, John Stuart Mill speaks on matters concerning the “struggle between authority and liberty” and determining how the government should be balanced with the will of the common people. To aid these balances, Mill lays out indisputable freedoms for everyone including freedoms of thought and speech. He stresses that these freedoms are justified as long as they abstain from harm onto other people, but words have been known to hurt or offend. Hateful and unpopular thoughts can be ignored by common people just as they can say and believe whatever they wish to, but in the creation of laws that do affect everyone, leaders cannot discriminate against hearing any sort of opinion because doing so would increase the possibility of tyranny against a minority of any kind Mill wants to prevent. Every single opinion, no matter how unpopular, deserves to be heard by people of power, for even a thought of the unpopular or the minority could provide a shred of truth when leaders make decisions to better a majority of lives.
He then further explains the growth pattern between those eras which has led to the current ideology of liberal democracy. He believes that liberal democracy is the best ideology and that it is the final stage in human ideological development. He further suggested that human history should be viewed as a progression or battle of ideologies. With the current trend of universalization of liberal democracy and individualism, both characteristics of Western culture, he argues that Western liberal democracy has become the grand victor. He also asserts that despite the liberal democratic ideology has not completely been realized in the material world, the idea has been accepted and has triumphed over all alternate ideologies.
One of the more severe charges against Mill's conception of liberty involves socio-cultural background of the author's politics. Mill advocates paternalism on moral grounds in several instances that suggest an intellectual bias and a level of intellectual superiority, embedded in the nineteenth century culture and the Western world. Under Mill's paradigm, freedom is limited to those who are capable of rationality, allowing despotism as a sufficient alternative to 'educating' in all other instances (Goldberg, 2000). Thus, one's incompetence allows for a coercive force and social control (Conly, 2013).
Fitzpatrick, J. R. (2006). John Stuart Mill's political philosophy: Balancing freedom and the collective good. London [u.a.: Continuum.
Charles Baudelaire, a well-known English poet, once said that “Nature... is nothing but the inner voice of self-interest.” The philosophical theme of self-interest has been a common idea among political thinkers for many years. In any issue that is linked to the realm of political philosophy, the role of self-interest within a society must be considered. The role of self-interest within a society is the basis for the moral thinking that involves weighing the “needs and obligations of an individual against the goods of the individual and in turn society” (The Role of Self interest in Political Philosophy). Before confronting an issue within a society, a political thinker must decide whether or not people are ultimately self-interested. The government system of checks and balances was established to confront the issue of self-interest. The political thinkers, John Stuart Mill and John Locke unveiled the mysteries of what it meant to live in freedom and possess liberty, in which the self-interest of humanity does not impose on the rights of others. Both Locke and Mills believed that in order to govern over a society, people must have freedom. The difference between these political thinkers lies in how much freedom people should be entitled to within a political society.
John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau all dealt with the issue of political freedom within a society. John Locke's “The Second Treatise of Government”, Mill's “On Liberty”, and Rousseau’s “Discourse On The Origins of Inequality” are influential and compelling literary works which while outlining the conceptual framework of each thinker’s ideal state present divergent visions of the very nature of man and his freedom. The three have somewhat different views regarding how much freedom man ought to have in political society because they have different views regarding man's basic potential for inherently good or evil behavior, as well as the ends or purpose of political societies.
It is discussed how the indifference to politics by many citizens of western society and the fact that ideologies are now no longer needed by those in power to enforce their will are two key truths of western politics.
Furthermore, liberalism then leads to democracy which is a form of government in which all eligible citizens participate equally. This can either be done directly or by elected representatives. Democracy encompasses racial, religious, ethnic, social an...
Individual freedom is often seen as the core value of Liberalism. Nevertheless, freedom can be divided into two categories: negative and positive. Negative freedom, which is traditionally associated with Classical Liberalism, advocates the belief in non-interference, the absence of all external constraints upon the individual. This implies that individuals should be free to pursue their own interests free from outside restrictions or pressures.
Modern day society is engrossed in a battle for protection of individual rights and freedoms from infringement by any person, be it the government or fellow citizens. Liberalism offers a solution to this by advocating for the protection of personal freedom. As a concept and ideology in political science, liberalism is a doctrine that defines the motivation and efforts made towards the protection of the aforementioned individual freedom. In the current society, the greatest feature of liberalism is the protection of individual liberty from intrusion or violation by a government. The activities of the government have, therefore, become the core point of focus. In liberalism, advocacy for personal freedom may translate to three ideal situations, based on the role that a government plays in a person’s life. These are no role, a limited role or a relatively large role. The three make up liberalism’s rule of thumb. (Van de Haar 1). Political theorists have
middle of paper ... ... Philosophers, such as John Stuart Mill, have debated the role and the extension of government in the people’s lives for centuries. Mill presents a clear and insightful argument, claiming that the government should not be concerned with the free will of the people unless explicit harm has been done to an individual. However, such ideals do not build a strong and lasting community. It is the role of the government to act in the best interests at all times through the prevention of harm and the encouragement of free thought.