Interesting book with very thoughtful analyses and arguments. It does an excellent job providing an overview of the historical application of liberalism in the world. The first half of the book did just that: detailing the historical development of freedom in the West and the eventual paths to economic and political modernization in the West, Asia and South America. Based on this, the author argued that the path to the successful establishment of political and economic liberalism often goes as follows. First, economic modernization/industrialization must occur that will encourage the establishment of the rule of law, liberal institutions and most importantly, a strong civil society and middle class that can keep the state in check. Then, these liberal institutions, the middle class, and the civil society will keep the state accountable and will usually demand democracy and liberal rights because it would be in their benefit to support these liberal policies.

The second half of the book, on the other hand, focused on analyzing the following questions: which system would benefit liberalism and society more? Direct democracy or representative democracy? The author chose the latter, arguing that though we might think that more democracy is beneficial, it often becomes prey to the short-sighted fervour of the majority, populism and groups with special interest (eg. the US). It is representative democracy, he asserts, that can filter out the multiple interests, wills and passions of the people. In other words, it becomes a practical necessity for the sake of liberalism and society that people should delegate power to representatives who can make beneficially long-term decisions for them. This argument was best described by the philosopher Montesquieu:

“A great vice in most ancient republics was that the people had the right to make resolutions for action, resolutions which required some execution, which altogether exceeds the people’s capacity. The people should not enter into government except to choose their representatives; this is quite within their reach.”

I only have two issues with this book. First, the author seems to argue in favour of economic liberalization, which, when taken to the extreme, leads to the erosion of the middle class that is so essential for a proper democracy. Second, though it is only a minor fault, I wish the author had actually detailed the important differences between the different paths to economic and political modernization because he tends to group them together. For instance, Germany’s path (Conservative Modernization) is much different compared to England and Japan’s (Embedded Autonomy). He also failed to underscore the violence that occurred in many of the countries he takes as a model for modernization (eg. Germany and South Korea).

Despite this, I think this is an excellent book! The historical overview of the practical application of liberalism alone makes it worth reading.

This book is excellent, and I strongly recommend it to everyone. Its thesis is that there's a significant difference between freedom (constitutional liberalism) and democracy and that if wielded poorly, democracy can be the foil of freedom. There is so much more to this book, though. Almost every page gave me something important to ponder. It could function as a starter guide to democracy.

Frequently when I read, I feel like the same thing could have been said in a much shorter more tightly edited text, but this time, I felt quite the opposite. This book is very tight and won't waste any of your time. In fact, I wanted to read more about some of the issues he raised at the end of the book. I'm eager to read another Zakaria book next, The Post-American World.

Zakaria points out that there is a difference between democracy and constitutional liberalism that Western people take for granted because we assume that they are one and the same. While democracy refers to government elected by the majority of its people, constitutional liberalism refers to the rule of law, separation of powers, instituional check and balances, and most importantly individual rights.

The History of Human Liberty:

The basic gist is the decentralization of power in favor of human liberty for the masses. This occurred first in Rome in creating the rule of law, then the split between the powers of church and state in which Constantine left Rome and the Pope behind. Next comes the rights of nobles versus the monarch which is best exemplified in the Magna Carta. Next comes the Protestant Reformation and the rejection of a formal clergy in favor of personal biblical interpretation. Finally, the role of the yeoman class in England which later morphed into the middle class that had to have their property rights protected by law. Thus establishing the rule of law as an important aspect for liberty and capitalism.

Also another thesis that is interesting in his first chapter is that constitutional liberalism and capitalism are prerequisites for a "Western-type democracy". That is you cannot have a true democracy without a middle class and the rule of law. This can be seen in the dictatorship that beset third world countries though their leaders are democratically elected (ie: Venanzuela). Also in the Palestinian territories, Hamas was elected into power democratically but their government is not recognized by Israel or the US.

Growing pains of the Constitutional Liberal Democracy:

One thing that he points out again is how constitutional liberalism is sometimes at odds with Democracy. He states conservative ultra-nationalistic elements in society occasionally use fear tactics and divisive politics as a means to get democratically elected. The target audience of these movements are the working class people and work on the assumption that there are enemies from without and from within. Once elected, they spend on defense and limit civil liberties, freedoms, anti-immigration, and separation of powers. He states this is how Hitler took power in Germany and to a certain extent one can see this today in the tea party movement. One can also state that W's politics was of this nature although he was decidedly pro-immigration.

Another thing that Zakaria points out the importance of constitutional liberal democracy is that it has a m.c. independent of the state. This was the issue with continental Europe pre-WWII the m.c. class was dependent on the state and its bureaucracy for its wealth instead of being purely independent of it.

