Scan barcode
A review by hikemogan
The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad by Fareed Zakaria
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.