
Populism, democracy without liberalism
When paternalism gives preference to liberties and the rule of law
The populists tend to enlarge the group of contemporary non-liberal democracies. The author points out that t is not strange that within a single, caudillo-style leadership that claims to act in the name of the people (pueblo) and for the people, political rights and freedoms, like the freedom of the press, freedom of expression, the plural-party system, and the control of electoral processes are suppressed or diminished.
(From
The populists tend to enlarge the group of contemporary non-liberal democracies. It is not strange that within a single, caudillo-style leadership that claims to act in the name of the pueblo and for the pueblo, political rights and freedoms, like the freedom of the press, freedom of expression, the plural-party system, the control of electoral processes, etc are suppressed or diminished.
THE EVOLUTION OF DEMOCRACY
Democracy is an ancient idea. As it is well known, it refers to the Ancient Greek experiment. Certain Greek philosophers, historians and politicians (Aristotle, Thucydides, Socrates) who saw important elements of the Athenian democracy of the fourth and fifth centuries before Christ that were worth keeping, significantly criticized how democracy functioned in practice.“The tails side of the populist paternalism coin is the infantilization of society; the heads side is governmental corruption”
Out of all of these criticisms it is worth mentioning the irrationality and demagogy caused by resorting to the emotions of great audiences, the political irresponsibility that results when decisions are made by large groups, or the bad decisions that are made when those who decide have little technical competence.
“There are more than enough examples of what happens when true democracies are declared in the name of authentic liberty and equality”Later on, the democratic perspective reappeared in the hands of movements that were able to endow liberal institutions with democratic aspects that seem self-evident to us today: universal suffrage, freedom of association, the right to protest and go on strike, social rights, etc. From the twentieth century onward, the liberal democracies were consolidated, thus creating a concrete way to articulate democratic elements surrounding a prior liberal nucleus.
ENEMY OF LIBERTY ?
Accentuating those democratic elements, while getting rid of those that are liberal, means treading on a slippery slope that ruins pluralism, liberties, and the rule of law. Democracy can be an enemy of freedom, of the practical freedoms.
What do you think? We invite you to publish yor commentary