As with Thomas Friedman's thesis, Zakaria also points out that natural resource rich states are the least democratic (oil-rich countries of the middle east) because the state does not depend on its population for its wealth. He states that taxation and representation go hand in hand. That is, the richer its population (capitalism) the healthier the states coffers are and also since the state needs its population wealth to thrive then it needs to be responsive to its needs and demands (democracy). It is interesting to note, that he states the greatest predictor of whether or not a countries democracy will survive and thrive is its GDP per capita. The higher the GDP per capita of a country, the more it thrives as a constitutional liberal democracy.

The good news is this means that there is hope for Communist China since they are more or less ruled by the rule of law as well as they are becoming more and more capitalistic. My personal view is once the majority of people in China become middle class, they will become a "western democracy".

The bigger question for the US is what does it do once China becomes a fully-democratic country mirroring the US and its true potential of its country is realized. In terms of the policies of today and America's future in competing with other countries, who is right? Should the US strengthen its m.c. by cutting taxes and allowing businesses to grow in the here and now (Republican view point) or should the U.S. invest in its future through research/development/education and updating its infrastructure so that future m.c. people can take full advantage of the resources available to them (Obama Democrats)? What does either one of these growth strategies for m.c. mean to the US deficit? Is Cheney right in saying that Reagan administration proved that deficit does not matter? Or will deficit become important because the world will no longer lend us money because we will default on our debts and if so how will that impact American government and that of its people?

The rise of Illiberal Democracy:

Zakaria states that a solid middle class and solid democratic institutions such as one that observes the law blindly as well as political parties need to precede democracy in order for it to become a "western-style democracy". Without these two important pillars democacy descends into popular autocratic regimes (original French Revolution, Russia, Venezuela of the worlds) that cater to sectarian demagoguary for its power base.

Zakaria favors China's model of slow reform that liberalizes the economy first in order to have a growing middle class and then establishment of laws and the institution of the rule of law next to protect the rights of the middle class rather than a straight jump to democracy. So, he favors liberal autocrats (enlightened autocrats) to illiberal democracies because consitutional liberalism ensures that democracy becomes permanent whereas illiberal democracies lead to dictatorship or oligarch rule.

Bush's experiment in Democracy in Iraq brings this seeming abstraction into reality. The question remains does removing Saddam Hussein from power usher "a democratic oasis" in the middle east? True enough, Hussein was not a liberal autocrat that is he was in power to enrich himself only. So removing him at the head of the country would be a good first step but does Iraq have strong democratic institutions? No. Does it have a strong middle class indepedent of the state? According to Zakaria there is a significant middle class but whether or not it is independent of the state is another matter. It does have large reserve of natural resource, oil, so the state could survive without taxation and as a result without representation by the people it governs. He prefers to place the oil revenues into a int'l trust instead of transfering it to Iraqi control so the money will be spent on building a strong educated middle class instead of it going towards the heads of state and his crony oligarchs.

He states that the trend in illiberal society with multi-ethnic divisions with newly acquired democracy is for the majority to trample on the minority in its worst case scenario via ethnic cleansing or if sectarian violence.

The question remains, will Iraq be the exception to the rule in which democracy will usher a new reign of constitutional liberalism or did we just place Iraq in a possible quagmire of secterian civil war and/or exchange one autocrat for another autocrat? So the real question is will this democracy last?

Dysfunctional Middle Eastern governments:

Zakaria rejects the notion that Islam is inherently incompatible with western democracy. He cites the predominant Islamic countries of Turkey, Pakistan, Indonesia, and Bagledesh as rejection of notion that Islam and democracy are incompatible.

He states what happened in the middle east is a special case instead of the rule of the trend toward democracy. In fact, he cites Nassar as the first western leader in that his government advocated Arab pan-nationalism, secular rule, and socialism that was invogue in European countries at the time. The problem was that Nassar and other middle eastern rulers became dictators instead of strengthening democratic institutions. This combine with the socialistic aspect of their regime created both political and economic stagnation. Because of this stagnation, opposition groups propped up all over the place and these groups began rejecting Western-style government. In response, these dictators began repressing all opposition groups against them except the Islamic religion. So the only place Angry Arabs could express themselves was through Islamic institution thus gave birth of Islamist as a political movement as well as a religion.

Combine this with the fact that most Arab states get their revenue from oil and not from taxation, thus there has been no pressure to liberalize their economy to retain control of the government. Without these liberalization measure, you do not a have a middle class plus you get angry young unemployed men. And as we said earlier the only place these mad males can vent is through Islamic fundamentalism.

