Governmental authority is legitimately exercised only in accordance with written, publicly disclosedlaws adopted and enforced in accordance with established procedure. To define the system in practice, liberal democracies often draw upon aconstitution, either codified oruncodified, to delineate the powers of government and enshrine thesocial contract. A liberal democracy may take various and mixed constitutional forms: it may be aconstitutional monarchy or arepublic. It may have aparliamentary system,presidential system, orsemi-presidential system. Liberal democracies are contrasted withilliberal democracies anddictatorships. Some liberal democracies, especially those with large populations, usefederalism (also known as vertical separation of powers) in order to prevent abuse and increase public input by dividing governing powers between municipal, provincial and national governments. The characteristics of liberal democracies are correlated with increased political stability,[5] lowercorruption,[6] better management of resources,[7] and better health indicators such aslife expectancy andinfant mortality.[8]
Liberal democracy traces its origins—and its name—to theAge of Enlightenment. The conventional views supportingmonarchies andaristocracies were challenged at first by a relatively small group of Enlightenmentintellectuals, who believed that human affairs should be guided byreason and principles of liberty and equality. They argued thatall people are created equal, that governments exist to serve the people—not vice versa—and that laws should apply to those who govern as well as to the governed (a concept known asrule of law), formulated in Europe asRechtsstaat. In England, thinkers such asJohn Locke (1632–1704) argued that all people are created equal, that governments exist to serve the governed, and that laws must apply equally to rulers and citizens alike (a concept later expressed as therule of law). At the same time, on the European continent, French philosophers developed equally influential theories:Montesquieu'sThe Spirit of the Laws (1748) advanced the doctrine of separation of powers,Rousseau'sThe Social Contract (1762) articulated the principle of popular sovereignty and the "general will", andVoltaire championed freedom of conscience and expression. These ideas were central to theFrench Revolution and spread widely across Europe and beyond. They also influenced theAmerican Revolution and the broader development of liberal democracy. After a period of expansion in the second half of the 20th century, liberal democracy became a prevalent political system in the world.[9]
Liberal democracy traces its origins—and its name—to 18th-century Europe, during theAge of Enlightenment. At the time, the vast majority of European states weremonarchies, with political power held either by themonarch or thearistocracy. The possibility of democracy had not been a seriously considered political theory sinceclassical antiquity and the widely held belief was that democracies would be inherently unstable and chaotic in their policies due to the changing whims of the people. It was further believed that democracy was contrary tohuman nature, as human beings were seen to be inherently evil, violent and in need of a strong leader to restrain their destructive impulses. Many European monarchs held that their power had beenordained by God and that questioning their right to rule was tantamount toblasphemy.
These conventional views were challenged at first by a relatively small group of Enlightenmentintellectuals, who believed that human affairs should be guided byreason and principles of liberty and equality. They argued thatall people are created equal and therefore political authority cannot be justified on the basis of noble blood, a supposed privileged connection to God or any other characteristic that is alleged to make one person superior to others. They further argued that governments exist to serve the people—not vice versa—and that laws should apply to those who govern as well as to the governed (a concept known asrule of law).
Some of these ideas began to be expressed in England in the 17th century.[10] There wasrenewed interest in Magna Carta,[11] and passage of thePetition of Right in 1628 andHabeas Corpus Act in 1679 established certain liberties for subjects. The idea of a political party took form with groups debating rights to political representation during thePutney Debates of 1647. After theEnglish Civil Wars (1642–1651) and theGlorious Revolution of 1688, theBill of Rights was enacted in 1689, which codified certain rights and liberties. The Bill set out the requirement for regular elections, rules for freedom of speech in Parliament and limited the power of the monarch, ensuring that, unlike almost all of Europe at the time,royal absolutism would not prevail.[12][13] This led to significant social change in Britain in terms of the position of individuals in society and the growing power ofParliament in relation to themonarch.[14][15]
By the late 18th century, leading philosophers of the day had published works that spread around the European continent and beyond. One of the most influential of these philosophers was English empiricistJohn Locke, who refutedmonarchical absolutism in hisTwo Treatises of Government. According to Locke, individuals entered into asocial contract with astate, surrendering some of their liberties in exchange for the protection of theirnatural rights. Locke advanced that governments were only legitimate if they maintained theconsent of the governed and that citizens had theright to instigate a rebellion against their government if that government acted against their interests. These ideas and beliefs influenced theAmerican Revolution and theFrench Revolution, which gave birth to the philosophy ofliberalism and instituted forms of government that attempted to put the principles of the Enlightenment philosophers into practice.
When the first prototypical liberal democracies were founded, the liberals themselves were viewed as an extreme and rather dangerous fringe group that threatened international peace and stability. The conservativemonarchists who opposed liberalism and democracy saw themselves as defenders of traditional values and the natural order of things and their criticism of democracy seemed vindicated whenNapoleon Bonaparte took control of the youngFrench Republic, reorganized it into thefirst French Empire and proceeded to conquer most of Europe. Napoleon was eventually defeated and theHoly Alliance was formed in Europe to prevent any further spread of liberalism or democracy; however, liberal democratic ideals soon became widespread among the general population and over the 19th century traditional monarchy was forced on a continuous defensive and withdrawal. TheDominions of theBritish Empire became laboratories for liberal democracy from the mid 19th century onward. In Canada, responsible government began in the 1840s and in Australia and New Zealand, parliamentary government elected bymale suffrage andsecret ballot was established from the 1850s andfemale suffrage achieved from the 1890s.[16]
Reforms and revolutions helped move most European countries towards liberal democracy. Liberalism ceased being a fringe opinion and joined the political mainstream. At the same time, a number of non-liberal ideologies developed that took the concept of liberal democracy and made it their own. The political spectrum changed; traditional monarchy became more and more a fringe view and liberal democracy became more and more mainstream. By the end of the 19th century, liberal democracy was no longer only a liberal idea, but an idea supported by many different ideologies. AfterWorld War I and especially afterWorld War II, liberal democracy achieved a dominant position among theories of government and is now endorsed by the vast majority of the political spectrum.[citation needed]
Although liberal democracy was originally put forward by Enlightenment liberals, the relationship between democracy and liberalism has been controversial since the beginning and was problematized in the 20th century.[18] In his bookFreedom and Equality in a Liberal Democratic State, Jasper Doomen posited that freedom and equality are necessary for a liberal democracy.[19] In his bookThe End of History and the Last Man,Francis Fukuyama says that since theFrench Revolution, liberal democracy has repeatedly proven to be a fundamentally better system (ethically, politically, economically) than any of the alternatives, and that democracy will become more and more prevalent in the long term, although it may suffer temporary setbacks.[20][21] The research instituteFreedom House today simply defines liberal democracy as an electoral democracy also protectingcivil liberties.
