I’m a huge fan of Fareed and finally got around to reading this. It’s one of those books that could be condensed into an op-ed or Foreign Affairs essay and has been many times. The whole book reads like an essay in fact. The concept is still relevant, particularly in America during the Trump era. However, Fareed didn’t come up with the term illiberal democracy and there are probably better political science books to read on democratic backsliding and the importance of institutions. This is still worth reading though.

Rather bar level than academic textbook, Fareed Zakaria tweaks in his Future of Freedom his statistics for a biased conclusion. Seen that he has been recently sacked of his jobs because of plagarism, one might question the quality of this book.

This is an extremely interesting book about the theory, history, and evolution of democracy all over world. Zakaria talks about what is required for democracy, why it doesnt always work, and how a country can become too democratic. Most interestingly he goes into our own contries failures in "spreading democracy" and what historical facts US administrators could have learned from. Furthermore he discusses detail of our own democracy and how it is a shadow of what it once was.

'In this well-argued and far-ranging survey, Newsweek International editor Fareed Zakaria shows the damage that is being done by this un-nuanced pursuit of the democratic idea and argues once again for a society in which elites are accorded their proper place and esteemed for what they are—the true guardians of individual freedom and the ones who have the greatest stake in maintaining law, order, and accountability in the public realm. His argument is particularly pertinent now, when allied forces are attempting to bring freedom to Iraq by imposing democratic procedures on its people. As Zakaria points out, democracy could as well lead to an elected dictatorship of mullahs as to a modern civil society. For democracy without the rule of law is mob rule, and the rule of law is not built by democratic means.'

Read Roger Scruton's full review, "Guarding Liberty From Democracy," on our website:
http://www.theamericanconservative.co...

Having finished this book, I’m perhaps a bit too proud because this is truly the first political science/non-fiction book that I’ve read and finished on my own accord, simply because I wanted to. I’m really set now on making sure it won’t be the last, but for a while there I truly considered giving up and reverting back to reading novels during my free time instead of engaging in what felt like an extended article reading for a class I haven’t taken yet (real talk, though, I’d love to take a class focused on illiberal democracy. And I think Zakaria would be a fantastic lecturer and professor.)

My own musings aside, Future of Freedom is a fantastic and important book that I’m glad I slogged through over the past few months. I think it’s given me a much deeper, more nuanced perspective on democracy in general. My main takeaway is that for democracy to be truly effective, it needs to be paired with constitutional liberalism and independent institutions. Most of the so-called democracies of the world are just thinly veiled mixed regimes, and democracy is not necessarily the most virtuous form of government by nature, nor is it the most likely to guarantee happiness or well-being for its constituents.

So much of the academic material I absorb waxes poetic about democracy, and a lot of the political work I engage in and deeply believe in is based on the inherent value in franchise and representation and expanding the vote for all. I still deeply believe that the expansion of voting, transparency within government, and universal franchise is fundamental for a society that strives to treat all people equally. But this book was also a reality check and a reminder that the direct democracy so many of us tend to romanticize in fact has many flaws, and in many ways inhibits the functioning of true, effective government. Zakaria certainly seems to favor the structure of a republic over that of an Athenian, direct democracy—he cites James Madison and the Federalist Papers, and I’m inclined to agree.

This is definitely a book that I see myself reread, and it was written incredibly well. I especially enjoyed the last two chapters and their focus on the deterioration of public faith in American democracy—“Too Much of a Good Thing,” and “Death of Authority” were especially insightful to me. But I also equally appreciate the global perspective Zakaria offers, and his discussion of democracy in India was especially insightful and poignant when one considers the election of Modi for a second term just this past month. While written in 2004, this book is, if anything, more applicable than ever in the political world today.

Suurepärane teos, mõistmaks liberaalse demokraatia ees seisvaid väljakutseid.

it's a pretty good book although it's a little bit boring at first. however, as you read more and more it gets more interesting. the details and the explanation are quite clear. I enjoy reading it although at first I don't

Interesting in places. Makes good observations about the problems with democracy. But then comes up with bat shit insane solutions. Praises the federal reserve and the EU. Keeps using the word anarchy to mean chaos and in a negative way when true anarchy is the solution.

