Talk:Liberal democracy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Liberal democracy is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.

Archive 2004 and 2005 Archive 2006

Contents 1 The prominence of the liberalism template 2 Brunei and India 3 Removal of sourced information 3.1 Notes

[edit] The prominence of the liberalism template

I dislike the current prominence of the liberalism template on this article. It seems to imply that liberal democracy is the exclusive domain of liberalism, which is utterly false. Perhaps it would be better to create a section explaining the use of the term "liberal" in "liberal democracy", and place the liberalism template there. -- Nikodemos 21:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point. How about creating a section called "the term "liberal" in Liberal democracy"? Ultramarine 22:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and do that, but I'll name the section "the origins of liberal democracy", because that's where liberalism actually comes in. There is a good paragraph briefly explaining the meaning of "liberal" in the intro, and I think it is important to keep that paragraph there. At the same time, perhaps we could write a bit more about the early days of liberal democracy when most people were skeptical about it and only liberals were considered crazy enough to support it. -- Nikodemos 22:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. -- Nikodemos 01:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Good improvement. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 06:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes.Ultramarine 09:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Now the artilce seems to imply that liberal democracy has nothing to do with liberalism, which is utterly false. The kernel of liberal democracy is Liberalism. Fix this article, it's biased. - CapsLock

Okay do you read the sources you add? :) It is clearly that liberal democracy derives from liberalism. It's the democracy that liberals created, it is the kind of democracy that exists in liberalism. The democracy of i.e. socialists gives emphasis to the collective not to the individual.

"The term marries two closely connected ideas. It is liberal because it draws on the philosophical strain, beginning with the Greeks, that emphasizes individual liberty. It is constitutional because it rests on the tradition, beginning with the Romans, of the rule of law. Constitutional liberalism developed in Western Europe and the United States as a defense of the individual's right to life and property, and freedom of religion and speech. To secure these rights, it emphasized checks on the power of each branch of government, equality under the law, impartial courts and tribunals, and separation of church and state. Its canonical figures include the poet John Milton, the jurist William Blackstone, statesmen such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, and philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Adam Smith, Baron de Montesquieu, John Stuart Mill, and Isaiah Berlin. In almost all of its variants, constitutional liberalism argues that human beings have certain natural (or "inalienable") rights and that governments must accept a basic law, limiting its own powers, that secures them." from your source. --CapsLock

That it derived from classical liberalism, not modern liberalism, does not mean that only modern liberals support. Many of the nations Freedom House describes as liberal democracies are not ruled by liberals.Ultramarine 11:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

They dont have to be ruled by liberals but the goverments have to respect the core of liberalism which are individual rights. Liberal Democracy has at its kernel liberalism, it's not merely created by liberals. I know that you dont like that fact but truth is not there to be liked. Read the source you cited. --CapsLock —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.46.9.50 (talk) 11:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

Again, classical liberalism is not the same as liberals. The source states that it is talking about classic liberalism.Ultramarine 11:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

From the source: "The term "liberal" is used here in its older, European sense, now often called classical liberalism. In America today the word has come to mean something quite different, namely policies upholding the modern welfare state."Ultramarine 11:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Man who care what this term means in America? The international use of liberalism means classical liberalism. The essence of liberalism is that "Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual)." (Ayn Rand). What do you mean that the following phrase is dubious? "rights and that governments must accept a basic law, limiting its own powers, that secures them" Isnt it that what distinguishes liberal democracy from other types of democracy? --CapsLock —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.46.9.50 (talk) 12:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

Most speakers of English are Americans. Ayn Rand is a minority viewpont and I see no mention of liberalism or democracy in the quote. Here is what the source states "for almost a century in the West, democracy has meant liberal democracy -- a political system marked not only by free and fair elections, but also by the rule of law, a separation of powers, and the protection of basic liberties of speech, assembly, religion, and property."Ultramarine 12:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Most speakers of English are non Americans because english is the modern koine. What was greek, latin, french in the past now is English. It's not only in the Uk, Ireland, Australia and Canada that speak english. The english wikipedia isn't for the US citizens it's for all the people in the world. It's the international page of wikipedia for the reasons I said. Please remove the dubious remark in the phrase I told you above. This very article says that this is what liberal democracy is all about, governments have limited power, the limit is individual rights. --CapsLock —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.46.9.50 (talk) 12:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