Political freedom is a centralconcept inhistory and political thought and one of the most important features ofdemocratic societies.[22] Political freedom was described as freedom from oppression[23] or coercion,[24] the absence of disabling conditions for an individual and the fulfillment of enabling conditions,[25] or the absence of life conditions of compulsion, e.g. economic compulsion, in a society.[26] Although political freedom is often interpretednegatively as the freedom from unreasonable external constraints on action,[27] it can also refer to thepositive exercise of rights,capacities and possibilities for action and the exercise of social or group rights.[28] The concept can also include freedom from internal constraints on political action or speech (e.g. socialconformity, consistency, or inauthentic behaviour).[29] The concept of political freedom is closely connected with the concepts ofcivil liberties andhuman rights, which in democratic societies are usually afforded legal protection from thestate.
Laws in liberal democracies may limit certain freedoms. The common justification for these limits is that they are necessary to guarantee the existence of democracy, or the existence of the freedoms themselves. For example, democratic governments may impose restrictions on free speech, with examples includingHolocaust denial andhate speech. Somediscriminatory behavior may be prohibited. For example,public accommodations in the United States may not discriminate on the basis of "race, color, religion, or national origin." There are various legal limitations such ascopyright and laws againstdefamation. There may be limits on anti-democratic speech, on attempts to underminehuman rights and on the promotion or justification ofterrorism. In the United States more than in Europe during theCold War, such restrictions applied tocommunists; however, they are more commonly applied to organizations perceived as promoting terrorism or the incitement of group hatred. Examples includeanti-terrorism legislation, the shutting down ofHezbollah satellite broadcasts and some laws againsthate speech. Critics[who?] argue that these limitations may go too far and that there may be no due and fair judicial process. Opinion is divided on how far democracy can extend to include the enemies of democracy in the democratic process.[citation needed] If relatively small numbers of people are excluded from such freedoms for these reasons, a country may still be seen as a liberal democracy. Some argue that this is only quantitatively (not qualitatively) different from autocracies that persecute opponents, since only a small number of people are affected and the restrictions are less severe, but others emphasize that democracies are different. At least in theory, opponents of democracy are also allowed due process under the rule of law.
Since it is possible to disagree over which rights are considered fundamental, different countries may treat particular rights in different ways. For example:
The constitutions of Canada, India, Israel, Mexico and the United States guarantee freedom fromdouble jeopardy, a right not provided in some other legal systems.
Legal systems that use politically elected court jurors, such asSweden, view a (partly) politicized court system as a main component of accountable government. Other democracies employtrial by jury with the intent of shielding against the influence of politicians over trials.
Liberal democracies usually haveuniversal suffrage, granting alladult citizens the right to vote regardless ofethnicity,sex, property ownership, race, age, sexuality,gender, income, social status, or religion; however, some countries historically regarded as liberal democracies have had a morelimited franchise. Even in the 21st century, some countries, considered to be liberal democracies, do not have truly universal suffrage. In some countries, members of political organizations with connections to historical totalitarian governments (for example formerly predominantCommunist andfascist orNazi governments in some European countries) may be deprived of the vote and the privilege of holding certain jobs. In the United Kingdom, people serving long prison sentences are unable to vote, a policy which has been ruled a human rights violation by theEuropean Court of Human Rights.[30] A similar policy is also enacted in most of the United States.[31] According to a study by Coppedge and Reinicke, at least 85% of democracies provided foruniversal suffrage.[32]Many nations require positive identification before allowing people to vote. For example, in the United States two thirds of the states require their citizens to provide identification to vote, which also provide state IDs for free.[33] The decisions made through elections are made by those who are members of the electorate and who choose toparticipate byvoting.
In 1971,Robert Dahl summarized the fundamental rights and freedoms shared by all liberal democracies as eight rights:[34]
Freedom to form and join organizations.
Freedom of expression.
Right to vote.
Right to run for public office.
Right of political leaders to compete for support and votes.
Freedom of alternative sources of information
Free and fair elections.
Right to control government policy through votes and other expressions of preference.
For a political regime to be considered a liberal democracy it must contain in its governing over a nation-state the provision of civil rights- the non-discrimination in the provision of public goods such as justice, security, education and health- in addition to, political rights- the guarantee of free and fair electoral contests, which allow the winners of such contests to determine policy subject to the constraints established by other rights, when these are provided- and property rights- which protect asset holders and investors against expropriation by the state or other groups. In this way, liberal democracy is set apart from electoral democracy, as free and fair elections – the hallmark of electoral democracy – can be separated from equal treatment and non-discrimination – the hallmarks of liberal democracy. In liberal democracy, an elected government cannot discriminate against specific individuals or groups when it administers justice, protects basic rights such as freedom of assembly and free speech, provides for collective security, or distributes economic and social benefits.[35] According to Seymour Martin Lipset, although they are not part of the system of government as such, a modicum ofindividual andeconomic freedoms, which result in the formation of a significantmiddle class and a broad and flourishingcivil society, are seen as pre-conditions for liberal democracy.[36]
For countries without a strong tradition of democratic majority rule, the introduction of free elections alone has rarely been sufficient to achieve a transition from dictatorship to democracy; a wider shift in the political culture and gradual formation of the institutions of democratic government are needed. There are various examples—for instance, inLatin America—of countries that were able to sustain democracy only temporarily or in a limited fashion until wider cultural changes established the conditions under which democracy could flourish.[citation needed]
One of the key aspects of democratic culture is the concept of aloyal opposition, where political competitors may disagree, but they must tolerate one another and acknowledge the legitimate and important roles that each play. This is an especially difficult cultural shift to achieve in nations where transitions of power have historically taken place through violence. The term means in essence that all sides in a democracy share a common commitment to its basic values. The ground rules of the society must encourage tolerance and civility in public debate. In such a society, the losers accept the judgement of the voters when the election is over and allow for thepeaceful transfer of power. According to Cas Mudde and Cristóbal Rovira, this is tied to another key concept of democratic cultures, the protection of minorities,[37] where the losers are safe in the knowledge that they will neither lose their lives nor their liberty and will continue to participate in public life. They are loyal not to the specific policies of the government, but to the fundamental legitimacy of the state and to the democratic process itself.
