Illiberal democracy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article or section is missing citations or needs footnotes. Using inline citations helps guard against copyright violations and factual inaccuracies. (December 2007) |
 |
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2007) |
An illiberal democracy is a governing system in which citizens elect their political leaders but freedom is curtailed by the government. Thus, although free and fair elections take place initially, citizens are cut off from real power due to the lack of civil liberties. The term illiberal democracy was used by Fareed Zakaria in an often cited 1997 article in the journal Foreign Affairs.[1]
Illiberal democracies are found primarily in democratizing countries that do not have a recent history of pluralism. Government-imposed limits on civil liberties commonly include restrictions on freedom of speech.
The mid-to-late 1990s was a period marked by a growing emergence of illiberal democracies.
An illiberal democracy is marked by the tension between how a government is selected and how that government behaves. Illiberal democratic governments believe they have a mandate to act in any way they see fit, disregarding laws or the constitution if they desire as long as they hold regular elections. They often centralize powers both between branches of the national government (having no separation of powers) and between different levels of government and private associations. The former is more noticeable, the latter more common.
Another characteristic is that the lack of rights such as freedom of speech and assembly make opposition to the rulers extremely difficult. Television and radio is often controlled by the state and strongly support the regime. Non-governmental organizations may face onerous regulations or simply be prohibited. The regime may use red tape, economic pressure, or violence against critics.
One method of determining whether a regime is an illiberal democracy is by determining whether "it has regular, free, fair, and competitive elections to fill the principal positions of power in the country, but it does not qualify as Free in Freedom House's annual ratings of civil liberties and political rights."[1]
The phrase "illiberal democracy" has a negative connotation. More recently, scholars such as Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way argued that terms like "illiberal democracy" are inappropriate for some states because the term implies that these regimes are democracies that have gone wrong. Levitsky and Way argued that Serbia under Slobodan Milosevic, Zimbabwe, and post-Soviet Russia, were undemocratic, not democratizing, and authoritarian. Thus, Levitsky and Way coined a new term to remove the positive connotation of democracy from these states and distinguish them from flawed or developing democracies: competitive authoritarianism.[2]
In contrast to these disputed examples, a classic example of an illiberal democracy is the Republic of Singapore. Conversely, liberal autocracies are regimes with no elections and that are ruled by autocratically but have at least some real liberties. Here, a good example is the Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong. Both Hong Kong and Singapore are ethnic Chinese majority city-states and former British colonies. However, their political evolution has taken different paths, with Hong Kong residents enjoying the liberal freedoms of the United Kingdom, but, as a colony, without the power to choose its leaders. This contradictory state of affairs was inherited by the China when it resumed control of the territory in 1997. In contrast, Singapore acquired full independence, first from Britain and then from Malaysia in the 1960s. At that time, it was structured as a relatively liberal democracy, albeit with some internal security laws that allowed for detention without trial. Over time, as Singapore's Peoples Action Party government consolidated power in the 1960s and 1970s, it enacted a number of laws and policies that curtailed constitutional freedoms (such as the right to assemble or form associations), and extended its influence over the media, unions, NGOs and academia. Consequently, although technically free and fair multi-party elections are regularly conducted, the political realities in Singapore (including fear and self-censorship) make participation in opposition politics extremely difficult, leaving the dominant ruling party as the only credible option at the polls.
[edit] See also
- Liberal democracy
- Representative democracy
- Political corruption
- Totalitarian democracy
- Dominant-party system
[edit] References
[edit] External links
- The Rise of Illiberal Democracy, Fareed Zakaria, Foreign Affairs, November/ December 1997
- Liberalism and Democracy: Can't have one without the other, Marc Plattner, Foreign Affairs, March/ April 1998
|
|
|
|---|---|
| Autocratic | Dictatorship · Tyranny · Absolute monarchy · Caliphate · Despotate · Emirate · Empire · Khanate · Sultanate · Other monarchical titles · Enlightened absolutism |
| Other Authoritarian | Military dictatorship (often a Junta) · Oligarchy · Single-party state (Communist state · Fascist(oid) state) · de facto: Illiberal democracy |