I have given a sourced citation for almost a century in the West, democracy has meant liberal democracy -- a political system marked not only by free and fair elections, but also by the rule of law, a separation of powers, and the protection of basic liberties of speech, assembly, religion, and property. The source also states The term "liberal" is used here in its older, European sense, now often called classical liberalism. In America today the word has come to mean something quite different, namely policies upholding the modern welfare state. You have give no source except for quote by Rand that does not even mention democracy or liberalism and a quote from the same source as mine that notes the relationship to classic liberalism, but as I pointed out explictly states that modern liberalism is not what is meant by "liberal" in liberal democracy.Ultramarine 12:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

What it means in America is irrelevant, the countries that have as official language english are something like 250.000.000 and the rest of the people that speak english are billions, the US recently reached 300.000.000 (and not even all the americans mean liberalism in the way you understand it. I can cite you many us modern political thinkers and economists). The english wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. In the quote of Ayn Rand (a liberal) she speaks about individual rights (which are the raison d'etre of liberalism), she also says that the public can not vote away the individual rights (i.e. freedom of speech) which is what liberal democracy is all about (read this very same article!). Your source says "for almost a century in the West, democracy has meant liberal democracy -- a political system marked not only by free and fair elections, but also by the rule of law, a separation of powers, and the protection of basic liberties of speech, assembly, religion, and property." because now we see also other democracies that are not liberal (based in what liberalism advocates, that is limited goverment by the individual rights). As your source says "From Peru to the Palestinian Authority, from Sierra Leone to Slovakia, from Pakistan to the Philippines, we see the rise of a disturbing phenomenon in international life -- illiberal democracy.". That is why now we make a distinction and we dont say we have a democracy but a liberal democracy. Please remove the dubious remark in "individuals[3] have certain natural (or "inalienable") rights and that governments must accept a basic law, limiting its own powers, that secures them" This is the Definition of Liberal Democracy :-) --CapsLock

Rand was an Objectivist or Libertarian, not a liberal. She would have detested the term since she wanted a very small state, the opposite of what liberals want. Obviously there is a distinction between democracy and liberal democracy. I have given sources that support my statements for what this difference is, you have not.Ultramarine 12:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

First you have putted the dubious remark in "individuals[3] have certain natural (or "inalienable") rights and that governments must accept a basic law, limiting its own powers, that secures them" which is the very Definition of Liberal Democracy. Obviously you don't know what are you talking about. Please read the first lines of this very article to understand what is a Liberal Democracy. Second Liberalism has many branches, it has Objectivism, Anarcho-capitalism, Minarchism etc. Ayn Rand is one of the Liberal Thinkers [4]. Please stop speaking with american terms, this is an international page, use the terms in their international meaning so we can understand each other. What you say as modern liberalism has no sense outside the US. Check in wikipedia what Liberalism is. --CapsLock —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.46.9.50 (talk) 13:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

Eh, but you have stated that the article should not be trusted since it is American. How can you selectively quote some parts and ignore other parts? Either you have to accept the article as a whole, inluding the view of the author that "liberal" in liberal democracy does not refer to modern liberalism, or reject the article as a whole and provide another source. Regarding the term liberal and Rand, she was a classic liberal, but she would never have supported for example the policies of the Liberal Democrats (An UK party, not American!) since she was a libertarian, not a modern liberal.Ultramarine 13:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay if you do not like your source you may as well remove it along with the dubious remark. Is it news to you that the rest of the world when it says liberalism it doesn't mean social-democracy? lol do I have to find a source to indicate that the kernel of liberalism is that "individuals[3] have certain natural (or "inalienable") rights" or that the Definition of Liberal Democracy is "that governments must accept a basic law, limiting its own powers, that secures them"? Man do you know anything about political ideologies and political systems? This is the "Alphabet" of political theory. The fact that Ayn Rand wouldn't support the policies of the uk Liberal Democrats doesnt mean that she isnt liberal. I dont, does that mean that I'm not liberal? As I said there are many branches of Liberalism, maybe for example Ayn Rand doesnt aggree in some things with Robert Nozick but they are both liberals. --CapsLock —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.46.9.50 (talk) 13:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