One requirement of liberal democracy is political equality amongst voters (ensuring that all voices and all votes count equally) and that these can properly influence government policy, requiring quality procedure and quality content of debate that provides an accountable result, this may apply within elections or to procedures between elections. This requires universal, adult suffrage; recurring, free elections, competitive and fair elections; multiple political parties and a wide variety of information so that citizens can rationally and effectively put pressure onto the government, including that it can be checked, evaluated and removed. This can include or lead to accountability, responsiveness to the desires of citizens, the rule of law, full respect of rights and implementation of political, social and economic freedom.[38] Other liberal democracies consider the requirement of minority rights and preventing tyranny of the majority. One of the most common ways is by actively preventing discrimination by the government (bill of rights) but can also include requiring concurrent majorities in several constituencies (confederalism); guaranteeing regional government (federalism); broad coalition governments (consociationalism) or negotiating with other political actors, such as pressure groups (neocorporatism).[39] These split political power amongst many competing and cooperating actors and institutions by requiring the government to respect minority groups and give them their positive freedoms, negotiate across multiple geographical areas, become more centrist among cooperative parties and open up with new social groups.
In a new study published inNature Human Behaviour, Damian J. Ruck and his co-authors take a major step toward resolving this long-standing and seemingly irresolvable debate about whether culture shapes regimes or regimes shape culture. This study resolves the debate in favor of culture's causal primacy and shows that it is the civic and emancipative values (liberty,impartiality andcontractarianism) among a country's citizens that give rise to democratic institutions, not vice versa.[40][41]
This section needs to beupdated. Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information.(June 2025)
Map reflecting the findings ofFreedom House's 2022 survey concerning the state of freedom by country / region in 2021. The concept of freedom used in the survey is closely connected to liberal democracy.
Free
Partly free
Not free
Percentage of countries in each category from Freedom House's 1973 through 2021 reports:
Freedom House considers many of the officially democratic governments inAfrica and the formerSoviet Union to be undemocratic in practice, usually because the sitting government has a strong influence over election outcomes. Many of these countries are in a state of considerable flux. Officially non-democratic forms of government, such as single-party states and dictatorships, are more common inEast Asia, theMiddle East andNorth Africa. The 2019Freedom in the World report noted a fall in the number of countries with liberal democracies over the 13 years from 2005 to 2018, citing declines in "political rights and civil liberties".[49] The 2020 and 2021 reports document further reductions in the number of free countries in the world.[50][51]
Plurality voting system award seats according to regional majorities. The political party or individual candidate who receives the most votes, wins the seat which represents that locality. There are other democratic electoral systems, such as the various forms ofproportional representation, which award seats according to the proportion of individual votes that a party receives nationwide or in a particular region. One of the main points of contention between these two systems is whether to have representatives who are able to effectively represent specific regions in a country, or to have all citizens' vote count the same, regardless of where in the country they happen to live.
Some countries, such asGermany andNew Zealand, address the conflict between these two forms of representation by having two categories of seats in thelower house of their national legislative bodies. The first category of seats is appointed according to regional popularity and the remainder are awarded to give the parties a proportion of seats that is equal—or as equal as practicable—to their proportion of nationwide votes. This system is commonly calledmixed member proportional representation. Others, such asAustralia and theCzech Republic, incorporate both systems in different houses of abicameral legislature: for example, in Australia, the lowerHouse of Representatives is elected in single-member constituencies bypreferential voting while the upper house, theSenate, employsproportional representation bystate; in theCzech Parliament, the opposite arrangement occurs, with theChamber of Deputies elected in proportional representation byregion and theSenate elected from single-member constituencies in atwo-round system. This system, particularly in cases where the proportional house is the upper one (and therefore, does not grant or deny confidence to the government), is argued to result in a more stable government, while having a better diversity of parties to review its actions.