Since the state just spends on itself because it owes nothing to its citizenry, the social services are being taken cared of by these Islamic fundamentalist groups giving them popularity in their general population. Because these religious leaders are more popular than the state, the state supports these organizations in the hope of gaining legitimacy in the eyes of its people (ie: prevent a revolution). So in Saudi Arabia this takes the shape of the royal family funding the madrasas that produces terrorists mind set so antagonistic to the west. So the irony of all this, is Americans are indirectly financing terrorist groups by buying oil from OPEC countries. Also since the state fails it citizenry continuously, they deflect personal criticism in favor of allowing angry masses to vent their frustration on demonizing the West and Israel. For the state, this allows them to stay in power and keep petro dollars in their leaders pockets instead of providing for their people.

If this is the case, I am really for energy independence from the middle east as a national security imperative. By not buying oil from the middle east, this will force them to liberalize their economies that will create thriving middle class. Even if China and other Asian countries pick up the slack of oil purchasing at least the middle east anger will be directed at Asian countries instead of us. Also, we can support the Israeli/Palestinian peace process as well as demand that the Saudi's not fund these madrhasas.

Too much Democracy @ Home? - The best chapter yet!!!
Zakaria points to the general public discontent of today is due to the democratization of political process in which public leaders have to be full time politicians to survive in public life. He points to the seventies as the seminal moment in which public discontent with government began. He states that opening up Congress to see how one votes has led to special interest groups and lobbyist to target these Congress people in elections that vote against their specific interest.

Although this accountability on the surface seems good, it makes these public leaders always consider politics for the vocal minority in their votes instead what is best for the country or constitiuents as a whole. The advent of special interest and lobbyist industry has the effect in Washington of making it an impossibility to shrink government programs (Republican position) or shift priorities to the strategic long-term needs of the country ( Obama Democratic positon), one only needs to look at past efforts of Reagan, Gingrich, and the two Bushes to see this as true, in their collective administration government spending has grown not shrunk even though they collectively railed against big government. So the effect of democratization of politcs by transparency in the previous close session of Congress allows for the undue influence of special interest groups and lobbyist that allows politics of the minority to rule over policy instead of Congress deciding what is best for the country. This particularly apparent in the Byzantine tax code in which politicians use for their favorite special interest.Thus, are congressional politicians simply playing politics when they vote or are the votes really what they think is best for the country?

Also, Zakaria points to the advent of primaries as to the reason US politics has become so polarized. He cites people who vote in the primaries are people who are interested on extreme conservative or liberal issues not issues that concerns America as a whole. Although as a whole I think this is a better way in selecting candidates rather than old party bosses and their political machines, it does give a reason to why politics have had a polarizing trend.

Another democratization folly is the California referendum that has caused their government to be a non-entity. That total democracy has created the state legislature and governor as a joke.

As well as the well-intensioned campaign finance reform that has diffused the financing of political campaigns to PAC's with lack of transparency of who is giving and gave people who can fundraise the real power in politics today instead of the old party bosses.

Public leaders of today also respond to polls a lot more than they once did, I think due to the incesant non-stop news cycle in which every move they make gets scrutanized by the opposition media. It remains to be seen whether doing the right thing ( long-term strategic interest) in today's political climate can trump what is popular (Obama). At the risk of looking undemocratic and if Obama wants to change the tone in Washington, he should target the news media and lobbyist/special interest so Congress can actually function for the people instead of incesantly playing politics to appease the general public.

Loss of Authority in society:

Democratization of Finance:
Since the 1958 when Bank of America began catering to the middle class by issuing credit cards to main street America, the world of finance is now catered to main street USA instead of old institutions and the very wealthy. This trend continued through 70's via money-market funds when people began to realize that they were losing money in savings account due to hyperinflation of the day. Further democratization of finance continued through Congressional action of creating 401k's and IRA accounts as well as the discount brokerage firms that allowed anyone to be his own stock broker. Further democratization of finance was through the creation of Milken's junk-bonds which allowed promising small firms without an establish credit history to issue bonds to raise capital to expand, in return these bonds sell for high interest rates to the buyer. There have been a few companies that started out in junk bond status and have prospered such as CNN and MCI.

But of course as any action or trend, there has been some unintended consequences to government deregulation and democratization of finance. The biggest one of course is the default mortgage swaps that led to almost a second depression as well as the dubious mixing of commercial and investment banking that has allowed the banks to bundle peoples capital and pursue risky investments with it. Another unintended consequence is the mixing of investment research departments with the branch of company that sells them causing a conflict of interest that leads to a doubtful objectivity in its research.

Democratization of Religion:
Evangelical churches have replaced mainstream protestant churches because these churches are populist and highly responsive to its congregants instead of rigid orthodoxy or the clergy. Apparently Falwell used the business model to create the mega church with modern consumer amenities thus marrying religion and capitalism. With the advent of Roe vs Wade, the moral majority was created which became the vehicle for social conservatism, thus softening the ideological divide between the different religions and coming to a shared consensus on key social issues. The democratization of religion of course mirrors America's continues search for spirituality which has deemphasize the role of religious authority in favor of personal conscience.

