Talk:Liberalism worldwide

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Liberalism worldwide, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Philosophy Portal

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Additional information:

Related task forces (core areas):
	Social and political philosophy

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, an attempt to improve, organise and standardise Wikipedia's articles in the area of politics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article is on a subject of Mid-importance in Politics.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

The edits before 17 October 2005 were made to the entry List of liberal parties.

For an October 2004 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Liberal parties

I redrafted this talk page to make it easier readable. I tried to keep the discussion in. The old version until 16/9/04 can be found at Talk:Liberal parties/old

1 General remarks
2 Remarks per party
3 Big or small l
4 Liberal political party

[edit] General remarks

I merged the articles liberal parties and worldwide liberalism (I created them both) into one article and deleted paragraph which are allready in the article liberalism. In this way it fits better in the series on liberalism. Gangulf 20:43, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There were some arguments on discussions on minor parties. This has been solved by making a split between parliamentary and non-parliamentary parties.

[edit] Libertarians

The Liberal People's Party (Norway) and other libertarians, they are actually just one streaming of liberalism, similar to the way that the communists and social democrats are streamings of socialism. If a libertarian party chooses to identify itself as liberal, it has as much to do so as for instance social liberals. Anyway, if libertarians aren't considered to be liberals, why is Movimiento Libertario (Costa Rica) included?

Then Libertarians is - see the discussion in the article liberalism - not considered to be liberal but an own theory sharing the same roots. BTW I am not an American liberal, but a party that was for a long time against change of the Hong Kong constitution (abolishing indirect parliamentary elections) cannot considered to be liberal at all. Striving after a free market is not enough to be considered liberal, since liberalism includes more. E.g. The British conservatives, certainly not a liberal party, or the German christian democrats strive after a free market, but they are not liberals. The Movimiento Libertario is included since it is affiliated to the Liberal International (and as far as I know not to any international libertarian organisation). These are some first remarks, I will work on it. -- Gangulf 17:41, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The reason why Movimiento Libertario is affiliated to the Liberal International and not to any international libertarian organisation is probably that there isn't any international organisation for libertarian parties, though there is a couple of international organisations for libertarian individuals. I'm sure that LI would be the first choice for any libertarian party, which would be considering to join an international organisation for parties.

The term "libertarian" was first adopted by North American free market libertarians, who couldn't use the term "liberal" anymore, because it had become to mean the same as "Left" in North America. Therefore in the North America, the term "libertarian" is broader than in Europe, and almost identical to what is called "market liberal" in Europe. See for instance Cato Institute's page, "How to label Cato Institute". In Europe the term "libertarian" is used only about what would be called "hard core libertarian" in the North America. For the history of the word see http://web.archive.org/web/20031121153638/www.daft.com/~rab/liberty/history/index.html

I agree, that liberalism is more than just free markets - but free markets are a vital part of classical liberalism, and therefore supporting free markets doesn't make a party illiberal. As for the German christian democrats, I don't see how they would strive after a free market. Maybe they have a market friendly wing somewhere, but there is also strong support for more state interventions, and the FDP is more market friendly anyway.

For this page there is no policy that includes that supporting free markets makes a party illiberal. The policy is just that supporting free market is not a synonym of a liberal party. --Gangulf 15:31, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

But you have listed parties, which youself confess socialist? Which policy makes them liberal, but the libertarians not? Have you hidden motives?

Dear anonymous: I do not have hidden motives. Which parties do you mean? --Gangulf 18:34, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Radical Civic Union (Argentina), Social Democrat Radical Party (Chile) and Liberal Party (Columbia).

Thanks. As some contributors say, membership of LI is not identical with being a liberal party. In the starting of the page membership of LI is seen as an indication. But also a lot of non-members are included, as are parties member of other internationals. The Chilean party is listed in italic with the remark that it is not any longer a liberal party. Both the Argentine and Colombian parties are in between liberalism and social democracy. So I do not see the problem. -Gangulf 14:24, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

BTW, dear anonymous, which parties do you miss. -- Gangulf 14:42, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Centrist parties

I don't see any other reason why certain centrist parties are included than that somebody considers that being critical towards market economy is liberal. see for instance this article about the Centre Party of Estonia http://www.ce-review.org/00/13/amber13.html . And the Centre Party of Finland has never been seen as a liberal party by the Finnish population, as its most central policy has been to advocate more subsidies for the farmers. And when the registration of the same-sex relationships was voted in the Finnish parliament, even more of the MPs of the conservative National Coalition party voted for than of the MPs of the Centre Party. They are actually both conservative, but the Centre Party has more support in the countryside while the National Coalition is mainly supported in cities. When LI accepted Centre Party as a member in the end of eighties, it was argued that LI should be broadened as an international organisation of liberal 'and' centrist parties. This means, that liberal is not same as centrist. However, now LI's policy is to claim that all its members are liberal, even those which were accepted in as centrist parties. This doesn't seem to be very honest to me.