21st-century academic studies have found thatdemocratization is beneficial for national growth; however, the effect of democratization has not been studied as yet. The most common factors that determine whether a country's economy grows or not are the country's level of development and the educational level of its newly elected democratic leaders. As a result, there is no clear indication of how to determine which factors contribute to economic growth in a democratic country.[52] There is also disagreement regarding how much credit the democratic system can take for this growth. One observation is that democracy became widespread only after theIndustrial Revolution and the introduction ofcapitalism. On the other hand, the Industrial Revolution started in England, which was one of the most democratic nations for its time within its own borders, and yet this democracy was very limited and did not apply to the colonies, which contributed significantly to its wealth.[53]
Several statistical studies support the theory that a higher degree of economic freedom, as measured with one of the severalIndices of Economic Freedom which have been used in numerous studies,[54] increaseseconomic growth and that this in turn increases general prosperity, reduces poverty and causes democratization. This is a statistical tendency and there are individual exceptions like Mali, which is ranked as "Free" byFreedom House but is aLeast Developed Country, or Qatar, which arguably has the highest GDP per capita in the world but has never been democratic. There are also other studies suggesting that more democracy increases economic freedom, although a few find no or even a small negative effect.[55][56][57][58][59][60]
Some argue that economic growth due to its empowerment of citizens will ensure a transition to democracy in countries such as Cuba; however, other dispute this, and argue that even if economic growth has caused democratization in the past, it may not do so in the future. Dictators may now have learned how to have economic growth without this causing more political freedom.[61][62] A high degree of oil or mineral exports is strongly associated with nondemocratic rule. This effect applies worldwide and not only to the Middle East. Dictators who have this form of wealth can spend more on their security apparatus and provide benefits which lessen public unrest. Also, such wealth is not followed by the social and cultural changes that may transform societies with ordinary economic growth.[63]
A 2006 meta-analysis found that democracy has no direct effect on economic growth; however, it has strong and significant indirect effects which contribute to growth. Democracy is associated with higher humancapital accumulation, lowerinflation, lower political instability, and highereconomic freedom. There is also some evidence that it is associated with larger governments and more restrictions on international trade.[64] If leaving outEast Asia, then during the last forty-five years poor democracies have grown their economies 50% more rapidly than nondemocracies. Poor democracies such as the Baltic countries, Botswana, Costa Rica, Ghana and Senegal have grown more rapidly than nondemocracies such as Angola, Syria, Uzbekistan and Zimbabwe.[7] Of the eighty worst financial catastrophes during the last four decades, only five were in democracies. Similarly, poor democracies are half likely as non-democracies to experience a 10 per cent decline in GDP per capita over the course of a single year.[7]
Several key features of liberal democracies are associated with political stability, including economic growth, as well as robust state institutions that guarantee free elections, therule of law, and individual liberties.[5] One argument for democracy is that by creating a system where the public can remove administrations, without changing the legal basis for government, democracy aims at reducing political uncertainty and instability and assuring citizens that however much they may disagree with present policies, they will be given a regular chance to change those who are in power, or change policies with which they disagree. This is preferable to a system where political change takes place through violence.[citation needed]
One notable feature of liberal democracies is that their opponents (those groups who wish to abolish liberal democracy) rarely win elections. Advocates use this as an argument to support their view that liberal democracy is inherently stable and can usually only be overthrown by external force, while opponents argue that the system is inherently stacked against them despite its claims to impartiality. In the past, it was feared that democracy could be easily exploited by leaders with dictatorial aspirations, who could get themselves elected into power; however, the actual number of liberal democracies that have elected dictators into power is low. When it has occurred, it is usually after a major crisis has caused many people to doubt the system or in young/poorly functioning democracies. Some possible examples includeAdolf Hitler during theGreat Depression andNapoleon III, who became first President of theSecond French Republic and later Emperor.[citation needed]
By definition, a liberal democracy implies that power is not concentrated. One criticism is that this could be a disadvantage for a state inwartime, when a fast and unified response is necessary. The legislature usually must give consent before the start of an offensive military operation, although sometimes the executive can do this on its own while keeping the legislature informed. If the democracy is attacked, then no consent is usually required for defensive operations. The people may vote against aconscription army; however, research shows that democracies are more likely to win wars than non-democracies. One explanation attributes this primarily to "the transparency of thepolities, and the stability of their preferences, once determined, democracies are better able to cooperate with their partners in the conduct of wars". Other research attributes this to superior mobilization of resources or selection of wars that the democratic states have a high chance of winning.[65]
Stam andReiter also note that the emphasis on individuality within democratic societies means that their soldiers fight with greater initiative and superior leadership.[66] Officers in dictatorships are often selected for political loyalty rather than military ability. They may be exclusively selected from a small class or religious/ethnic group that support the regime. The leaders in nondemocracies may respond violently to any perceived criticisms or disobedience. This may make the soldiers and officers afraid to raise any objections or do anything without explicit authorization. The lack of initiative may be particularly detrimental in modern warfare. Enemy soldiers may more easily surrender to democracies since they can expect comparatively good treatment. In contrast, Nazi Germany killed almost two thirds of the captured Soviet soldiers and 38% of the American soldiers captured by North Korea in theKorean War were killed.
A democratic system may provide better information for policy decisions. Undesirable information may more easily be ignored in dictatorships, even if this undesirable or contrarian information provides early warning of problems.Anders Chydenius put forward the argument forfreedom of the press for this reason in 1776.[67] The democratic system also provides a way to replace inefficient leaders and policies, thus problems may continue longer and crises of all kinds may be more common in autocracies.[7]
Research by theWorld Bank suggests that political institutions are extremely important in determining the prevalence ofcorruption: (long term) democracy, parliamentary systems, political stability and freedom of the press are all associated with lower corruption.[6]Freedom of information legislation is important foraccountability andtransparency. The IndianRight to Information Act "has already engendered mass movements in the country that is bringing the lethargic, often corrupt bureaucracy to its knees and changing power equations completely".[68]
Democracies can put in place better education, longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality, access to drinking water and better health care than dictatorships. This is not due to higher levels of foreign assistance or spending a larger percentage of GDP on health and education, as instead the available resources are managed better.[7] Prominent economistAmartya Sen observed that no functioning democracy has ever suffered a large scalefamine.[69] Refugee crises almost always occur in non-democracies. From 1985 to 2008, the eighty-seven largest refugee crises occurred in autocracies.[7]
Democracy correlates with a higher score on theHuman Development Index and a lower score on the human poverty index. Several health indicators (life expectancy and infant and maternal mortality) have a stronger and more significant association with democracy than they have with GDP per capita, rise of the public sector or income inequality.[8] In thepost-Communist states, after an initial decline, those that are the most democratic have achieved the greatest gains in life expectancy.[70]