I argue that my source is reliable. You argue otherwise but have given no evidenoce. On the contrary, I have shown that liberal, today, also in the UK means left-wing.Ultramarine 13:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

So what you actually saying is that what liberalism means now in the entire world is what most americans understand as liberal? There is no misunderstanding between i.e. Europeans and Americans. You must be kidding. You don't know that it has other meaning in the rest of the world? As for the Uk liberal party you should visit their site, they want to provide "a long term home for those who believe in the personal, economic and social liberalism which we have always represented, and which we are now reclaiming." (David Laws is MP for Yeovil and Liberal Democrat Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury) Economic+social liberalism = liberalism. By social liberalism they mean civil liberities (same sex marriage, no nanny-state laws etc) not only economic liberties (law taxes etc). --CapsLock —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.46.9.50 (talk) 14:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

Liberal Democrats was formed partially by an earlier social democratic party. It is sometimes considered to be to the left of Labour. So, in the US and the UK liberalism today means left-wing. Not all parties who support liberal democracy are left-wing parties. So your statements in the article are false. Unless you give sources, I will remove them and restore the earlier verions.Ultramarine 14:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Why do you classify the Liberal Democrats as leftists and not as liberals? Which are the policies that they support and they are not liberal but socialist? Do you have any sources that show that liberalism in the Uk means clearly social-democracy? Which of my statements is false? Honestly do you think that what the term liberalism means in the USA has the same meaning in other places? I think that is what you're implying. That there is no conflict. We all mean the same thing! Which is not true, see wikipedia: American versus European use of the term "liberalism"[5] --CapsLock

You have not provided any sources for your claims regarding the relationship between liberal democracy and liberalism. I have. Obviously Liberal Democrats consider themselves liberal. Most people in the UK consider them to be left-wing: [6]. Liberalism has many different meanings in different places. In Japan it means conservatism, not left-wing, not libertarianism, and not classical liberalilsm. See Liberal Democratic Party (Japan). So liberalism has many different meanings; however, no evidence has been provided that all who support liberal democracy most be liberals. If you give a source for this, then things get interersting.Ultramarine 15:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually the source you provided shows that most people in the UK consider them to the center (I believe that the right-left axis cannot show where liberals stand, a two axis system is better where economic liberty and other liberties are misured. For example in Greece we put liberals to the right but we liberals differ from the right nationalist conservative parties as we differ to left socialist parties, in the center there are parties that share both right and left policies which we liberals we do not adhere. Obviously we cannot stand in the center either. So a two axis system is better[7]) I do not say anywhere in that text I writed that all the parties that exist in a liberal democracy are liberal. What I say is that the definition of liberal democracy is: "a representative democracy in which the ability of the elected representatives to exercise decision-making power is subject to the rule of law, and usually moderated by a constitution that emphasizes the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals, and which places constraints on the leaders and on the extent to which the will of the majority can be exercised against the rights of minorities.". So what is the difference between any other form of democracy (for example socialistic) and the liberal democracy? That the majority cannot do whatever it wants the individual. That individual has inalienable rights. Do you have any objection till now? I guess not because I cited wikipedia itself (not the part I edited). What you seem to object is that this kind of democracy isn't based on liberalism. But what is liberalism? It's the ideology that supports individual freedoms above all. If the liberal democracy isn't based on Liberalism then on what is it based? Conservatism? Why a conservative would put such restrictions on government as those that exist in liberal democracy? Conservatives want to use government to impose their beliefs (see same-sex marriages in the USA), they are willing to limit individual liberties so that they conserve what they found from their fathers. Would it be based on Socialism? Why a socialist would put such restrictions on government as those that exist in liberal democracy? Socialists want to use government to take the property of the individuals and use the individual as they see fit to serve the society. In our country we have in the parliament also a communist party but of course it isn't liberal, it just have to accept the fact that this kind of democracy is liberal, if it ever gets elected to government it cant expropriate peoples properties. Same thing also about the conservative party, it cant restrict the freedom of speech if I insult religion or something they hold sacred. So the problem remains if it is not based on Liberalism then on what? --CapsLock —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.46.9.50 (talk) 16:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

