Customer Rating:  
Summary: Excellent overview, but very disappointing ending
Comment: The book looks at the 21st century and examines the challenges and threats to liberal democracy. The author first explains the history of how the West became liberal and democratic for two reasons - it developed stable institutions, and was able to provide a high standard of living for its citizens. The author contends that once a country's national income reaches a certain level, the chances it will slip back into authoritarianism become negligent, and he show cases South Korea and Taiwan as examples.
The author argues that countries which have one major resource are often less likely to become democratic than countries with few or none. This is because in resource poor countries like South Korea, the population have to develop diverse sources of income, leading to a vibrant economy and the emergence of a middle class, the traditional guardians of democracy. By contrast, oil states do not need a diverse economy because they get all the income they need from oil sales, therefore the economy never develops into a complex modern one, and nor does the democratic open society it generally helps to create.
Then comes a rather interesting point. The author argues that there is actually too much democracy, "too much of a good thing", and that far from being a good thing, it actually undermines freedom. He show cases how minority special interest groups in America can advance take advantage of democratic freedoms to force their will on a majority, or how referendums are frequently used to whip up populism. In Islamic countries, the author notes how far from advancing liberalism, democracy actually allows "illiberal democrats" to come to power like Hamas, often with an agenda that is worrying to women, gays and religious minorities.
The book is an excellent examination of the subject matter, but the author's conclusion is rather insulting. Namely, that it is a good thing that citizens are excluded from many aspects of decision making. He seems especially keen on the way the EU does this, even praises them for doing so. This is a rather disappointing end to the book. Nevertheless, it is well worth a read.
Customer Rating:
Summary: A superb examination of liberty
Comment: A thought provoking and insightful examination on the true nature and realization of freedom, that being the freedom of man from the oppression of authority, or the community in general. This is not the same as democracy, as Zakaria clearly illustrates.
Democracy is a system of government that requires the correct conditions to grow, namely economic infrastructure and a sizeable and educated middle class. Europe was ripe for this due to the liberalization of christianity following the reformation, the separation of church and state, the absense of an imperial authority for many centuries, and the decline of absolute monarchy.
Zakaria provides a thoughtful contrast with the examination of Eastern economies such as Singapore and China, which have grown exponentially despite, or rather, because of autocratic control, and places like Pakistan and Africa where Democratic governments have been inefficient and have fallen to internal dissent.
Perhaps the bleakest portrait of the possible ills of democracy is India, wherein the domination of Hindu nationalism has become an ugly tyranny of the majority, and elected representatives and courts have failed to condemn the perpetrators of intern communal violence.
For Zakaria, the essential attribute of decent democratic governance is checks and balances. This includes an independent judiciary, and certain institutions that are shielded from blind populism.
Zakaria cites the Federal Reserve and the Supreme Court as successful examples of undemocratic institutions that function well, as they are free from the lobbying of special interests, and are appointed away from the election cycle.
A stark contrast is the state of California, where the Legislature is often deadlocked between governance and keeping in line with the many referenda that are implemented throughout the state. Perhaps the strongest example of inefficent Democratic Governance is the United States Congress, thanks in no part to the influence of special interest groups.
This book is in no way to be confused as an attack on Democracy, far from it. Zakaria is a true Democrat, but in the Republican sense, namely a firm believer in checks and balances. Zakaria states that while autocrats such as Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore may have been good for development, there is no assurance you would get such a leader in such a system, and the best insurance policy is the ballot box. But ultimately, it all rests on James Madison's prerogative "you must first enable the government to control the governed, and then oblige the government to control itself."
Customer Rating:
Summary: Zakaria's latest: what freedoms are you missing?
Comment: This is a great example of a highly acclaimed book that actually deserves its reputation. Author Fareed Zakaria's refreshing perspective explains the political and economic world in a new way. He tackles political theory with bright witty style, so you barely notice that you are traveling through intellectually dense presentations on the distinctions between democracy and liberalism, how to rechannel Islamic fundamentalism, the problem with lobbying, the decline of American political parties and the end of authoritarianism. Zakaria clarifies many of the problems relating to the downside of democracy by providing an innovative perspective on the world's most serious problems. In this creative, well-researched and thought-provoking volume, he addresses economics, politics and social institutions around the globe. We highly recommend this exceptional book, which is packed with informative, provocative material. Corporate leaders and managers who are interested in the future of liberal democracy and the challenges facing modern society should read every page.