Numerous studies using many different kinds of data, definitions and statistical analyses have found support for the democratic peace theory.[citation needed] The original finding was that liberal democracies have never made war with one another. More recent research has extended the theory and finds that democracies have fewmilitarized interstate disputes causing less than 1,000 battle deaths with one another, that those militarized interstate disputes that have occurred between democracies have caused few deaths and that democracies have fewcivil wars.[71][72] There are various criticisms of the theory, including at least as many refutations as alleged proofs of the theory, some 200 deviant cases, failure to treat democracy as a multidimensional concept and that correlation is not causation.[73][page needed]
Rudolph Rummel'sPower Kills says that liberal democracy, among all types of regimes, minimizes political violence and is a method of nonviolence. Rummel attributes this firstly to democracy instilling an attitude of tolerance of differences, an acceptance of losing and a positive outlook towards conciliation and compromise.[74] A study published by the British Academy, onViolence and Democracy, argues that in practice liberal democracy has not stopped those running the state from exerting acts of violence both within and outside their borders. The paper also argues that police killings, profiling of racial and religious minorities, online surveillance, data collection, or media censorship are a couple of ways in which successful states maintain a monopoly on violence.[75]
In Athenian democracy, some public offices were randomly allocated to citizens, in order to inhibit the effects of plutocracy. Aristotle described the law courts in Athens which were selected by lot as democratic[76] and described elections as oligarchic.[77] Political campaigning in representative democracies can favor the rich due to campaign costs, a form ofplutocracy where only a very small number of wealthy individuals can actually affect government policy in their favor and towardplutonomy.[78] Stringentcampaign finance laws can correct this perceived problem.[citation needed]
Other studies predicted that the global trend toward plutonomies would continue, for various reasons, including "capitalist-friendly governments and tax regimes".[79] They also say that, since "political enfranchisement remains as was—one person, one vote, at some point it is likely that labor will fight back against the rising profit share of the rich and there will be a political backlash against the rising wealth of the rich."[80] EconomistSteven Levitt says in his bookFreakonomics that campaign spending is no guarantee of electoral success. He compared electoral success of the same pair of candidates running against one another repeatedly for the same job, as often happens in United States congressional elections, where spending levels varied. He concludes: "A winning candidate can cut his spending in half and lose only 1 percent of the vote. Meanwhile, a losing candidate who doubles his spending can expect to shift the vote in his favor by only that same 1 percent."[81]
On September 18, 2014, Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page's study concluded "Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism."[82]
Critics of the role of the media in liberal democracies allege thatconcentration of media ownership leads to major distortions of democratic processes. InManufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media,Edward S. Herman andNoam Chomsky argue via theirPropaganda Model[83] that the corporate media limits the availability of contesting views and assert this creates a narrow spectrum of elite opinion. This is a natural consequence, they say, of the close ties between powerfulcorporations and the media and thus limited and restricted to the explicit views of those who can afford it.[84] Furthermore, the media's negative influence can be seen in social media where vast numbers of individuals seek their political information which is not always correct and may be controlled. For example, as of 2017, two-thirds (67%) of Americans report that they get at least some of their news from social media,[85] as well as a rising number of countries are exercising extreme control over the flow of information.[86] This may contribute to large numbers of individuals using social media platforms but not always gaining correct political information. This may cause conflict with liberal democracy and some of its core principles, such as freedom, if individuals are not entirely free since their governments are seizing that level of control on media sites. The notion that the media is used to indoctrinate the public is also shared by Yascha Mounk'sThe People Vs Democracy which states that the government benefits from the public having a relatively similar worldview and that this one-minded ideal is one of the principles in which Liberal Democracy stands.[87] Defenders responding to such arguments say that constitutionally protectedfreedom of speech makes it possible for both for-profit and non-profit organizations to debate the issues. They argue that media coverage in democracies simply reflects public preferences and does not entail censorship. Especially with new forms of media such as the Internet, it is not expensive to reach a wide audience, if an interest in the ideas presented exists.
Low voter turnout, whether the cause is disenchantment, indifference or contentment with the status quo, may be seen as a problem, especially if disproportionate in particular segments of the population. Although turnout levels vary greatly among modern democratic countries and in various types and levels of elections within countries, at some point low turnout may prompt questions as to whether the results reflect the will of the people, whether the causes may be indicative of concerns to the society in question, or in extreme cases thelegitimacy of the electoral system.Get out the vote campaigns, either by governments or private groups, may increase voter turnout, but distinctions must be made between general campaigns to raise the turnout rate and partisan efforts to aid a particular candidate, party or cause. Other alternatives include increased use ofabsentee ballots, or other measures to ease or improve the ability to vote, includingelectronic voting. Several nations have forms ofcompulsory voting, with various degrees of enforcement. Proponents argue that this increases the legitimacy—and thus also popular acceptance—of the elections and ensures political participation by all those affected by the political process and reduces the costs associated with encouraging voting. Arguments against include restriction of freedom, economic costs of enforcement, increased number of invalid and blank votes and random voting.[88]
A persistentright-wing libertarian andmonarchist critique of democracy is the claim that it encourages the elected representatives to change the law without necessity and in particular to pour forth a flood of new laws, as described inHerbert Spencer'sThe Man Versus The State.[89] This is seen as pernicious in several ways. New laws constrict the scope of what were previously private liberties. Rapidly changing laws make it difficult for a willing non-specialist to remain law-abiding. This may be an invitation for law-enforcement agencies to misuse power. The claimed continual complication of the law may be contrary to a claimed simple and eternalnatural law—although there is no consensus on what this natural law is, even among advocates. Supporters of democracy point to the complex bureaucracy and regulations that has occurred in dictatorships, like many of the formerCommunist states. The bureaucracy in liberal democracies is often criticized for a claimed slowness and complexity of their decision-making. The term "red tape" is a synonym of slow bureaucratic functioning that hinders quick results in a liberal democracy.
By definition, modern liberal democracies allow for regular changes of government. That has led to a common criticism of their short-term focus. In four or five years, the government will face a new election and it must think of how it will win that election. That would encourage a preference for policies that will bring short term benefits to the electorate or to self-interested politicians before the next election, rather than unpopular policy with longer term benefits. This criticism assumes that it is possible to make long term predictions for a society, somethingKarl Popper criticized ashistoricism. Besides the regular review of governing entities, short-term focus in a democracy could also be the result of collective short-term thinking. For example, consider a campaign for policies aimed at reducing environmental damage while causing temporary increase in unemployment; however, this risk applies also to other political systems.
