Notes on Liberal Democracy

The problem with liberalism is that it is defined only as an economic theory which does not include a moral political framework. On the other hand, critiques of liberalism ignore its moral core. Not only Locke, Mill, Rand, Hayek and other liberals, but also Adam Smith has a political theory which focuses on the limits of government and on social and political liberties (Yayla, 1998, pp.15-16; 2000, pp.60-74).

According to Atilla Yayla, a Turkish liberal, an economic interpretation of liberalism does not completely explain the liberal philosophy. But, even looking at economic interpretation, we can achieve some conclusions of political theory of liberalism. Liberalism favors free market system in which private property is protected, and there is no governmental pressure on individual choices and on economical activities. Such a market model requires a limited governmental authority and the rule of law (Yayla, 1998, pp.17-18). Limiting government only in economic terms is not enough to protect the individual autonomy. Free market needs freedom of expression, freedom of choice and neutrality of governmental authorities. Such a theory can not be thought as not having a political and social framework.

There is no single theory on liberalism. We can mention about contractualist liberalism (Locke, Rawsl), natural right liberalism (Locke, A.Rand) and evolutionist liberalism (Adam Smith, Hayek). But that does not mean there is no common values of liberal theories. The common principles of liberalism are: a) individualism, b) liberty, c) rule of law and limited government, d) free market and private property (Yayla, 200, pp.125-178).

There are there vital cores of liberalism: i) the moral, ii) the political, iii) the economic. The moral core of liberalism has three main parts which are personal liberty, civil liberty and social liberty. The economic core is based on the private property and the free market economy in which governments should not intervene. In a free market economy, goods and services move freely both in domestic and international market. The third core of liberalism (the political core) is most related to the idea of democracy. This core consists of individual consent, representation, constitutionalism and popular sovereignty. Political core of liberalism includes the vital cores of democracy (Macridis and Hulling, 1996, p. 26-35). 

As a classical liberal theorist, Hayek has suspicions on democracy and argues that it will be a mistake to think democracy as a perfect system which solves all problems. On the other hand, we have to add that Hayek’s suspicions are related to the problems of the democracies of his age (democracy of 1930-1950). Democratic-like but actually not democratic countries which were a threat to liberty were not preferable for Hayek, also for all liberals.

Indeed, Hayek was not against democracy. He was disturbed by the misuse and misunderstanding of democracy. For Hayek, democracy was a concept which includes all goods of a political system [liberty, equality, representation etc.]. But in the age of World War II, the misunderstanding of democracy has increased, and misuse of democracy encouraged governments to restrict individual liberties. Thus, Hayek advocated a limited democracy, which is appropriate to liberal values and ends (Saraçoğlu, 2002, pp.128-130).

According to Hayekian perspective, democracy was a way to determine political decisions. He insisted that democracy was not a life-style, but a theory which facilitates to live together, which advocates pluralism in the society. Hayek, like Popper, defines democracy as a guarantee to change the authoritarian and inadequate governments in a peaceful way; as the best way to protect rights and liberties (Saraçoğlu, 2002, pp.128-129).

Hayek advocates compatibility of liberalism and democracy, but does not see them as the same thing. When democracy refers to the way to determine political decisions, liberalism refers to the limits of political authority. On the other hand, in a Hayekian perspective, a democracy which ignores freedom and rights can cause more harm to the values which are more important than democracy (Saraçoğlu, 2002, pp.129-131).

The greatest mistake of a democratic society would be to think that a democratically elected government had the right to do whatever it wanted. A democratically elected government which is not restricted by the principle of “rule of law” would lead totalitarian governments. Hayek is against a parliament which is covered by an absolute authority. He argues that we have to make a choice between a free parliament and a free society. We can not have one with the other (Saraçoğlu, 2002, pp.131-132).

Liberalism is an ideology which makes individuals as the main actors of social and political (also economical) life. This individualism lies on the idea of natural rights, that all people have rights, all people born with his/her fundamental rights and liberties. This individualism also lies on that human beings are inherently concern on maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain (Macridis and Hulling, 1996, p. 25). But, that does not mean individuals are free to do whatever they want. All individual liberties finish when the others’ start.

In sum, the first compatibility of liberalism and democracy is related to the consent and peace between individuals. Both liberalism and democracy advocates a peaceful way for political process. In a democratic country, people can change the governments which fail to operate the rule of law and threaten individual liberties. The second compatibility of liberalism and democracy is that, both of them aim to protect the human rights. For liberalism, democracy is the best way to protect and promote human rights. And in a democracy, to protect human rights requires a limited government.  The third compatibility is that both of them are based on the rule of law the fourth one is free market economy. Market economy is vital for democracies, because it gives citizens the chance not to be dependent on political authorities. Market economy increases both human rights and wealth (Yayla, 1998, pp.25-30).

References

Macridis, Roy C. and Hulling, Mark L., (1996), Contemporary Political Ideologies, Harper Collins College Publishers, New York, 6th Edition.

Saraçoğlu, Ahmet Melih, (2002), “Hayek’in Liberal Felsefesinde Demokrasi ve Yapılandırılması”, Liberal Düşünce, Sayı 27, pp. 127-136.

Yayla, Atilla (1998), Siyaset Teorisine Giriş, Siyasal Kitabevi, Ankara.

Yayla, Atilla, (2000), Liberalizm, Liberte Yayınları, Ankara, 3. Baskı.