30% consider the UK Liberal Democrats left of centre, 10% right. You have given no source for you claims. Obviously we should mention the relation to liberty, as shown in my source. Both conservatives, like in the UK, and the social democrats, like in Sweden, have ruled liberal democracies, as categorized by Freedom House. Communists is another matter, but I have never claimed that they support liberal democracy. Note that the definition of "liberal" in French, Russian, Chinese, or Greek is irrelevant for the English Wikipedia. The same word can mean different things in different languages. Again, give sources for you claims.Ultramarine 16:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Do we see the same page[8]? (I've mistakenly wrote before right instead of center)

Q2. Where would you put the Liberal Democrats on this scale?

Very left wing 3%

Fairly left wing 8%

Slightly left of centre 19%

Centre 35%

Slightly right of centre 6%

Fairly right wing 2%

Very right wing 2%

Don't know/refused 25%

In the English wikipedia we must use the international meaning of the term liberal (as I pointed in the Usa it has a different meaning[9]) I don't claim anywhere that in a liberal democracy you have to be liberal to be in the government. The political system doesn't change according to who is currently in the government, it could be a social-democrat or a communist party but they cant act unconstitutionally. To change the political system it needs a referendum or something. Do you accept that liberal democracy is founded by liberals[10]? What exactly should I provide? That it was created by liberals or the obvious that the liberals that created it, they based it on Liberalism (see definition[[11]])?!? Isn't it obvious that this kind of democracy -"with a constitution that emphasizes the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals, and which places constraints on the leaders and on the extent to which the will of the majority can be exercised against the rights of minorities."- could be invented only by liberals who hold "that liberty is the primary political value"? --CapsLock

In the English Wikipedia we use English, not international meaning, whatever that is. Words means different things is different languages. Again, classic liberalism is different from modern liberalism. I have given a sourced citation for almost a century in the West, democracy has meant liberal democracy -- a political system marked not only by free and fair elections, but also by the rule of law, a separation of powers, and the protection of basic liberties of speech, assembly, religion, and property. The source also states The term "liberal" is used here in its older, European sense, now often called classical liberalism. In America today the word has come to mean something quite different, namely policies upholding the modern welfare state.[12] Note also that quite different parties have claimed the title liberal, like the centre-left Liberal Democrats in the UK, the conservative Liberal Democratic Party (Japan), and far-right Liberal Democratic Party of Russia. Finally, Freedom House: "electoral democracy" differs from "liberal democracy" in that the latter also implies the presence of a substantial array of civil liberties"[13]Ultramarine 17:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

"Liberalism, a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties." (dictionary.com[14]) Okay I have other things to do so if I change it to classical liberalism would you have any objections that Liberal Democracy was founded by Classical Liberals[15] and based it on classical liberal ideas? (that is a democracy that respects individual freedoms) --CapsLock

That is certainly okay, but we should equally point out that this is not the same as modern liberalism, and that many other ideologies support liberal democracy. Also, we should certainly mention the relation to liberty.Ultramarine 17:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I should point out that it is disputed whether classical liberalism and democracy are compatible. Democracy is often seen as antithetical to liberalism. But, the term "liberal democracy" comes from the idea that liberalism and democracy has been synthesized. All Male Action 17:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sources please.Ultramarine 17:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