The "tyranny of the majority" is the fear that a direct democratic government, reflecting the majority view, can take action that oppresses a particular minority. For instance, a minority holding wealth, property ownership or power (seeFederalist No. 10), or a minority of a certain racial and ethnic origin, class or nationality. Theoretically, the majority is a majority of all citizens. If citizens are not compelled by law to vote, it is usually a majority of those who choose to vote. If such of group constitutes a minority, then it is possible that a minority could in theory oppress another minority in the name of the majority; however, such an argument could apply to bothdirect democracy orrepresentative democracy. Severalde facto dictatorships also have compulsory but not "free and fair" voting in order to try to increase the legitimacy of the regime, such asNorth Korea.[90][91] In her bookWorld on Fire,Yale Law School professorAmy Chua posits that "when free market democracy is pursued in the presence of a market-dominant minority, the almost invariable result is backlash. This backlash typically takes one of three forms. The first is a backlash against markets, targeting the market-dominant minority's wealth. The second is a backlash against democracy by forces favorable to the market-dominant minority. The third is violence, sometimesgenocidal, directed against the market-dominant minority itself".[92]
Cases that have been cited as examples of a minority being oppressed by or in the name of the majority include[citation needed] the practice ofconscription and laws againsthomosexuality,pornography, andrecreational drug use. Homosexual acts were widely criminalised in democracies until several decades ago and in some democracies like Ghana, Kenya, Tanzania, Tunisia, Nigeria, and Malaysia, they still are, reflecting the religious or sexual mores of the majority. The Athenian democracy and the early United States practicedslavery, and even proponents of liberal democracy in the 17th and 18th century were often pro-slavery, which is contradictory of a liberal democracy.
Another often quoted example of the "tyranny of the majority" is thatAdolf Hitler came to power by legitimate democratic procedures on the grounds that theNazi Party gained the largest share of votes in theWeimar Republic in 1933; however, his regime's large-scale human rights violations took place after the democratic system had been abolished. TheNovember 1932 German federal election, which resulted in losses for the Nazi Party, is considered the last free and fair election in Weimar Germany, and even in theMarch 1933 German federal election, despite waging what has been described as a campaign of terror against their opponents, the Nazis did not achieve a majority of the votes or seats. Although theWeimar Constitution included anenabling act that in emergency situations, real or imagined, allowed dictatorial powers and suspension of the essentials of the constitution itself without any vote or election, which was used to pass theEnabling Act of 1933, this happened after the not free nor fair 1933 election and it was successfully implemented only after a strategy of coercion, bribery, and manipulation. InThe Coming of the Third Reich, British historianRichard J. Evans argued that the Enabling Act was legally invalid.[93]
Proponents of democracy make a number of defenses concerning "tyranny of the majority". One is to argue that the presence of aconstitution protecting the rights of all citizens in many democratic countries acts as a safeguard. Generally, changes in these constitutions require the agreement of asupermajority of the elected representatives, or require a judge and jury to agree that evidentiary and procedural standards have been fulfilled by the state, or two different votes by the representatives separated by an election, or sometimes areferendum. These requirements are often combined. Theseparation of powers intolegislative branch,executive branch, andjudicial branch also makes it more difficult for a small majority to impose their will. This means a majority can still legitimately coerce a minority, which is still ethically questionable, but that such a minority would be very small, and as a practical matter it is harder to get a larger proportion of the people to agree to such actions.
Another argument is that majorities and minorities can take a markedly different shape on different issues. People often agree with the majority view on some issues and agree with a minority view on other issues. One's view may also change, thus the members of a majority may limit oppression of a minority since they may well in the future themselves be in a minority. A third common argument is that despite the risks majority rule is preferable to other systems and the tyranny of the majority is in any case an improvement on a tyranny of a minority. All the possible problems mentioned above can also occur in non-democracies with the added problem that a minority can oppress the majority. Proponents of democracy argue that empirical statistical evidence strongly shows that more democracy leads to less internal violence and mass murder by the government. This is sometimes formulated asRummel's Law, which states that the less democratic freedom a people have, the more likely their rulers are to murder them.
Some socialists, such asThe Left party in Germany,[94] say that liberal democracy is a dishonest farce used to keep the masses from realizing that their will is irrelevant in the political process.Marxists andcommunists, as well as some non-Marxistsocialists andanarchists, argue that liberal democracy undercapitalism is constitutivelysocial class-based and therefore can never be democratic orparticipatory. They refer to it as "bourgeois democracy" because they say that politicians ultimately fight mainly for the interests of the bourgeoisie,[95] and thus argue that liberal democracy represents "the rule of capital".[96]
According toKarl Marx, representation of the interests of different classes is proportional to the influence which a particular class can purchase (through bribes, transmission of propaganda through mass media, economic blackmail, donations for political parties and their campaigns and so on). Thus, the public interest in liberal democracies is systematically corrupted by the wealth of those classes rich enough to gain the appearance of representation. Because of this, he said thatmulti-party democracies under capitalism are always distorted and anti-democratic, their operation merely furthering the class interests of the owners of the means of production, and the bourgeois class becomes wealthy through a drive to appropriate thesurplus value of the creative labours of the working class. This drive obliges the bourgeois class to amass ever-larger fortunes by increasing the proportion of surplus-value by exploiting the working class through capping workers' terms and conditions as close to poverty levels as possible. Incidentally, this obligation demonstrates the clear limit to bourgeois freedom even for the bourgeoisie itself. According to Marx, parliamentary elections are no more than a cynical, systemic attempt to deceive the people by permitting them, every now and again, to endorse one or other of the bourgeoisie's predetermined choices of which political party can best advocate the interests of capital. Once elected, he said that this parliament, as a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, enacts regulations that actively support the interests of its true constituency, thebourgeoisie, such asbailing out Wall Street investment banks, direct socialization/subsidization of business (GMH, American/Europeanagricultural subsidies), and even wars to guarantee trade in commodities such as oil).Vladimir Lenin once argued that liberal democracy had simply been used to give an illusion of democracy whilst maintaining the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, giving as an example the United States's representative democracy which he said consisted of "spectacular and meaningless duels between two bourgeois parties" led by "multimillionaires".[97]