All member parties of the LI have to agree with the Liberal manifesto's of these organisation, all members of the ELDR have to agree with the electoral programm of the ELDR. SO therefore these parties are listed, but generally with a remark. --Gangulf 18:38, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If the policy of LI has been to let in liberal AND centrist parties, obviously signing the manifesto and agreeing with the electoral programm doesn't turn a centrist party liberal. And one more thing: any organisation can't claim that it has the monopoly to define liberalism, or change the definition according it needs. I think this also means, that the membership of an organisation or the lack of the membership can't automatically define the ideology of a party, though most of the parties and organisations claiming to be liberal might happen to be what they claim to be.

Both the manifestos of LI and the programs of ELDR are clearly liberal programs. Parties that are member of these organisations have to subscribe to these texts. Since it is about small-l liberal parties, it is not necesary for a party to use the world liberal itself. The Russian liberals wouldn't use the word liberal because of another party in that country labeling itself liberal democratic. It took D66 more then 30 years to label itself as liberal because of domestic reasons, liberal was used by another party. So the fact that Suomen Keskusta doesn't mention the world liberal in its program is not enough to be considered not a liberal party. However, since some dispute the liberal character of these parties, the dispution is added as information in the list.

BTW, even if for instance the Centre Party of Finland has signed the manifesto, it's own programms don't mention liberalism with one word.

[edit] Liberal parties vs. member parties of LI, ELDR and CALD

I have a feeling, that somebody is seriously mixing the consepts of a "liberal party" and "member of a liberal organisation". In the end of the 80's and beginning of 90's, the policy of LI was officially to expand it membership to centrist parties. It was to be the organisation of "liberal and centrist parties". This policy clearly distinguished a liberal party from a centrist party, as there was an "and" between liberal and centrist. ELDR has also members, which have allied to it for want of a better, and ELDR has received them to strengthen itself, not because they would be particularly liberal. How has the centrist members of LI and ELDR suddenly become "liberal parties" in this article? They could be listed as members in the articles concerning LI and ELDR, but the membership of an organisation doesn't magically tranform a party "liberal". Also, the membership of an organisation doesn't turn a party conservative (Party of the Liberal Front, G17 Plus). I have a feeling, that the author of such claims identifies himself too closely to ELDR and LI, and can't distinguish "liberal" from "member of liberal organisation".

[edit] Remarks per party

[edit] Bermuda

National Liberal Party: Not listed: defunct party

[edit] Cyprus

Democratic Party (Dimokratikon Komma): Not listed, claims not to be a liberal party

[edit] El Salvador:

Liberal Democratic Party (Partido Liberal Democrático): Not listed: defunct party

[edit] France

Democratic Energies (Energies Démocrates): not a party
Coalition of French tax payers (Rassemblement des Contribuables Français): Not listed: seems to be a one man party close to the extreme right

Coalition of French tax payers - see http://decrypt.politique.free.fr/partis/rcf/index.shtml . This is a leftist resource, which easily labels right of centre parties as "facho", and as it is itself situated in extreme left, it calls even moderate right as "extreme right". However, even it recognises that Coalition of French tax payers is liberal, not "facho". Compare to some other right of centre parties.

But what makes it a liberal party. The mentioning at this site that it is a liberal party is for me not good enough. What is the program of the party? I have serious doubts -- Gangulf 15:15, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] India

Indian Liberal Group: Not listed: not a party (might develop into a party)

[edit] Italy: Daisy

I think it isn't appropriate to list Margherita (Italy) here, as it is the result of the merger of a liberal and a christian democratic party. It belongs as much in the christian democratic parties than here. I would call it "centrist", but because it has many christian democratic members (probably the majority), not "liberal".

You might be wright, I will add a remark at this party Gangulf 20:50, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] New Zealand: ACT New Zealand

http://www.act.org.nz/item.jsp?id=20866

Homophobia and social conservatism are not features of liberal parties. Bye Bye.

I made an inquiry about that, and was told that the majority of ACT Mps voted for Civil Unions, to legalise brothels and for the Right to Die Act. A minority of ACT MPs voted against, but so did a minority of Labour MPs, and that doesn't make Labour homophobic and socially conservative. There isn't a major party anywhere without some individual members deviating from the general party line.