For example, "I think Satori's opinion that suddenly in 1848, democracy and liberalism are enemies no more: they join forces. His [Alexes de Tocqueville] antithesis is no longer between liberalism and democracy, but between democracy and socialism. His democracy was now liberal democracy. has to be seriously disputed. Precisely, an understanding of the prolonged liberal rejection of democracy might give us a clue to the debasement of political liberalism and its replacement by economic "liberalism."...The historian E. H. Carr preceived that effects of the time-honored disjunction between democracy and liberalism when he wrote that:in England...the word democracy long remained in bad odor with the English ruling classes." John Stuart Mill remained a considered opponent of democracy, advocating an exclusivist system of plural votes for the capitalists and their lieutenants "in order to forestall proletarian class legislation." Norberto Bobbio shares Carr's views: "today we are so used to the expression "liberal democracy" that we ahve forgotten that pure liberals up the the beginnning of this century have alwas regarded democracy as the open road towards the loss of all liberties, towards rebellion of the masses against the elites, as the triumpth of the 'mass-herd' against the herdsman." In sum, the coincidence of liberalism and democracy is a novelty of our century." Douglas Greenberg, Constitutionalism and Democracy. Oxford U Press 1993, page 348. All Male Action 18:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This seems to depende on how "democracy" should be interpreted. If "democracy" means universal suffrage, then it was opposed by almost everyone until the twentieth century.Ultramarine 18:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If you define democracy as government by the will of the people then liberal democracy is not democracy. Liberal democracy is actually rule of law rather than of people. Therefore, it's probably a misnomer. All Male Action 18:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Rule of law could mean a dictator ruling according to a constitution. That is not liberal democracy.Ultramarine 18:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You know what I mean. Rule of law that protects individual liberty and property. Individual liberty is protected from the will of the people. The people are not able to exercise their will over others, at least in theory. That's why the U.S. is actually a constitutional republic, rather than a democracy, which John Adams defined as a "government of laws, not of men." All Male Action 18:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I do not know what you mean. For example, "We the people" clearly shows that the power comes from the people. When the founding fathers used the term "democracy", they meant direct democracy. Today democracy includes both representative and direct democracy. Dictators have alwyas claimed that they ruled according to some law, sometimes divine, sometimes not.Ultramarine 18:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It shows nothing. The power does not come from the people. The power comes from the law that was established by the founders in the U.S. Constitution - that's who "we the people" actually refers to. The whole point was to try to prevent the future people (us), as well as government officials, from changing that law by having all factions and branches checking each other. And, whether a democracy is direct or representative has no bearing on whether it is a liberal democracy. Either one can be tyrannical. It is only when liberty is protected by constitutional law from the people as well as from their representatives that something could be called a "liberal democracy." All Male Action 18:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Obviously the US constitution is important, it clearly spells out that the power comes from the people, not to protect against the people. However, that was of course the common justification of Medieval kings, that the people were to stupid to govern and needed an autocrat to protect them against themselves. Most dictators have claimed to follow constitutions, Stalin created his own and Hitler always stated that he followed the Enabling act.Ultramarine 18:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

That's flat wrong. The purpose of the constitution was to protect individual liberty from the majority of the people as well as from government officials. The U.S. political system was designed so that the majority of people are not able to exercise their will to change the law (the constitution). This is done by limiting their power to electing officials. Then protections are put in place to prevent those elected officials from changing the law as well. Not to mention that the people are not allowed to vote for Supreme Court justices, which is another check on the will of the majority of the people. That's why it's so difficult to change the Constitution. Again, we are a government of laws, not of men. The U.S. is a "liberal democracy" but again, that's probably a misnomer because it's not government by the will of people. The will of the people is extremely limited. It's more properly called a constitutional republic. All Male Action 18:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

That may be the purpose of some constitutions, not others. There is nothing magical about having a constitution that makes a state good. Of course the people can change the constitution, it has happened many times. Ultimately the power comes from the people, the checks in a liberal democracy can be seen as making changes happen slower than in a direct democracy, but if the people want to, they can change every law and and every government official. Including the Supreme Court if they wanted to, by electing presidents who change the judges.Ultramarine 18:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes there is something "magical" about having a constitution that makes a state good. Without one, the state is not going to be good. I'm not sure what you're point is. Are you saying that a "constitutional republic" could not have protections for individual liberty? That would defy the definition of a "constitutional republic." It doesn't simply mean that a constitution exists, but that one exists that protects individual liberty from the will of the majority and from elected officials. And, yes the Constitution can be changed, but it is very difficult. That's the whole point. That's why it has changed so little. The U.S. political was designed to make changing the constitution extremely difficult. The will of the people is extremely limited. All Male Action 18:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No, there is nothing magical about having a constitution that makes a state good. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the former German Democratic Republic are and was republics with constitutions. In the US, the will of the peope is extremely wide compared to these republics with constitutions.Ultramarine 18:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok then. Tell me how individual liberty is going to be protected without a constitution. All Male Action 18:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

