Scan barcode
faryewing's review against another edition
2.0
In writing The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad, Fareed Zakaria hopes to show the reader that true freedom requires more than elections in which all citizens of a country participate; it also requires what Mr. Zakaria calls constitutional liberalism. Constitutional liberalism is marked by existence of a “bundle of freedoms”, which includes rule of the law, a separation of powers, and the protection of basic liberties of speech, assembly, religion, and property. Constitutional liberalism protects individual autonomy and guards against coercion, while democracy alone is a means of selecting government. Mr. Zakaria points to America as the greatest example to lead to recovery of the “constitutional tradition”. However, he feels that even in America constitutional liberalism is on a downslide.
In the first half of his book, Zakaria spends a good deal of time describing the elements that predict successful democratization of a country. He contends that “democracy is flourishing, liberty is not” because democracy has “paved the way” for dictatorships in many countries. One of the major reasons for this trend according to Zakaria is that it is possible to have too much of a good thing: democracy. In other words, to have policy informed too greatly by the popular majority will result in decreased liberalism.
Zakaria is very Machiavellian in his thinking in the sense that he believes that it is unwise for a leader (or government) to seek or accept too much advice from too many sources. He contends that the authority of a number of social institutions, including religion and the elite has been weakened. The elite are weakened by the fact that business now prevents them from providing service to the public. This has led to public distrust of the elite as merely self-interested. Religion has declined as a source of authority in that it is seen less as a guiding authority and now as more of an individual experience. Media is weakened in its authority by the need to provide for the taste of the masses to turn a profit, rather than being dedicated to higher ideals. For Zakaria, populism and profit have dealt a death blow to authority in America. These are what he refers to as the “consequences of capitalism”. He believes that the fact that Congress is more open to lobbyists and special interests has made it nearly impossible to reduce federal spending and also prevents the funding of new government programs.
To my surprise, I actually find myself agreeing with him when he says, “in the name of democracy, we have created a new layer of enormously powerful elites”. I believe that the “average” citizen should be able to have their opinions heard and considered and I certainly don’t feel that policy should be sold to the highest bidder. However, this is exactly what Zakaria describes. It is all about marketing and spin these days. Look at how well corporations do at selling Americans products they don’t need. I am not naïve enough to believe that they won’t try to sell me ideas that I don’t need as well.
Zakaria proposes delegation, and while avoiding use of the word, what sounds to me like privatization as the solution to the decline in constitutional liberalism. He calls on the elite of this nation to return to a historical sense of responsibility and civic obligation to strengthen and preserve freedom. In the Afterword, titled The 51st State he applies his theories to the ongoing situation in Iraq and concludes that America has before it a long and difficult task in assisting the people in maintaining a democratic and liberal country.
This book is a difficult read for the student taking their first college-level course in government. The material is dense and would be more readily understood by an individual already schooled in national and international politics. An entire course could be centered on this text itself.
mattleesharp's review against another edition
3.0
Zakaria identifies the root cause of many of the problems of securing liberty at home and abroad - principal among them overdemocratization, but I don't think his solutions are as well thought out. I also just generally keep Zakaria at arm's length when it comes to political thought. He can be really insightful and illuminating on matters of foreign policy. I've seen really great an interesting interviews from world leaders in tumultuous regions of the world on GPS, but there's a streak of neoliberal don't-shake-things-up-ness to his commentary that's not really to my taste.