Democratization of Culture:
Zakaria laments pop-culture in striving for popularity instead of quality of the cultural artifact. Pop-culture simply mirrors societies baser instinct to sell their goods.

Democratization of Society:
The problem with democratization of society as Zakaria sees it is democratization leads to increase commercialization that makes businessmen of all professional. The increase commercialization in every aspect of our lives leads to increase competition in the race to the top which in turn leads to increase individuality at the expense of shared responsibility for society. He states that there was a time when professional adhered to rule of honor in their profession to not only make money but do what is right for society instead of "commercializing their services". He laments the effects of this commercializations, in accountants fudging the numbers to please their clients(Arthur Andersen and Enron), to trial lawyers who engage in frivolous lawsuits in order to become millionaires, to even doctors who do questionable procedures to increase there bottom line.

Although the intense competition did lead to increase meritocracy (democracy) in regards to talent instead of name, family, or race, it also has led us into an intensely individualistic culture and askews responsibility for society. Apparently, there was a time when people actually wanted to take care of society so government did not have to. The irony between the battle of government vs. individualistic capitalism is they feed off each other, that is when government becomes huge, people feel they are not responsible for society so they concentrate on themselves but since they obsessively concentrate on themselves they need government to take over more and more of civil society.

I think the best scenario would be for individual capitalist to take a more active role in society so government does not have to. One is beginning to see this in Gates Foundation as well as Zuckerbergs $250 million revamping of NJ school system. I really truly believe that governments role is to be a catalyst to empower citizens to participate in creating their civil society instead of running it.

Conclusion:

So what to do about trying to have good long-term strategic policy without unnecessary special-interest interference by an organized vocal minority that seems to be the bane of American democracy. Zakaria favors setting up special non-partisan commission to do most of the long-term strategic policy making and Congress just votes on the findings to decrease the influence of special interest groups and short-term politics in policy creation. Obama is actually trying to do this with Medicare cost-cutting commission that Congress can simply override with votes if they find the measures to be too draconian.

It's been too long since I read it to write a proper review, but it is a wonderful first book by Fareed that shines a light on the tenuous plight of liberal democracy, something that certainly feels under attack these days.

Probably a 3.5 for me. Very interesting ideas and keen observations, but the book's flow and structure could have used some work. Still as relevant now - perhaps moreso - than when it was written, it gave me a lot to think about.

I am quite disappointed with this book. The author dedicated very little room to the discussion of the actual concept of liberal democracy at work. He does repeat a number of times the basic assumptions behind the concept (liberal constitutionalism introducing a system of checks and balances on the democratically elected politicians in power, of which independent judiciary is of utmost importance), but he fails to discuss the main pillars of liberal democracy in detail, venturing into a number of peripheral issues instead. Zakaria focuses too much on current issues and proposes analyses which by now have become outdated or have been proven mistaken or false during the financial crisis and the subsequent recession. The part on the European Union became outdated even before the book got published! Oh well.. Furthermore, I found the first chapter (historical outline) very biased and, at points, simply wrong. Few Americans understand the history of Europe, and Zakaria is not one of them. Shame, he is a bright, open-minded and intelligent commentator of current affairs. I expected much more from the book.

It was interesting in that he wrote it 13 years ago. His analysis of American's historical past and the reasons for its rise is very accurate. His prognostications on the future were quite perceptive also. Zakaria did not know of course, that TRUMP would win the presidency in 2015, and I wonder if that would have changed his assessment of geopolitical events and the role of the USA. Trump has moved Americans and the USA in a direction no other President could or would ever have been capable of doing. Whether it is advantageous in the longer term remains to be seen.

Awesome! I love Fareed Zakaria's insights on Democracy. He presents several examples of developing countries, developed countries and other scenarios of places that have followed the blueprint. Also, there is great discourse about the failures of democracy and the continued battle in a modern American democracy between regulating/ deregulating capitalism and the effects that has on the economy. Also, he discusses the effects of globalization and the future for nations who have accepted western culture in food, clothes, and industry but not in government.

Post modernism has destroyed the common principles of our society and replaced them with a political civil war of relativistic values. Our Constitutional Republic has been “pulled down and replaced by ‘a simple-minded populism’ with disastrous consequences. In the realm of politics, ‘the quality of political leadership has declined’ …direct democracy in the form of initiatives and referenda has taken governance out of the hands of political elites and placed it in the hands of an irresponsible and shortsighted citizenry.”
Quotes fr. Robert Kagan in the New Republic.