A good constitution is one part, but a constitution by itself means very little. Elections is one important part because it puts check on the abuses of the rulers, which protects liberty.Ultramarine 18:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

A constitution means very little? What??? Again, how are you going to protect individual liberty in a political system, without a constitution. And yes, the will of the people does have an effect but it's effect is limited. All the people can do is elect officials and vote them out of they don't like them. That's really not much power at all. And, that's the way it was meant to be. The people check the state, and the state checks the people, and branches within the state check each other. The object of a constitutional republic is to prevent anyone from having power, so that the law is supreme and extremely difficult to change. All Male Action 19:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Obviously a constitution is one part, but, again, the Islamic Republic of Iran and the former German Democratic Republic are and was republics with constitutions. In the US, the will of the peope is extremely wide compared to these republics with constitutions. Yes, elections are very important and powerful, extremely bad rulers are removed and the rulers must constantly think about the next election, putting checks on what they can do. In dictatorships with constitutions, the rulers do not have worry about the people, and are free to ignore the constitution.Ultramarine 19:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Simply being a republic and having a constitution does not define you as a "constitutional republic." A constitutional republic is defined as having a constitution with protection of individual liberties from the majority of the people and from government officials. I'm not disagreeing the majority of the people have some power. I'm saying it's limited power. The U.S. political system was designed so that everyone would fight amongst each other, voting people in, voting people out, the three branches fighting each other, etc, in order to prevent large enough factions to form that could change the Constitution. All Male Action 19:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you. But free and fair elections of the rulers are an essential part. The Communist constitutions had lots of nice words about protections and rights of the people, which of course were ignored.Ultramarine 19:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

There are differences between classical and modern liberalism, but they are irrelevant to the subject of liberal democracy, since the idea of a constitutional republic with popularly elected leaders (liberal democracy) is and has been shared by all branches of liberalism, in addition to many other ideologies. No ideology can claim a monopoly over liberal democracy as defined in this article. -- Nikodemos 06:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the issue of liberal democracy and classical liberalism, I have two questions for you:

1. Is the US a liberal democracy?
2. Does the US government practice classical liberalism?

If the US is a liberal democracy but its government does not practice classical liberalism, then you agree that a liberal democracy does not always have a liberal government. It only has a constitution which upholds the rule of law and certain individual rights. -- Nikodemos 08:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brunei and India

"This is a statistical tendency, and there are individual exceptions like India, which is democratic but arguably not prosperous, or Brunei". Is it right to compare a large overpopulated nation with a very small oil rich country? Besides, India's economy has obviously improved a lot after 1991 when India's markets were opened to the world. It is, however, true that economic inequality is very high in India and there are millions of people over there living below the poverty line. Bui I still believe that Brunei and India cannot be compared like this.--59.93.213.147 08:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of sourced information

Please explain why this sourced information was removed and changed: "The term "liberal" in "liberal democracy" does not imply that the government of such a democracy must follow the political ideology of modern liberalism. It is merely a reference to the fact that the initial framework for modern liberal democracy was created during the Age of Enlightenment by philosophers advocating liberty (that is, classical liberalism). They emphasized the right of the individual to have immunity from the arbitrary exercise of authority.^[1] At present, there are numerous different political ideologies that support and rule in liberal democracies. Examples include conservatism, Christian Democracy, social democracy and some forms of socialism. For example, the Conservative Party (UK), the Democrazia Cristiana, and the Swedish Social Democratic Party have a long history of rule in nations classified as liberal democratic.^[2]"Ultramarine 21:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notes

