Mandy @ POLI 333D

This article argues that although Turkey has become more liberal than a decade ago, it is still an illiberal democracy, which is defined as a “political system in which free and fair elections take place, but civil liberties are not fully protected and governmental power is not limited with liberal principles.” The article comments that although an illiberal democratic regime is not the most desirable situation for Turkey, it is better than the authoritarian ones. It understandable why Turkey is called an illiberal democracy as its people can only vote for parties rather than candidates, and as the freedom of speech is high constrained through prosecutions by the state. It means that one crucial attribute of democracy, namely civil liberties, is absent from Turkey’s democratic regime.

In another article, the term “illiberal democracy” is used to warn India against stifling artistic expression. It argues that doing so is detrimental to India’s cultural and intellectual pluralism, hence the development of its democratic society. Again, India is a democracy with free elections, but it is obvious that the government’s action to constrain artists’ freedom of expression is anti-liberal/democratic.

The two articles’ definitions of illiberal democracy are both compatible with that of Collier and Levitsky, who identify illiberal democracy as belongs to the group of “diminished subtype”, as well as of democracy where “elections are reasonable free and competitive but civil liberties are incomplete.” By offering clear definitions of illiberal democracy and by having a seeming agreement on the  “the root conception (of democracy) used in deriving subtypes”, the authors of the two articles successfully avoid the problem – suggested by Collier and Levitsky – of reducing the value of the diminished subtype.

Despite these authors have used “illiberal democracy” consistently to illustrate the absence of civil liberties, the idea of illiberal democracy itself raises the question if free elections alone can justifiably label a regime as democratic, when civil liberties – which include freedom of speech and discussion – are essential for citizens’ informed judgments in elections. Meanwhile, the idea of illiberal democracy appear to me as an excuse of a government for not fixing its flaws.  In my view, if a government cannot fulfill even the basic  standards of democracy, it will be better to just call it a non-democracy (maybe with elections).

Tags: No Comments