This book is a decent read if you're up on political thought and have a long commute, but it will just sort of fuse with a lot of these kinds of arguments from other cable news hosts. No better evidence of that than the fact I just discovered on here that I read this book in 2011 and had completely forgotten about it. haha
This book is a decent read if you're up on political thought and have a long commute, but it will just sort of fuse with a lot of these kinds of arguments from other cable news hosts. No better evidence of that than the fact I just discovered on here that I read this book in 2011 and had completely forgotten about it. haha
ste3ve_b1rd's review against another edition
4.0
This was book was just as good as "The Post-American World" by the same author, and even easier to understand. Here once again, Mr. Zakaria simplifies complex issues without sacrificing their essential components. Highlights include an excellent analysis of the Arab world: ""The Arab world is a political desert with no real political parties, no free press, and few pathways for dissent. As a result, the mosque became the place to discuss politics. As the only place that cannot be banned in Muslim societies, it is where all the hate and opposition towards the regimes collected and grew. The language of opposition became, in these lands, the language of religion. This combination of religion and politics has proven to be combustible." [from Chapter 4, "The Islamic Exception" (The Rise of Religion)]. Regarding the democratization of politics in the United States: "The more open a system becomes, the more easily it can be penetrated by money, lobbyists, and fanatics. What has changed in Washington is not that politicians have closed themselves off from the American people and are unwilling to hear their pleas. it is that they do scarcely anything but listen to the American people." (from Chapter 5, "Too Much of a Good Thing"). And finally, in reference to "the deregulation of democracy [having] gone too far": ".......... in poll after poll, when Americans are asked what public institutions they most respect, three bodies are always at the top of their list: the armed forces, the Federal Reserve System, and the Supreme Court. All three have one thing in common: they are insulated from public pressures and operate undemocratically." (from Conclusion: "The Way Out"). "The Future of Freedom" opens with a two-paragraph excerpt from "The Age of Fable or Stories of Gods and Heroes" by Thomas Bulfinch. This excerpt concerns Ulysses and his encounter with the Sirens. Although Mr. Zakaria "explains" this mythological metaphor in the final chapter of the book, this is my interpretation: that the USA has reached a dangerous crossroads at this time in history, and that careful and disciplined navigation will be necessary to help the country stay on course, renouncing the temptations resulting from the mixed blessings, and potentially dangerous loopholes, inherent in America's liberal democratic system.
adamhecktman's review against another edition
3.0
Outstanding read. Gave me a balanced view of democracy vs. Constitutionalism vs. Liberalism. It also helped me understand why direct democracy will not always produce the most optimal results.
hikemogan's review against another edition
3.0
I can already imagine the breathless, mindless cries of "Elitist!" or quotations from the Declaration of Independence when thinking about this book.
Fareed Zakaria makes an argument for a more technocratic agency-run government that is still democratically elected but--as with his domestic examples of the Supreme Court, the military, or the Federal Reserve--is insulated from direct political pressure. Applying this principle to the United States' foreign policy, he suggests a transition period where the scales are tipped towards "Liberty," or classical liberalism, more than straight out democratic rule. In doing so, the Western world may have to tolerate dictatorships or at the very least, install some of our own friendly autocratic regimes in order to ease these countries' transitions into democracy.
What is interesting is to see how--since this book was published in 2003--Zakaria's theories have played out. Most prominently in my mind was his anticipation of the Arab Spring and how with a little nudge from the United States and tolerance for a milder autocratic leader, a place like Iraq could begin its transition to liberal democracy. At that time, many commentators and theorists of all political stripes were making the same argument. Yet with the advantage of hindsight in 2013, this policy might rank as the top foreign policy disaster we have made since the Vietnam War.
Essentially, his prescription for "more liberty" in our foreign affairs is to tolerate leaders who afford less liberty.
The central point of the Zakaria's book is that too much democracy can do more harm than good. A democratic government will only be just and work towards the common good if it operates within certain parameters (as opposed to direct democracy and mob rule). Delegating decision-making to unelected agencies that are supervised by elected officials will ultimately move government to a place where it does what is best for its constituents and not merely what is most popular at any given moment. Lobbyists and would-be tax code manipulators like today's Congress would not be able to easily sway agencies and officials who aren't under the daily pressure to get reelected.
Only, this already occurs. Going back to Zakaria's gold standards--the Supreme Court, the military, and the Federal Reserve-- these institutions are rife with political considerations and secret influence by corporate lobbyists. From the Roberts Court's mental gymnastics to assist corporate America in its looting to the Pentagon's outright corrupt practices in contracting, there is no insulation from politics unless we remove democracy from our government altogether.
On some points, I agree with Zakaria (why is it that our tax-code is merely hundreds of pages of corporate welfare?) I don't think the standard criticism of some functionary or judge being "unelected" and therefore somehow illegitimate is a valid one. Yet, as Zakaria points out himself, democracy is neither a force for good nor evil. This leads me to conclude that if there is indeed something dysfunctional with American democracy, then there is something dysfunctional with American society. That kind of society delegating more decision-making power to agencies won't hold back corruption or undue influence.
