Is Democracy always right?

What strikes me as most interesting from last week’s and this week’s readings and lectures is the question “Is Democracy always the best solution for all national problems, situations and governments?” We talked last week about the qualities of democracy and the difference (if any) between functionalism and idealism. Zakaria’s article encouraged us to question the sometimes illiberal outcomes of seemingly legitimate Democracies as well as criticize or at least consider cautiously “sketchy” electoral outcomes and processes like we’ve seen in Russia and Georgia. While I agree that we should be weary of Democracies in which the electoral process fails to produce legitimate outcomes because of rigged elections or any other type of disenfranchisement, I feel that just because a Democracy produces policies that are illiberal and seemingly opposed to our ideal of liberal constitutionalism does not mean that they are not legitimate or that they cannot be considered democratic. Like Ed pointed out in his discussion last week, Palestine freely elected a terrorist government to power, but that was the will of the people. Who are we to say that just because a people do not choose governments that meet our standard of modern liberalism that they are not legitimate or not democratically elected?

Furthermore, I think that we generally decided last week that it was possible to have a Democracy that lacked our Western Idealism, in other words it is possible for a people to choose for themselves a government in opposition to liberalism, whether it be more authoritarian or oppressive or even racist. It is clear that for some nations at some times liberal systems do not work and people choose security and even authoritarianism over the sometimes instability of liberalism.

Judt points out that Greece, Spain and Portugal were slow in developing the more liberal democracies spreading through the rest of Western Europe. Backed by deep hatred of communism and encouraged by the instability of civil war and upheaval Greece choose the security and stability of military rule as late as the 1960’s, it’s leaders famously saying that they would put democracy in a sling. While Greece returned to civil rule in 1973 the GNP and standard of living increased under the army officers and until the 1970’s they enjoyed an accepting Greek population tired of squabbling politicians and were backed by the United States. This is just one example of a popular government that was not a democracy and lacked any form of idealistic liberalism that was supported by its people and recognized abroad. I think it highlights the fact that democracy and liberalism is not always the best solution for any nation and that sometimes the illiberal outcomes of the process are good for nations and their people.