Customer Rating:
Summary: Very interesting , good points, but some flaws
Comment: This, as the other reviewers have said, is an excellent book.
I learned several things from it.Zakaria's main claim is that democratic institutions - especially election of the government by a majority or policy making by direct democracy/referenda - are not sufficient. They may result in 'illiberal' or authoritarian democracy that doesn't protect minority or individual rights. He also makes a convincing argument that resource rich countries tend to be less democratic than those that have to rely on a skilled, educated population - and on taxation- so that the government has to provide something in return for taxing its citizens. However there are some flaws on top of the many good points that make this book well worth reading. Zakaria says that Muslim dictators in the middle east are 'more liberal' than most of their populations as if this was an argument against too much democracy - when , i would argue, the growth of Islamic fundamentalism is a result of these foreign backed dictatorships which have made secular opposition weak.
To be fair Zakaria does make the point that the only political outlet left open under these dictatorships is the mosque. Zakaria then confuses problems caused by the concentration of economic power in the hands of fewer and fewer companies and their lobbying power with the supposedly harmful effects of 'too much' democracy. He doesn't seem to have any concept of economic and social aspects of democracy other than free market ones - which in practice mean control of that market - and ultimately of governments and their policies - by the very wealthy and large companies. He puts California's power cuts down to government by referendum - when we now know they were the result of de-regulation of the energy sector which allowed Enron to engineer power cuts to push up the unit price of electricity and its profits. He claims Chavez is a dictator while Putin is a 'relative success story' or 'liberal dictator'. What exactly is liberal about Putin i'm not sure given that he jails potential opposition Presidential candidates while Chavez lets them stand against him and wins in elections judged free and fair by international observers. Chavez may be authoritarian but not compared to Putin. Despite this there is a lot worth reading in 'The Future of Freedom'.
Customer Rating:
Summary: On the Enemies of Competent Government
Comment: Kurt A. Johnson puts his finger on the problem: Fareed Zakaria's " ... solutions are somewhat nebulous", but that is no
reason not to read and ponder upon this important book.Fareed Zakaria writes from an American standpoint, and if democracy is failing in the USA, then the outlook is indeed bleak! He seems to be looking for important yardsticks by which to measure government: there must be checks and balances, it
must avoid short-termism, and there must be secure institutions - eg: an independent judiciary - but, underlying this he
seems to be looking for competence, which he clearly believes democracy cannot deliver on its own. How does Britain measure up? First it has a strong party system, and a winner-takes-all voting system. Having got a majority in Parliament, the
checks and balances against the abuse of power are non-existent. Two case studies will suffice: the privatisation of the railways, and the Iraq War. Both these policies were highly controversial, and the results have been less than impressive. In the case of the railways a couple of policy "wonks" in HM Treasury believed that the railways could be transformed,
in Christian Wolmar's words, into "an M1 for trains". In his book "Broken Rails", Wolmar shows that inspite of doubts
voiced by even John Major himself (!) the decision was taken to separate track and trains. We still live with the
shambles so created. Yet the Conservative majority went along with the policy because the power of the Whips Office,
and party tribalism dictated the outcome. No one, it seems, is prepared to unscramble this mess, probably because the system of contracts would be horrendously
expensive to scrap. In the case of the railways, the failure of the policy cannot possibly be laid at the door of "democracy" however
defined. The Iraq War was even more intersting, since it is probable that, on a free vote, the policy might have been defeated
in the House of Commons. BUT, and this is a vital but, the Prime Minister could have gone ahead anyway. Again, no checks and balances, no sign of open government, and no constitutional clause - no written constitution! -
to provide an independent hurdle for Blair to surmount. The Hutton Report functioned as a means of justifying the powers and actions of the executive. Neverthless, it
revealed what many had suspected: that an inner cabal were calling the shots. No liberal democracy there, then! Underlying both cases, however, is Fareed Zakaria's test of competence. This is unanswerable, since I believe
no system "per se" can deliver a competent elite, and certainly NOT governments that treat the education system
to repeated doses of the worst kind of short-termism!! Britian's age of greateness, approximately 1714 to 1914, was an era of essentially aristocratic government within a very
limited franchise. The Admiralty, for example, showed long-termism at its best, successively adopting new technologies as
and when they became available, and preserving Britain's naval power up to, and ending with, the Washington Treaty of 1922. 1 - 0 to Fareed Zackaria?
|