According to the copy I've borrowed from my local library, this book was published in about 2003, 2004. 8 or 9 years later, this book could still be about the problems that the world and America face today. In this stunning, against-the-current book, Mr. Zakaria makes a compelling case that many of the problems we face today is not because of too little democracy, but too much democracy. Though written far in advance of the Arab Spring, Mr. Zakaria points how Islamic populism, when left unchecked, can produce some rather frightening results. He also writes about the history of liberalism, the idea of limited government powers through checks & balances through written constitution and the Rule of Law, and how it has produced better, more stable, and freer societies than pure democracies. He even points out how liberal authoritarian societies (countries that have no democracy, but a strong rule of law, i.e. China) have done far better economically than modern democracies. But his best case for more liberty and less democracy is his analysis of America, where he notes how badly government has done when legislative and political processes have been opened up to the public, like when Congressional committees began to have open rather than closed meetings. His on the spot analysis of California's experiment with direct democracy is enlightening and, for a native Californian, depressing. His ultimate call for a reinstitution of checks and balances in our government and the curbing of (some) of the public's input in the political process is something that all Americans of every political stripe should consider as they head to the polls this November.

This book has been published in 2003, according to wikipedia, and I think Mr. Zakaria has predicted the current world political trends and ramblings.

It has answers to many possible political questions if you are a layman.

An interesting read.

This is an interesting and thought-provoking book which I think does a fairly good job at describing differing systems of governance, and offers a candid assessment of ideas and implementations that have or have not worked in practice. Zakaria explores the historical emergence of democracy from the Greeks and Romans, and explains the differences between liberty, democracy, and liberal democracy in their practical sense. The only hesitancy I have in a giving a five-star recommendation is that some of Zakaria’s proscribed remedies seem to need a lot more clarity and the kind of sober pro-and-con analysis that he applies to the historical examples he cites. But first, what is the book about?

Zakaria vividly describes, and gives numerous examples of, the difference between direct democracy and representational democracy. Direct democracy follows in the ancient Athenian model of each land-owning citizen having a vote, and how now some countries or municipalities count every vote on every matter apart from any considerations for alignment with political parties. Jefferson already saw the pitfalls of political parties but reluctantly gave into their power behind the scenes when it looked like monarchist sympathizers would move the newly formed republic back to a monarchy (Benjamin Franklin’s son, then governor of New Jersey, was a big advocate for returning to a monarchy).

The other form of democratic rule is representational republic, as we have in the U.S. with its balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches, checks and balances between them, and crucially, the Electoral College, rather than popular vote, which determines the winners in races. The popular vote is in essence just a way to get a feeling for the mood of the country. The thought was that the electors would be educated persons able to see the long-term effects of policies rather than being swayed by passing rends or charismatic leaders. But in 38 of the 50 states there is no accountability or explanation required if an elector casts a vote differently than what the constituents want. Who is to say if some special interest had an influence on that vote?

I take issue with Zakaria’s assertion that transparency in government has been a net-negative, that congressional watchers who record every vote make senators less likely to vote how they really feel and more likely to look over their shoulder and worry if they have offended some special interest with a lot of lobbying money to cause trouble. And there is the issue of lifelong politicians who bend this way or that because it is their job on the line. To combat this tendency Zakaria advocates for what he calls “Delegated Democracy” where more decision making capability should be given to unelected officials who remain outside of the public eye, and interference from well-funded political action groups. This seems to me a sure way to grow the bureaucratic class and increase inefficiency at all levels. But short of abolishing political parties, and thus the sway that special interest lobbyist have, our elected career professional representatives will continue to walk the knife’s edge between public opinion and the corrupting power of money.

Zakaria also takes a couple of chapters to explore how a transition to a more democratic Middle East might happen. He says the rapid change to modernization in the post-industrial world caught the Islamic world at an awkward moment. He says that the Islamic world of the Middle East is both fascinated and repulsed by the West, recognizing the creative energy of the West, but also seeing a loss of moral guidance. Zakaria tries his best to paint a positive outcome but I remain dubious given the continuing sway of theocracy on the social dynamic, not to mention that passages in the Koran specifically forbid complete integration with non-believing nations. This is one of the biggest problems facing the United Nations and the dream of a single global world order.

Verdict: very good assessment of the problems inherent in our representational republic, but some of the suggested remedies are less persuasively argued. However, overall, I do recommend reading it.

Zakaria concludes that an excessive democracy might also be dangerous