TheChinese Communist Party political concept ofwhole-process people's democracy criticizes liberal democracy for excessively relying on procedural formalities without genuinely reflecting the interests of the people.[98] Under this primarily consequentialist concept, the most important criteria for a democracy is whether it can "solve the people's real problems", while a system in which "the people are awakened only for voting" is not truly democratic.[98] For example, the Chinese government's 2021 white paper "China: Democracy that Works" criticizes liberal democracy's shortcoming based on principles of whole process people's democracy.[99]
Religious stances on democracy and liberalism vary and can change.[100] TheCatholic Church opposed liberal democracy until 1965, when theSecond Vatican Council endorsed religious freedom.[100] Religious democracy, which prioritizes non-liberal religious values over liberal values, has been criticized for not being a liberal democracy.[101] Religious identity can create ingroup-outgroup preferences which may influence policy preferences. Public support for religion in government influences policies directed towardsstate religion.[102]
State religion policies that restrict religious freedom can lead to conflict, including terrorism, although some countries which have a state religion do inhibit terrorism.[102] Some democracies that do uphold a state religion nonetheless safeguard religious freedom. For example, Article 37 of theconstitution ofLiechtenstein recognises "theRoman Catholic Church as the State Church" while also granting freedom of practise for other faiths.[103] In 2023, the country scored 4 out of 4 for religious freedom fromFreedom House.[104]
Authoritarianism is perceived by many to be a direct threat to the liberalised democracy practised in many countries. According to American political sociologist and authorsLarry Diamond, Marc F. Plattner and Christopher Walker, undemocratic regimes are becoming more assertive.[105] They suggest that liberal democracies introduce moreauthoritarian measures to counter authoritarianism itself and cite monitoring elections and more control on media in an effort to stop the agenda of undemocratic views. Diamond, Plattner and Walker uses an example of China using aggressive foreign policy againstWestern countries to suggest that a country's society can force another country to behave in a more authoritarian manner. In their bookAuthoritarianism Goes Global: The Challenge to Democracy, they argue that Beijing confronts the United States by building its navy and missile force and promotes the creation of global institutions designed to exclude American and European influence, and as a result authoritarian states pose a threat to liberal democracy as they seek to remake the world in their own image.[106] Various authors have also analysed the authoritarian means that are used by liberal democracies to defend economic liberalism and the power of political elites.[107]
There are ongoing debates surrounding the effect that war may have on liberal democracy, and whether it cultivates or inhibits democratization. War may cultivate democratization by "mobilizing the masses, and creating incentives for the state to bargain with the people it needs to contribute to the war effort".[108] An example of this may be seen in the extension ofsuffrage in the United Kingdom afterWorld War I. War may inhibit democratization by "providing an excuse for the curtailment ofliberties".[108]
Several studies[citation needed] have concluded that terrorism is most common in nations with intermediatepolitical freedom, meaning countries transitioning from autocratic governance to democracy. Nations with strong autocratic governments and governments that allow for more political freedom experience less terrorism.[109]
There is no one agreed upon definition of populism, with a broader definition settled upon following a conference at the London School of Economics in 1967.[110] Academically, the term "populism" faces criticism that it should be abandoned as a descriptor due to its vagueness.[111] It is typically not fundamentally undemocratic, but it is often anti-liberal. Many will agree on certain features that characterize populism and populists: a conflict between "the people" and "the elites", with populists siding with "the people",[112] and strong disdain for opposition and negative media using labels such as "fake news".[113]
Populism is a form of majoritarianism, threatening some of the core principles of liberal democracy, such as the rights of the individual. Examples of these can vary fromfreedom of movement via control on immigration, or opposition to liberal social values such as gay marriage.[114] Populists do this by appealing to the feelings and emotions of the people whilst offering solutions, often vastly simplified, to complex problems. Populism is a particular threat to liberal democracy because it exploits the weaknesses of the liberal democratic system. A key weakness of liberal democracies highlighted inHow Democracies Die is the conundrum that suppressing populist movements or parties can be seen to be illiberal.[115] Populism also exploits the inherent differences between democracy and liberalism.[116] For liberal democracy to be effective, a degree of compromise is required,[117] as protecting the rights of the individual take precedence if they are threatened by the will of the majority, more commonly known as a tyranny of the majority. Majoritarianism is so ingrained in populism that this core value of a liberal democracy is under threat. This brings into question how effectively liberal democracy can defend itself from populism.
According to Takis Papas in his workPopulism and Liberal Democracy: A Comparative and Theoretical Analysis, "democracy has two opposites, one liberal, the other populist". Whereas liberalism accepts a notion of society composed of multiple divisions, populism only acknowledges a society of "the people" versus "the elites". The fundamental beliefs of the populist voter consist of: the belief that oneself is powerless and is a victim of the powerful; a "sense of enmity" rooted in "moral indignation and resentfulness"; and a "longing for future redemption" through the actions of a charismatic leader. Papas says this mindset results in a feeling of victimhood caused by the belief that the society is "made up of victims and perpetrators". Other characteristic of a populist voter is that they are "distinctively irrational" because of the "disproportionate role of emotions and morality" when making a political decision like voting. Moreover, through self-deception they are "wilfully ignorant". In addition, they are "intuitively… and unsettlingly principled" rather than a more "pragmatic" liberal voter.[118]
An example of a populist movement is the2016 Brexit campaign.[119] The role of "the elite" in this circumstance was played by theEuropean Union (EU) and "London-centric liberals",[120] while the Brexit campaign appealed to workers in industries such as agriculture who were allegedly worse off due to EU membership. This case study also illustrates the potential threat populism can pose to a liberal democracy with the movement heavily relying on disdain for the media. This was done by labeling criticism of Brexit, as well as theeconomic effects of Brexit and its consequences,[121] as "Project Fear".[122][123][124]
^abAnna Lührmann, Seraphine F. Maerz, Sandra Grahn, Nazifa Alizada, Lisa Gastaldi, Sebastian Hellmeier, Garry Hindle and Staffan I. Lindberg. 2020. Autocratization Surges – Resistance Grows. Democracy Report 2020. Varieties of Democracy Institute (V-Dem).[1]Archived 18 December 2021 at theWayback Machine
^"Britain's unwritten constitution". British Library.Archived from the original on 8 December 2015. Retrieved27 November 2015.The key landmark is the Bill of Rights (1689), which established the supremacy of Parliament over the Crown.... The Bill of Rights (1689) then settled the primacy of Parliament over the monarch's prerogatives, providing for the regular meeting of Parliament, free elections to the Commons, free speech in parliamentary debates, and some basic human rights, most famously freedom from 'cruel or unusual punishment'.