1. ^
   • Many ideas came from classical liberalism, but this is distinct from modern liberalism.
     • "The term "liberal" is used here in its older, European sense, now often called classical liberalism. In America today the word has come to mean something quite different, namely policies upholding the modern welfare state."
     • "for almost a century in the West, democracy has meant liberal democracy -- a political system marked not only by free and fair elections, but also by the rule of law, a separation of powers, and the protection of basic liberties of speech, assembly, religion, and property. In fact, this latter bundle of freedoms -- what might be termed constitutional liberalism -- is theoretically different and historically distinct from democracy."
     • "Constitutional liberalism, on the other hand, is not about the procedures for selecting government, but rather government's goals. It refers to the tradition, deep in Western history, that seeks to protect an individual's autonomy and dignity against coercion, whatever the source -- state, church, or society. The term marries two closely connected ideas. It is liberal because it draws on the philosophical strain, beginning with the Greeks, that emphasizes individual liberty. It is constitutional because it rests on the tradition, beginning with the Romans, of the rule of law. Constitutional liberalism developed in Western Europe and the United States as a defense of the individual's right to life and property, and freedom of religion and speech. To secure these rights, it emphasized checks on the power of each branch of government, equality under the law, impartial courts and tribunals, and separation of church and state."[1]
   • Freedom House: "electoral democracy" differs from "liberal democracy" in that the latter also implies the presence of a substantial array of civil liberties."[2]
   • Note also that quite different parties have claimed the title liberal, like the centre-left Liberal Democrats in the UK, the conservative Liberal Democratic Party (Japan), and the far-right Liberal Democratic Party of Russia
2. ^ [3]

I do not believe this is the place to discuss the various distinctions between different schools of liberalism and other ideologies. The point we have to convey is simple: (a) liberal democracy was originally created by 18th and 19th century liberals; (b) since the 19th century, liberal democracy has gathered the support of many ideologies, most of which do not call themselves liberal. To my knowledge, this is not controversial. -- Nikodemos 06:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, Ultramarine doesn't like for it to be associated with liberalism. Apparently this is because he is afraid people will mistake "liberalism" for the way it is used in America which refers to welfare liberalism. So we change it to classical liberalism to be safe then apparently you don't like that for some reason. All Male Action 08:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I do not like your partial deletions of the material above, like the mentioning of liberty.Ultramarine 08:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't like your deletion of the sourced fact that "liberal" in "liberal democracy" refers to liberalism. Liberal democracy is the supposed synthesis of liberalism and democracy. All Male Action 08:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It is sourced that Freedom House means liberty. The other source also mentions liberty.Ultramarine 08:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

"It is liberal because it draws on the philosophical strain, beginning with the Greeks, that emphasizes individual liberty."[16]Ultramarine 08:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't intentionally targetting that. I have no problem with that. Maybe I deleted it for grammar reasons or something. I don't remember. I have a problem with it saying that the term "liberal" doesnt refer to liberalism. Of course it does. All Male Action 08:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

So what is wrong the version above? Ultramarine 08:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Not much except that it should point out that while "liberal" does not refer to "modern liberalism," it does refer to "liberalism" in the international sense or to "classical" liberalism. All Male Action 08:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I added a sentence to the above. Acceptable? Ultramarine 08:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. I would take out "merely" though. All Male Action 08:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

But if Nikodemos comes back, I think he'll delete mention that it doesnt refer to modern liberalism, like he just recently did. All Male Action 08:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

No no need for "merely". Nikodemos, what is your view? Ultramarine 08:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The difference between classical and modern liberalism lies in their respective views on economic issues. Liberal democracy is a system of government, and classical and modern liberals are in full agreement with regards to systems of government. Thus the distinction is unnecessary. Also, equating "liberty" with "classical liberalism" involves enormous POV. The version I support is as follows:

The term "liberal" in "liberal democracy" does not imply that the government of such a democracy must follow the political ideology of liberalism. It is merely a reference to the fact that liberal democracies feature constitutional protections of individual rights from government power which were first proposed during the Age of Enlightenment by philosophers advocating liberty. At present, there are numerous different political ideologies that support liberal democracy. Examples include conservatism, Christian Democracy, social democracy and some forms of socialism.

All Male Action, you should distinguish between the government and the constitution of a country. It is as clear as day that the government (that is, the elected officials) of a liberal democracy does not need to be composed of classical liberals, or even liberals in general. The distinguishing feature of liberal democracies is that they have constitutions protecting certain individual rights. A liberal constitution does not imply that the people in government are all liberals. -- Nikodemos 09:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems very reasonable.Ultramarine 10:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)