I've always been impressed with Zakaria whenever he's on TV as a commentator/pundit - this book only confirmed what a deep thinker he is. His basic premise is that democracy in and of itself is not sufficient to promote "freedom & liberty" - but that it must be paired with constitutional liberalism (in the classic sense of the word). He shows how many countries that have some elements of constitutional liberalism, but not direct election democracy are better off than countries that lack those elements but have democractic elections. In other words, he is saying that giving people the right to vote isn't enough and in fact, it can promote unhealthy populism that is actually harmful to a government and its country. The book also contains an Afterword that has allowed him to update it based on what has happened in Iraq over the last several years. While this is insightful, I think a whole new edition of the book would be even better. Definitely a must read for anyone interested in world politics.

Zakaria makes the distinction between liberty and democracy, noting that "Democracy is flourishing; liberty is not." If a country holds competitive, multiparty elections, we call it “democratic.” Constitutional liberalism, on the other hand, is not about the procedures for selecting government but, rather, government’s goals. It emphasizes individual liberty. It is constitutional because it places the rule of law at the center of politics, placing checks on the power of government, equality under the law, impartial courts and tribunals, and the separation of church and state.

Americans have a lower regard for their political system than ever before. The political system has never been as dysfunctional. Perpetual campaigning and pandering, money-raising, special interests, and lobbying - most acute in America - have all discredited the system in people’s eyes and voter turnouts are shockingly low. Zakaria blames it on politicians working too hard to follow the pulse of the people through polls. Perhaps losing strong and independent political parties, churches, businesses, private associations, and professional elites which would temper public passions, educate citizens, guide democracy, and thereby secure liberty.

Chapter 1 - "A Brief History of Human Liberty"

Liberty came to the West centuries before democracy.

The author reviews the development of liberty over time. He notes that Greek liberty meant that every male citizen had the right to participate in the governance of the community, but individuals had no particular rights against the authority of the community. Zakaria sees the start of liberty in the Roman Catholic Church. Although it did not stand for tolerance of thought, it was independent of temporal authority and willing to challenge it.

Zakaria examines the broadly-held idea that the success of a country is due to the nature or culture of the people. A review of how countries have changed over time makes it clear that the effectiveness of the government is the key.

Liberty has preceded democracy in most countries. Notably, many of the African countries that introduced democracy have degenerated into dictatorships. The author notes that while East Asia is still rife with corruption, nepotism, and voter fraud, that was also true in Western democracies in the recent past. Every single country in the Third World that emerged from colonial rule since the Second World War with a population of at least one million and with a continuous democratic experience is a former British colony that featured limited constitutional liberalism and capitalism.

Chapter 2 - "The Twisted Path"

Seymour Martin argued that as countries develop economically, their societies also developed the strengths and skills to sustain liberal democratic governance. When countries become democratic at low levels of development, their democracy usually dies. It has been shown that when the per capita income rises to $6000 (year 2000 USD), democracies become resilient. Below $3000 they are unlikely to survive. Historically, most countries that have transitioned to democracy had achieved per capita incomes of $6000. Wealth allows key segments of society - most important, private businesses and the broader bourgeoisie - to gain power independent of the state.

The development of liberty requires that the country's income must be earned. Wealth from natural resources hinders both political modernization and economic growth because the country does then not have to create a framework of laws and institutions that generate national wealth.

Chapter 3 - "The Twisted Path"

Zakaria examines the histories of various countries to determine how their paths to liberalism and democracy have interacted. He looks at the two largest countries that are not liberal democracies - China and Russia - and considers where they may go in the future. Although most Latin American countries have elections, various human rights issues are preventing them from becoming liberal democracies. With the exception of South Africa and Botswana, Africa countries are poor prospects: "... it does suggest that what Africa needs more urgently than democracy is good governance."

Democracy has its problems. Over the past decade, elected governments claiming to represent the people have steadily encroached on the powers and rights of other elements in society. Governments that usurp powers do not end up producing well-run, stable countries. In many developing countries, the experience of democracy over the past few decades has been one in which majorities have eroded separations of power, undermined human rights, and corrupted long-standing traditions of tolerance and fairness.

While Kant suggested that democracies are more pacific than other states, in fact they are more warlike, going to war more often and with greater intensity than most other states. In democratizing states, not grounded in constitutional liberalism, diverse groups with incompatible interests gain access to power and press their demands, often leading to war and conflict.

Chapter 4 - "The Islamic Exception"

While freedom has been gaining around the world, the Middle Eastern countries are an exception and have actually regressed in the past twenty years (written in 2007).

Zakaria looks at Islam and shows that it is less hostile to democracy and liberalism than many have argued. He also rejects the idea that there are characteristics of the Arab mind or culture - such as patriarchy or romanticism - that conflict with liberalism. He posits that the problem is excess wealth from natural resources and external sources, the easy money resulting in little economic or political modernization. The breeding grounds of terror have been places that have seen the greatest influx of wealth over the last thirty years.