^"Constitutionalism: America & Beyond". Bureau of International Information Programs (IIP), U.S. Department of State. Archived fromthe original on 24 October 2014. Retrieved30 October 2014.The earliest, and perhaps greatest, victory for liberalism was achieved in England. The rising commercial class that had supported the Tudor monarchy in the 16th century led the revolutionary battle in the 17th, and succeeded in establishing the supremacy of Parliament and, eventually, of the House of Commons. What emerged as the distinctive feature of modern constitutionalism was not the insistence on the idea that the king is subject to law (although this concept is an essential attribute of all constitutionalism). This notion was already well established in the Middle Ages. What was distinctive was the establishment of effective means of political control whereby the rule of law might be enforced. Modern constitutionalism was born with the political requirement that representative government depended upon the consent of citizen subjects. ... However, as can be seen through provisions in the 1689 Bill of Rights, the English Revolution was fought not just to protect the rights of property (in the narrow sense) but to establish those liberties which liberals believed essential to human dignity and moral worth. The 'rights of man' enumerated in the English Bill of Rights gradually were proclaimed beyond the boundaries of England, notably in the American Declaration of Independence of 1776 and in the French Declaration of the Rights of Man in 1789.
^Charles Taylor, "What's Wrong With Negative Liberty?",Philosophy and the Human Sciences: Philosophical Papers (Cambridge, 1985), 211–229.
^Ralph Waldo Emerson, "Self-Reliance"; Nikolas Kompridis, "Struggling Over the Meaning of Recognition: A Matter of Identity, Justice or Freedom?" inEuropean Journal of Political Theory July 2007 vol. 6 no. 3 pp. 277–289.
^Schmitter P.C. and Karl T.L. (1991) "What Democracy Is...and Is Not", Journal of Democracy, 2(3), pp. 75–88. Available at:https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.1991.0033.
^Mulgan, Richard; Peter Aimer (2004)."chapter 1".Politics in New Zealand (3rd ed.). Auckland University Press. p. 17.ISBN1869403185.Archived from the original on 22 September 2020. Retrieved26 June 2009.
^Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce; Downs, George W. (September–October 2005)."Development and Democracy".Foreign Affairs.84 (September/October 2005). Council on Foreign Relations.Archived from the original on 22 October 2018. Retrieved22 October 2018.
^Single, Joseph T.; Weinstein, Michael M.; Halperin, Morton H. (28 September 2004)."Why Democracies Excel".New York Times.Archived from the original on 13 November 2016. Retrieved2 March 2017.
^Doucouliagos, H., Ulubasoglu, M (2006). "Democracy and Economic Growth: A meta-analysis".School of Accounting, Economics and Finance Deakin University Australia.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
^Ajin Choi, (2004). "Democratic Synergy and Victory in War, 1816–1992".International Studies Quarterly, Volume 48, Number 3, September 2004, pp. 663–82 (20).doi:10.1111/j.0020-8833.2004.00319.x
^Haas, Michael (2014).Deconstructing the "democratic peace" : how a research agenda boomeranged. Los Angeles, CA: Publishinghouse for Scholars.ISBN9780983962625.
^Gilens, M., & Page, B. (2014). Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens.Perspectives on Politics, 12(3), 564–81.doi:10.1017/S1537592714001595
^abMinkenberg, Michael (2007). "Democracy and Religion: Theoretical and Empirical Observations on the Relationship between Christianity, Islam and Liberal Democracy".Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies.33 (6):887–909.doi:10.1080/13691830701432731.ISSN1369-183X.
^Diamond, Larry; Plattner, Marc F.; Walker, Christopher (2016) 'Authoritarianism Goes Global: The Challenge to Democracy' Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, Summary. Available at:https://diamond-democracy.stanford.edu/Archived 20 May 2023 at theWayback Machine [Last accessed 23rd January 2021]
^Diamond, Larry; Plattner, Marc F.; Walker, Christopher (2016) 'Authoritarianism Goes Global: The Challenge to Democracy' Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, p.23
^See for example, Renato Cristi,Carl Schmitt and authoritarian liberalism: strong state, free economy, Cardiff : Univ. of Wales Press, 1998; Michael A. Wilkinson, 'Authoritarian Liberalism as Authoritarian Constitutionalism', inHelena Alviar García, Günter Frankenberg,Authoritarian constitutionalism: comparative analysis and critique, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2019.
^abKrebs, Ronald R., and Elizabeth Kier.In War's Wake : International Conflict and the Fate of Liberal Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
^Berlin, Isiah; Schapiro, Leonard;Deakin, F.W; Seton-Watson, Hugh; Worsley, Peter; Gellner, Ernest; McRae, Donald (1967)."Conference on Populism 1967".The London School of Economics.
^Galston, William A. (William Arthur) (2018).Anti-pluralism : the populist threat to liberal democracy. Hunter, James Davison, Owen, John M. (John Malloy). New Haven.ISBN978-0300235319.OCLC1026492265.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
^Pappas, Takis (2019).Populism and Liberal Democracy: A Comparative and Theoretical Analysis. Oxford Scholarship Online. p. 219.
Haas, Michael (2014).Deconstructing the 'Democratic Peace': How a Research Agenda Boomeranged. Los Angeles, CA: Publishinghouse for Scholars.[ISBN missing]
Willard, Charles Arthur (1996).Liberalism and the Problem of Knowledge: A New Rhetoric for Modern Democracy. University of Chicago Press.ISBN0226898458,0226898466.OCLC33967621.
.jpg)
