Is Liberal democracy is a contradiction of terms?

Here is an essay I wrote while studying liberalism in 2009

Robyn, UK

Liberal democracy is a contradiction of terms. Discuss.

Liberal democracy is the main political force in the developed world, with 2/3 of the worlds states demonstrating features of it. It is a form of political rule that balances the principle of limited government against the idea of popular consent. Although today liberalism and democracy are often regarded as synonyms, liberals did not in fact support the case for democracy until the 20^th century. Even Rousseau, who is considered to have been a key influence in liberalism, felt that democracy was unworkable. These issues are based on the conflicting ideas in liberalism and democracy which now stand as contradictions within liberal democracy.

Macpherson argued that anyone of substance in the 17^th century would have seen democracy as a system of government fatal to the individual and all the graces of civilized government. For liberals there is the concern that democracy can become the enemy of individual liberty as ‘the people’ are not a single entity but a collection of individuals. The first issue with this is that a collection of individuals possess different opinions and opposing interests. The democratic solution to conflict is the application of the majority rule which means decisions would be based on 51%. This leads to individual liberty and rights to be crushed in the name of ‘the people’ which liberals refer to as ‘tyranny of the majority’. Liberals other issue with majoritarianism and the tyranny of the majority relates to the make-up of the majority in modern, industrial societies. The liberal theory of utilitarianism and equality led to an abundance for the few but subsistence for the many and while in theory it is happiness that is maximised, in practice it is wealth. Therefore if society is deeply divided, majoritarianism would expose the rich to a tyranny of the poor.

J.S Mill, a key figure in liberalism, believed political wisdom is unequally distributed and largely related to education. The uneducated poor are more likely to act according to narrow class interests so for them to have the majority would be disastrous. Mill argued that the educated can use their wisdom and experience for the good of others. Therefore he believed elected politicians should speak for themselves rather than reflect the views of their electors. This argument demonstrates a liberal disdain for representative government, a key feature of democracy. Nevertheless, the liberal arguments against both majoritarianism and representative government demonstrate a deeper mistrust in liberals of universal suffrage.

Neither Rousseau nor Jefferson supported the case for universal suffrage and would have excluded the poor, dependants and women from voting. However, democracy became an issue in the late 18^th century when those excluded from political power began to demand their rights. Liberals of the 19^th century worried that natural rights might be used against property. The theory of utility was a safer way of defending liberty than natural rights since class divisions could no longer be ignored and the idea that everyone had the same innate rights no longer seemed plausible. Bentham, the founder of utilitarianism, insisted that when security of property comes into conflict with equality, it is equality that yields. He only accepted the case for universal suffrage when he was convinced that the poor would not use their votes to destroy private property. James Mill also accepted universal suffrage, arguing that workers would still regard the middle class as those in charge of the business of government. A greater sympathy for universal suffrage is shown by his son John Mill who argues for the empowerment of women and against the plight of workers, showing he had moved from a protective to a developemental view of democracy. New liberals, such as Hobhouse, argued that although the doctrine of popular sovereignty might lead to the ‘expropriation of the rich’, the suspensive veto of a second chamber and the use of referendums are valuable device to check a ‘large and headstrong majority’. This reflects the defence against majoritarianism within liberal democracy of having a network of checks and balances that would make government responsive.

Another justification for universal suffrage was made by Joseph Schumpeter who said that al governments ‘discriminate’ against some section of the population, for example no children being able to vote. Therefore discrimination is not undemocratic and it depends on how you define the demos. Schumpter agrees that in contemporary society, all adults should have the right to vote however this does not mean that they will use this right or participate more directly in the political process. This can be seen in liberal democracies today where, although universal suffrage and ‘one person, one vote’ principles are upheld, there has been a decrease in voter turnout. This argument assures liberals that although there is a risk of tyranny of majority by the uneducated poor, the fact that they are uneducated and therefore most likely uninterested in politics means the risk is a lot slimmer.

The final justification comes from utilitarian theorists who developed the notion of democracy as a form of protection for the individual into a case for universal suffrage. The liberal theory of utilitarianism implies that individuals will vote as to advance or defend their interests as they define them, thus protecting the individuals rights. Also, by participating in political life, citizens enhance their understanding and achieve a higher level of personal development, making an educational experience.

Although there are conflicting ideas within liberalism and democracy, the liberal acceptance of universal suffrage, the key feature of democracy, has led to an acceptance to all the elements of democracy including majority rule and representative government. This is because liberals were able to create solutions to prevent the extremes of democracy and democracy also balances out the extreme sides of liberalism. This can be seen with the example of majoritarianism. While the liberal element of checks and balances prevents tyranny of the majority, the democratic element of universal suffrage prevents a meritocratic society. Therefore it can be argued that liberal democracy finds a fair balance between the two theories, thereby strengthening their advantages and lessening their disadvanatages.