Illiberal Democracy
According to Fareed Zakaria, illiberal democracies are “democratically elected regimes often re-elected or reinforced by referendums that ignore the constitutional limits of their power and deprive their citizens of basic rights and liberties”. While the end of the twentieth century marked what was believed to be the beginning of democracy in Latin America with elections becoming more free and fair, it turned out also to be the genesis of a new form of authoritarianism. This chapter enlightens us on the partiality of this so-called democracy which is more of an electoral democracy in which elections are held fairly and freely but of course with restrictions and limitations on the lives of the people. This in my opinion is a tactic to deceive and possibly oppress innocents people. It is a system used by many to rise to power while fooling their citizens as though the power belongs to them. One example would be the rise to power of Alberto Fujimori in Peru. “Democracy” can very well exist while simple human civil liberties such as freedom of speech, press, religion etc. are completely ignored or abused. It is important to acknowledge that democracy is not just efficiently sustainable by rules and regulations. Democracy should not be a matter of partiality. Based on these two notions should we refer to such regimes as “illiberal democracies” in the first place? In my opinion, there cannot and should not be a partial democracy. These regimes ought to be called what they truly are: “authoritarianism” because what is the use of one’s ability to participate in what seems to be a fair and free election only to be kept in the dark and be deprived of the rights and core values that constitute one’s freedom? with lack of respect towards civil liberties comes illegal activities and oppression of the people such as mass killing the antagonization of the free press and of course forcing people to live in constant fear and uncertainty. If a political regime cannot be held accountable by the press or its citizens then it is no democracy.
I agree with your analysis that illiberal democracies can restricts the rights of the people but I don’t necessarily believe that all illiberal democracies should be considered authoritarian regimes. Because there are elections, aren’t the elected officials held responsible for their repressive actions come next election cycle? One would think they would want to act in a way that a majority of the country would vote. On the other hand, it is possible that those that are on the other end of the oppression don’t have access to vote. They might not be able to take off of work to make it to the polls, may not have enough polling locations in their region of the country, or they may even receive threats if they try to vote against certain candidates. It is like a spectrum. Those illiberal democracies that allow all citizens to vote, keeping elected officials accountable in the next election are on one end with illiberal democracies with voter suppression on the other end. At what point does it cross the line into authoritarianism?
I like your analysis of illiberal democracies as related to authoritarian regimes. I especially agree with your assertions on freedoms and democracy. However, can we really study political regimes without a spectrum to judge them on? If anything that is not a true democracy an authoritarian regime would that make the United States authoritarian? There are strengths and weaknesses to each state, and I think we should keep that in mind when analyzing the development of democracy worldwide.
I agree that there should not be a partial democracy, but I also think that no system is perfect. Even if we look at the United States, we certainly have problems with democracy, such as the electoral college. As much as I think we should strive for perfect democracies, a certain amount of government control is needed. You seem to be relying on the slippery slope argument that even the smallest compromise of civil liberties will lead to mass killing and restrictive media, but there is a balance to everything. If media rights need to be restricted to ensure a sufficient amount of secrecy as in the case of government documents, I don’t see an issue.