In the East, people associate the failure of their governments with the failure of secularism and of the Western path. The Arab world is disillusioned with the West when it should be disillusioned with its own leaders. Islamic fundamentalism has taken hold. Fundamentalist thinkers pronounce judgment as to whether people are “good Muslims”, terrifying the Muslim world. Zakaria notes that Christianity had to modernize to adapt to the more liberal world, and similarly the key in the East is not religious reform, but political and economic reform.

Chapter 5 - "Too Much of a Good Thing"

In spite of a rise in per capita income of 50 percent since the 1970's, Americans have lost faith in government with satisfaction falling from 70 to 30 percent. Zakaria posits that democratization of politics is the reason. He believes that Washington today is organized around the pursuit of public opinion, not only trying to constantly monitor the opinion of the people but also guess what people might think tomorrow.

American President James Madison, author of the Constitution, did not really regard America as a democracy. Rather, America was better termed a republic in which the citizenry delegates the task of governing to its representatives.

From an institution dominated by 20 or so powerful leaders, the U.S. Congress has evolved into a collection of 535 independent political entrepreneurs who run the system with their individual interests uppermost. Lobbyists have become Washington’s greatest growth industry. Reducing federal spending or ending programs has become a hopeless cause. Spending real money on new problems or opportunities in America has become close to impossible, causing people lose faith in its ability to solve new problems.

Madison realized that “the mischiefs of faction” would be a problem, but that the factions would cancel each other out. However, rather than cancel, they have accumulated. Understanding factions gives insight into American positions. While it would be strategic to push Cuba along on the road to liberal democracy by opening it up to the world of commerce, Anti-Castro Cuban Americans have dominated the issue.

Even more direct democracy has been introduced through the use of propositions that are voted on by the general electorate. These have been used heavily in California, reducing the government to anarchy. The legislature has control over only 15 percent of the budget, the rest being assigned through propositions. Successful propositions require large expenditures to gather signatures and advertise, making the success of propositions a matter of well-organized and well-funded interest groups. Referendums and initiatives have accelerated the process of taking power away from politicians and giving it to “the people,” but always through an ever-growing class of professional consultants, lobbyists, pollsters, and activists.

Chapter 6 - "The Death of Authority"

Zakaria looks at the various areas of society that have been transformed by increasing democratization. Capitalism was transformed into democratic capitalism. The stock market was transformed from an elite cartel into a business catering to a much broader base.

American Christianity - particularly Protestantism - has become doctrinally pluralistic and highly attentive to the beliefs, desires, and wishes of its people. Having lost its religious core, has become largely a political phenomenon. Evangelical Christianity made itself populist and democratic, in clear contradiction of its founding ideals, in large part because it was the only way to avoid the fate of the mainstream churches. Susan Friend Harding writes that Pentecostal evangelists Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker "... promised their partners material abundance and well-being but they were refining a gospel of infinite forgiveness, a folk theology that seemed almost to sanction sinning by guaranteeing God’s perpetual forgiveness in advance.”

Zakaria notes that in the past, private elites and associations have always performed public tasks. Professionals in America have always had a special status, promoting the general interests of society. Lawyers, doctors, accountants, brokers and others were to place their clients interests ahead of the pursuit of revenue. This has largely changed, with the pursuit of partisan interests now being the norm. The decline of the press is noted.

Conclusion - "The Way Out"

Zakaria starts his concluding chapter by going back to U.S. President Madison who recognized that “special interests” were ultimately a form of free speech, and knew that there was no simple way to ban them. Madison ultimately placed his greatest hope in the structure of American government itself where issues were delegated to the government made up of a elected body of citizens that would be able to refine public views and act in the best interests of the country.

The author concludes that "What we need in politics today is not more democracy but less." He uses as examples those agencies of the U.S. government, such as the Federal Reserve, that are concerned largely with a policy’s social, economic, and legal merits. In contrast, the policy-making at the White House is dominated by short-term political and electoral considerations.

He notes the effect of politicking on the tax code where it is estimated that special interests amount to $550 billion of fore-gone revenue. In the economic realm, decision-making should be distanced from day-to-day politics.

Democracy can only succeed if removed from the day-to-day politicking. "Whether in Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, Chile, Indonesia, or even China, governments that were able to make shrewd choices for the long term were rewarded with strong economic growth and rising levels of literacy, life expectancy, and education."

Democracy is in danger of becoming a system, open and accessible in theory, but ruled in reality by organized or rich or fanatical minorities, protecting themselves for the present and sacrificing the future.

Zakaria notes that the Greek democracies that are held in high esteem only lasted a hundred years before collapsing into tyranny or chaos — frequently both.

"Modern democracies will face difficult new challenges - fighting terrorism, adjusting to globalization, adapting to an aging society - and they will have to make their system work much better than it currently does. That means making democratic decision-making effective, reintegrating constitutional liberalism into the practice of democracy, rebuilding broken political institutions and civic associations."