[edit] Serbia

Liberal Democratic Party (Serbia 2005) is the only party with a clear liberal profile that has parliamentary representation and the only liberal party which is visibly active. I feel the party should be given prominence in this article, and not be placed last on the list.
Civic Alliance of Serbia definitely was a very active liberal party. However, it has merged into LDP less than a month ago and is therefore only of historical significance. I would also like you to pay attention that the name of the party in Serbian (which appears in the brackets) is misspelled, as it uses a letter which doesn't even exist in the Serbian alphabet. (The correct letter should be đ, not ð)
It says in the article that Liberals of Serbia lost parliamentary representation in the last election. This is not correct, as the party lost its parliamentary representation much earlier, in the elections that were held before the last ones. I the last elections, I think that the party did not even run for the parliament, and today, the party is not present in the public at all. Although the party claims to be liberal, it has never been very active and in the 90s it gave support to Slobodan Milošević, which was accused of committing war crimes. I also haven't noticed that the party was ever vocal in its support for liberal politics, except for the word liberal.

Since my edits to the section were reverted, I would like to see someone update the article with relevant information and also rewrite the article, so that relevant information is given prominence. I feel that the article, as it is written now, gives a misleading overview of the current situation. --Midjungards 14:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Work on it. Your edits were reverted 'cos you cancelled any information about the Liberals of Serbia, which are members of the Liberal International and so we need to put them here. I think that the current version is balanced, but feel free to make changes, exactly as I feel free to make changes on them. This is Wikipedia, good work! --Checco 15:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The liberal character of the Liberal Democratic Party is disputed too because it fully supports the Serbian goverment decisions that breached basic human rights (see opinion of Human Rights Watch [1], [2], [3], [4]) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BoDu (talk • contribs) 12:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC). --BoDu 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Big or small l

In Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Liberal parties there has been some discussion on the article name.

In Australian English, the capitalisation or otherwise of Liberal is extremely important. There is no way you could even question that the Liberal Party of Australia is in at least one sense big-L Liberal without being extremely POV. In US and UK English it's not so important at present, but could become so if the names or policies of their parties were to change. As the software prevents us from making this distinction in article names which start with the word Liberal, it's good to avoid such article names where possible.

This point has been made several times in the discussion, I just want to support it without making VfD even longer! Andrewa 01:26, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Liberal political party

Should that not redirect here, and the specific Dutch party article (not all that important in the greater scheme of things, that the English version of their name should get that title) be moved? elvenscout742 17:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

????? Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 19:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

elvenscout742 is talking about the old Dutch Liberal Political Party -- Coelacan | talk 20:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Then the question becomes if Staatspartij is to be translated into State Party, Political Party or Party. Intangible 20:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at Special:Whatlinkshere/Liberal_Political_Party for some ideas. Let's see... the Liberal party page is linking to Liberal State Party, that's one instance. Liberale Staatspartij actually gets plenty of hits, but I suppose we have to translate? Then League of Free Liberals is linking to Liberal Political Party, the Freedom League, and I like that one, because it's specific but not cumbersome, imo, and the article already begins with that phrase, and the Dutch article almost echoes it, so I'm guessing it was pretty well known at the time by that name. But as to Staatspartij, it's not just Party, it's either State Party or Political Party and I don't speak Dutch but I think if it were Political Party it would look more like Politieke Partij -- Coelacan | talk 00:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Now I understand. I am Dutch: Liberale Staatspartij means Liberal State Party, Polical would be in Dutch Politiek or Politieke. An alternative translation is Staatkundig(e). The Bond van Vrije Liberalen means in English the League of Free Liberals. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 08:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing up the translation, Wilfried. I'll go ahead and make the move. -- Coelacan | talk 08:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Coelacann told me that on basis of this debate, the Liberal Political Party article has been moved. I'm unhappy with this for two reasons:

The translation is very unclear: Liberale Staatspartij might be literally translated into Liberal State Party, but then it doesn't mean any thing, in the dutch of the time Liberale Staatspartij was meant to describe Liberal Political Party. I would like to see a common policy towards all dutch "staat"-parties, like the RKSP and the SGP.
The move didn't really go according to wikipedia WP:RM, the principle editor (me) was not involved and the normal waiting time (one week) was not observed. I understand that this happens and you were just being bold.

In all, I have proposed moving the article to Liberal Political Party (the Netherlands) on the article's talk, please join the discussion there

But Political Party is not a correct translation. Staatkundig in SGP should be translated with Political, not Staats-. Compare the German State Party. I did a quick search on google, there are only a few sources, but Liberal Political Party is not used. Rulers and worldstatesmen use Liberal State Party. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 17:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

And it cannot be Liberal Party, since that was the name of another political party from that time :) Intangible 21:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)