Fareed Zakaria makes an argument for a more technocratic agency-run government that is still democratically elected but--as with his domestic examples of the Supreme Court, the military, or the Federal Reserve--is insulated from direct political pressure. Applying this principle to the United States' foreign policy, he suggests a transition period where the scales are tipped towards "Liberty," or classical liberalism, more than straight out democratic rule. In doing so, the Western world may have to tolerate dictatorships or at the very least, install some of our own friendly autocratic regimes in order to ease these countries' transitions into democracy.
What is interesting is to see how--since this book was published in 2003--Zakaria's theories have played out. Most prominently in my mind was his anticipation of the Arab Spring and how with a little nudge from the United States and tolerance for a milder autocratic leader, a place like Iraq could begin its transition to liberal democracy. At that time, many commentators and theorists of all political stripes were making the same argument. Yet with the advantage of hindsight in 2013, this policy might rank as the top foreign policy disaster we have made since the Vietnam War.
Essentially, his prescription for "more liberty" in our foreign affairs is to tolerate leaders who afford less liberty.
The central point of the Zakaria's book is that too much democracy can do more harm than good. A democratic government will only be just and work towards the common good if it operates within certain parameters (as opposed to direct democracy and mob rule). Delegating decision-making to unelected agencies that are supervised by elected officials will ultimately move government to a place where it does what is best for its constituents and not merely what is most popular at any given moment. Lobbyists and would-be tax code manipulators like today's Congress would not be able to easily sway agencies and officials who aren't under the daily pressure to get reelected.
Only, this already occurs. Going back to Zakaria's gold standards--the Supreme Court, the military, and the Federal Reserve-- these institutions are rife with political considerations and secret influence by corporate lobbyists. From the Roberts Court's mental gymnastics to assist corporate America in its looting to the Pentagon's outright corrupt practices in contracting, there is no insulation from politics unless we remove democracy from our government altogether.
On some points, I agree with Zakaria (why is it that our tax-code is merely hundreds of pages of corporate welfare?) I don't think the standard criticism of some functionary or judge being "unelected" and therefore somehow illegitimate is a valid one. Yet, as Zakaria points out himself, democracy is neither a force for good nor evil. This leads me to conclude that if there is indeed something dysfunctional with American democracy, then there is something dysfunctional with American society. That kind of society delegating more decision-making power to agencies won't hold back corruption or undue influence.
kurwaczytaj's review against another edition
4.0
Budoucnost svobody jsem přečetl hned po Civilizaci od Nialla Fergusona, která se zabývá částečně stejnými otázkami a náměty jako Budoucnost svobody. Největší rozdíl je v tom, že u Civilizace se autor zabývá hlavně minulostí a tím, jak Západ získal nadvládu nad světem, zatímco Budoucnost svobody se logicky zabývá spíše budoucností demokracie a tím, zda se Západu podaří udržet status quo a to jak ohledně své vedoucí role ve světě, tak i ohledně zachování demokracie a svobody.
— Fareed Zakaria také zkoumá propojení mezi demokracií, liberální ekonomikou, svobodnými volbami a růstem životní úrovně v zemi. Kupodivu společně s autorem zjišťujeme, že všechny tyto elementy liberální demokracie musí být spolu spojené a že to co pomohlo v Západní Evropě a USA politicky a hospodářsky vyrůst nemusí v jiném kulturním prostředí fungovat a dokonce některé aspekty mohou působit negativně.
— Autor také zkoumá různé země a posuzuje jak velkou mají šanci jak k tomu aby by v nich zvítězila demokracie nebo jen ekonomická svoboda a také jak velkou mají šanci k významnému zlepšení životní úrovně obyvatel. Zde je dost znát, že kniha byla napsána už v roce 2003 takže dnešní čtenář už ví, že spousta věcí, které autor tehdy předvídal se nenaplnilo, případně dokonce víme, proč se nějaká autorova předpověď nenaplnila. A některé předpovědi se naopak již naplnily a některé i ve větší míře než tehdy autor předpokládal.
— Velkou pozornost Fareed věnuje stavu demokracie v samotném USA. Zde mapuje vliv a fungování různých lobistických skupin, negativní vliv, který mají na demokracii vliv různé průzkumy veřejného mínění, který stále lehčeji mohou ovlivnit malé zájmové skupiny. také mluví o tom, jak stále větší důraz na demokracii paradoxně může demokracii škodit a hrát do karet jejím nepřátelům. Často to není moc příjemné čtení. Zejména díky tomu, že spousta věcí, o kterým Fareed Zakaria píše se naplňuje nebo už nějaký čas funguje.