Afterword - 2007

Zakaria addresses the positioning of the U.S. with respect to democracy. America positions itself as the moral arbiter of the world, pronouncing on the virtues of all other regimes. However, he sees "the chasm between rhetoric and reality" striking. In spite of U.S. military action around the world, Freedom House reports that liberty is receding around the world.

The author feels that basic problem confronting the developing world today is not an absence of democracy but an absence of governance. He notes that after the invasion of Iraq, there was no plan to build the institutions of a democratic state. Instead, Washington disbanded the Iraqi Army, fired 50,000 bureaucrats, and shut down the government-owned enterprises that employed most Iraqis. In effect, the United States dismantled the Iraqi state, creating a deep security vacuum, administrative chaos, and soaring unemployment.

The danger of American idealism has always been that satisfied by the virtues of their grand goals, American policy makers lose sight of the practical realities on the ground.

Many countries that are not liberal democracies are often strange mixtures of freedom and unfreedom. Neither Russia nor China are free, but they are not the totalitarian tyrannies of old. China has been able to make long-term investments in the future. If it can avoid the history of many autocracies of moving toward arrogance and corruption, "it will be seen by many countries around the world as a viable model for modernization, one that rivals the American-centric model that speaks of democracy and economic freedom as intertwined."

The problem for many countries is not the will for democracy but the capacity to build and sustain a stable, effective, and decent government. Countries such as Pakistan have been democratic with elections, but have been unable to establish effective governments. Zakaria returns to Madison: "... you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” Order and then liberty.

''Political parties have no real significance in America today... The party is, at most, a fund-raising vehicle for a telegenic candidate... two things you need in a partyless system: Name recognition and a fund-raising machine. Anyone who has both, whether they have any experience in politics or not, is now at a huge advantage. Thus, in this new, more ''democratic'' system, we have seen many more political dynasties, celebrity officials, and billionaire politicians than before. And this is only the beginning. As the political party declines further, being rich and/or famous will become the routine path to high elected office'' (pag 180-181).

The Future of Freedom was first published in 2003. However, many of Zakaria's observations are directly applicable to the state of democracy worldwide in 2016. The messy American presidential primary process in 2016 is likely to result in a contest this fall between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump: The political dynasty vs the billionaire politician.

Fareed Zakaria notes that for people in the West, democracy and liberty have become synonymous, so much so that the two terms are almost used interchangeably. Zakaria argues that this is a mistake, and that we should separate the two concepts in order to better understand in what state our democracies and societies are.

Democracy is a process for people to choose their government. This requires free and fair elections, secrecy of the ballot, and some civil rights, such as freedom of speech and assembly.

Liberty can have varied definitions. Zakaria proposes this one: ''Liberty is the freedom of the individual from arbitrary authority'' (pag 31). This kind of liberty is guaranteed by a set of rules, laws, traditions and behaviours that Zakaria calls ''Constitutional Liberalism''. These include rule of law, equality before the law, separation of powers, separation of state and church, checks and balance of power, protection of property rights, freedom of speech, assembly and religion, among others.

Once you separate the two concepts of democracy and liberty, you may see that they not always move in the same direction. Around the world, more or less democratic elections may bring to power authoritarian leaders. Zakaria points out that Hitler didn't get to power through a coup d'etat but through democratic elections. In recent years, we have seen autocratic rulers come to power after elections around the world, from Russia to Venezuela. It is not unimaginable that these authoritarian rulers use their power arbitrarily and thus reduce liberty. Inhabitants of liberal but not completely democratic countries such as Jordan and Singapore may experience more freedom than citizens of formal democracies such as Russia and Venezuela. These examples show that democracy and liberty not necessarily go hand in hand. Democracy has some risks, since it may result in autocratic rulers or in a tyranny of the majority, which both tend to reduce liberty.

Looking at historical examples and research, Zakaria finds several keys to align democracy and liberty. First, and most importantly, there seems to be a correlation between a country's wealth and its chances of becoming a stable liberal democracy: ''One might conclude that a country that attempts a transition to democracy when it has per capita GDP of between $ 3000 and $ 6000, will be successful'' (pag 70). This is in line with an observation made by Harvard scholar Barrington Moore, Jr,: ''No bourgeoisie, no democracy'' (pag 47).

However, there is one caveat: ''Money in and out of itself does not produce liberty. It must be earned wealth. Over the last half-century some regimes grew rich and yet remained autocracies: for example, the Persian Gulf sheikdoms, Nigeria and Venezuela'' (pag 73). This is the resource-curse: ''Wealth in natural resources hinders both political modernization and economic growth'' (pag 74). How to avoid the resource curse? Zakaria argues that capitalist growth is the best way to facilitate a liberal democracy and proposes that countries first take care of economic development and the creation of a middle class and reliable government institutions, and only once these have been accomplished, embark on the road to democracy. In summary, Zakaria's ideal scenario: first constitutional liberty, then democracy.

Separating the concepts of democracy and liberty will also allow us to analyse better our own societies. Over the last decades, developed nations have seen their democracy eroded by too much democracy (according to Zakaria). In many instances and at different levels of government (local, state, nationwide), majority rule has been replaced by minority rule: Special interest, lobbying groups, vested interests, special activists. Small, dedicated minorities have hijacked politics in the USA.

An example of this is America's stance toward Cuba: A substantial majority of Americans agree that ''the best thing we can do to push Cuba along the road to liberal democracy is open it up to the world of commerce and contact''. However, until president's Obama recent establishment of more normal relations with Cuba, this had not happened since ''Anti-Castro Cuban Americans have controlled the issue because they are more determined about it than anyone else and live in two electorally significant states, Florida and New Jersey... A handful of Americans in two states have been able to dictate American foreign policy'' (pag 179). A worrying example of a vocal minority overwhelming a silent majority.

In the American democratic system, there are two procedures that allow minorities to have a disproportionate influence, often even dominating the majority: Referendums and primaries. In both cases, minorities such as special interest groups, lobbyists, billionaires with pet projects can get what they want because they are more fanatical than the majority. As an example of the problems with referendums and direct democracy, Zakaria discusses all that went wrong in California after extensive referendums and other direct democracy initiatives were implemented. In recent years, after the publication of this book, the Tea Party has shown how a minority can dominate the primary election process at state level. As for national primaries, today, May 15, 2016, many people are still trying to understand how it was possible that Donald Trump managed to mobilize the minority of angry white voters to such an extent that he ended up winning the Republican nomination.

Zakaria paints a possible dark future: ''If these problems build, eventually people will define democracy by what is has become: A system, open and accessible in theory, but ruled in reality by organized or rich or fanatical minorities, protecting themselves for the present and sacrificing the future'' (pag 255).

In the last chapter of the book, ''Death of Authority'', Zakaria discusses the decline of the American elites, at all levels: Political, economic and cultural. In all these fields, a process of democratization has replaced the old elites. America is now more open and more meritocratic. This is positive, obviously. However, Zakaria also sees downsides to this development. The old elites apparently had a sense of civic duty that the new elites don't have anymore. The old elite used to have high moral standards, the new elite feels no responsibility and isn't involved as much in society.

Democratization has also changed culture: There has been a shift from quality to quantity. ''The key to the reputation of of, say, a singer in the old order would have been who liked her. The key to fame today is how many like her'' (pag 14). Whereas yesterday people made efforts to make culture popular, today what is popular will become the culture. Everything goes and the only thing that matters is popularity.

In his conclusion, Zakaria suggests two things to get our developed democracies back on track. First, new responsibility and involvement in society by the (new) elites, second, delegation of authority to institutions that are not subject to the ever changing political mood of the day. Examples of such institutions that, according to Zakaria, work well, are the FED and the Supreme Court. He provides several examples of how such institutions allow for efficient and effective government. He backs up this claim by citing polls which show that in general Americans approve of these institutions.

However, also these institutions are not infallible. The FED under Alan Greenspan didn't see the the looming crisis of 2008 and was thus unaware how its policies where facilitating behaviour that led to that crisis. As for the Supreme Court: Its decision in Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission opened up campaign finance to unlimited election spending by corporations, resulting in the now dominant Super PACs in many elections. I doubt that Zakaria thinks this decision by the Supreme Court, allowing even more money in politics and giving even more power to minority groups, has improved how democracy works in America.

One thing that is largely absent from Zakaria's evaluation of the state of democracy is corruption (although he briefly mentions the Enron scandal). Around the world, corruption erodes democracy. One example: In Brazil, president Rousseff has just been impeached (May 2016) on charges of corruption (the allegation is that she broke Brazil's budget laws). Most of the senators who voted for the impeachment are implicated in their own corruption scandals (many are implicated in the massive Petrobras scandal). Even the vice-president who is now replacing Rousseff is mentioned in the Petrobras investigation. The result: Massive discontent about the politicians and the political system. I would say that reducing corruption in existing democracies is as important to maintain its legitimacy as reducing the influence of minority groups.

My conclusion: Zakaria has some good examples of when delegating authority to institutions work well. However, also these institutions have their flaws. As for focussing on the elites: Perhaps it is naïve to expect the new elites to show model behaviour and take responsibility in public welfare. Instead, we should all have model behaviour and high moral standards. In a true democracy, we should all be the best we can be, not just the elites. There are many ways to achieve this, starting with investing in education. Absent from Zakaria's essay are some important threats to democracy, such as corruption and the amazing trend in America to ignore science and facts.