— Každopádně musím konstatovat, že ač je kniha je poměrně náročná, tak se čte dobře a porozumí obyčejný čtenář bez nějakých hlubokých politologických znalostí. Pokud vám nebude vadit, že některé myšlenky a předpovědi autora čas a události již vyvrátily, tak přesto vám dá obrovské množství podnětů k zamyšlení a podané je to velmi vstřícně.
— Fareed Zakaria také zkoumá propojení mezi demokracií, liberální ekonomikou, svobodnými volbami a růstem životní úrovně v zemi. Kupodivu společně s autorem zjišťujeme, že všechny tyto elementy liberální demokracie musí být spolu spojené a že to co pomohlo v Západní Evropě a USA politicky a hospodářsky vyrůst nemusí v jiném kulturním prostředí fungovat a dokonce některé aspekty mohou působit negativně.
— Autor také zkoumá různé země a posuzuje jak velkou mají šanci jak k tomu aby by v nich zvítězila demokracie nebo jen ekonomická svoboda a také jak velkou mají šanci k významnému zlepšení životní úrovně obyvatel. Zde je dost znát, že kniha byla napsána už v roce 2003 takže dnešní čtenář už ví, že spousta věcí, které autor tehdy předvídal se nenaplnilo, případně dokonce víme, proč se nějaká autorova předpověď nenaplnila. A některé předpovědi se naopak již naplnily a některé i ve větší míře než tehdy autor předpokládal.
— Velkou pozornost Fareed věnuje stavu demokracie v samotném USA. Zde mapuje vliv a fungování různých lobistických skupin, negativní vliv, který mají na demokracii vliv různé průzkumy veřejného mínění, který stále lehčeji mohou ovlivnit malé zájmové skupiny. také mluví o tom, jak stále větší důraz na demokracii paradoxně může demokracii škodit a hrát do karet jejím nepřátelům. Často to není moc příjemné čtení. Zejména díky tomu, že spousta věcí, o kterým Fareed Zakaria píše se naplňuje nebo už nějaký čas funguje.
— Každopádně musím konstatovat, že ač je kniha je poměrně náročná, tak se čte dobře a porozumí obyčejný čtenář bez nějakých hlubokých politologických znalostí. Pokud vám nebude vadit, že některé myšlenky a předpovědi autora čas a události již vyvrátily, tak přesto vám dá obrovské množství podnětů k zamyšlení a podané je to velmi vstřícně.
nickfourtimes's review against another edition
3.0
1) ''Founded as a republic that believed in a balance between the will of the majority and the rights of the minority - or, more broadly, between liberty and democracy - America is increasingly embracing a single-minded populism that values popularity and openness as the key measures of legitimacy.''
2) ''Delegated democracy, in the view of many of America's founders, would produce better government because it would be exercised by people interested and experienced in public affairs and still accountable to the people. Above all, for Madison, it was a mechanism by which to temper narrow interests and short-term perspectives - precisely the problem we face today. But whereas in the rest of life delegation and specialization increase, in politics the trend is in the opposite direction. If you were to argue in the business world that any amateur could run a large company because experience in business has no bearing on one's ability to do the job, you would be ridiculed. Say that about government and you are a sage. We have decided that although we cannot file our tax forms, write our wills, or configure our computers, we can pass laws ourselves.''
2) ''Delegated democracy, in the view of many of America's founders, would produce better government because it would be exercised by people interested and experienced in public affairs and still accountable to the people. Above all, for Madison, it was a mechanism by which to temper narrow interests and short-term perspectives - precisely the problem we face today. But whereas in the rest of life delegation and specialization increase, in politics the trend is in the opposite direction. If you were to argue in the business world that any amateur could run a large company because experience in business has no bearing on one's ability to do the job, you would be ridiculed. Say that about government and you are a sage. We have decided that although we cannot file our tax forms, write our wills, or configure our computers, we can pass laws ourselves.''
hildegard's review against another edition
5.0
I loved reading this book. Zakaria provides nuance and food for thought; I loved being able to share it with my students. (I supplemented his points with current events articles.) It is, however, a crash course in history if history is not one's strong suit. (I mean this as a compliment, but also as a heads up that there is a lot of information here.) Highly recommended.
saruulbuyan0624's review against another edition
5.0
A book with a great many insights. It has certainly shifted my view on the process of democratization and the liberalization of markets and the role of elites in our society.