According to certain political thinkers, Liberalism can be characterized as having a fear of democracy. Democracy, which entails rule by the people and emphasizes popular participation and public interest in governance, is regarded by liberals as the most effective approach. However, liberals also harbor a distinct apprehension towards democracy, leading to arguments both in favor of and against this notion. Each perspective presents valid reasons for asserting the presence or absence of this fear.
However, this essay will examine both perspectives without making a judgment, with the goal of presenting arguments for and against. Those who support collectivism often have a direct apprehension towards democracy because it can enhance collectivist ideas. As both classical and modern liberals do not endorse collectivism, it is understandable why they would fear democracy. Furthermore, collectivism directly opposes individualism, causing many liberals to fear it as it prioritizes the collective over the individual.
On the other hand, the division between modern and classical liberals on their perspectives of freedom has an impact here. Modern liberals advocate for positive freedom, which is associated with collectivism. It emphasizes the idea that people should assist one another, and that the state should intervene more compared to classical liberal beliefs. This emphasis on collectivism can also be related to the concept of the ‘tyranny of the majority’. In a democratic system, this tyranny can occur when decisions are made based on majority votes. Consequently, minorities can become marginalized while the majority experiences contentment.
Liberals fear that democracy restricts individual freedom and hampers self-realization. They see democracy as promoting conformism and a stagnant society, which hinders individuals’ chances of achieving their full potential. Consequently, there is a widespread fear of democracy among liberals. However, some modern liberals argue that democracy actually defends freedom.
This theory can be defended by looking at democracy, as it ensures the public is accountable for their vote. It is also important to liberals as it protects individuals. Both modern and classical liberals strongly believe that individuals should be able to protect themselves against unpopular policies and governments. Democracy implies that citizens in a democratic system can protect themselves from a ‘tyrannical’ government.
This suggests a more profound perspective on popular participation: individuals can only safeguard themselves when they vote and engage in the democratic system. Liberal thinkers like Rousseau and JS Mill regarded this as a significant advantage for democracy. Participation not only ensured self-protection for individuals, but also provided them with a broader understanding of the occasionally perplexing political system and parties. With this augmented knowledge, it was proposed that participation could aid individuals in attaining self-actualization. Moreover, it would support the liberal concept of power originating from the grassroots.
On the whole, this would create a healthier and more prosperous society while also making the government more legitimate. It would also enhance the individual. Although there is no explicit support for democracy, the text highlights its helpfulness and necessity for the ideology. John Locke provides a clear example of someone who feared democracy. He referred to the government as a ‘necessary evil’, indicating that while it is necessary, it also holds the potential for tyranny. While there are advantages and disadvantages, it is evident that most thinkers fear democracy while still recognizing it as the best possible approach.
The fear of democracy among classical liberals is also connected to concerns about over-government. They believe that democratic systems tend to adopt an interventionist approach, which contradicts their belief in limited intervention. The fear arises because it goes against their core principles. Modern liberals, although they accept some level of intervention, argue that a fully interventionist state is unnecessary. Despite this difference in views on intervention, liberals have other reasons to fear democracy.
Liberals believe that human nature is inherently driven by power and greed, as Acton famously stated “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” This aligns with the belief that individuals, once in a position of power, desire even more. In a democratic framework, this notion becomes highly plausible. However, Montesquieu offered a solution by advocating for power to serve as a check on power, indicating that while liberals fear it, they also consider it the most optimal option. Despite the majority of liberal ideologies favoring democracy, JS Mill presented a contradictory viewpoint. Mill expressed concerns about democracy enabling the participation of the “uneducated” in political decision-making, emphasizing that only those who are politically knowledgeable should have a voice. This contradiction highlights liberals’ overall apprehension towards democracy. Liberals perceive democracy as a threat to their ideals; nevertheless, they acknowledge that it remains the most preferable system for effective governance. This perspective is supported by the numerous benefits democracy offers, including its ability to minimize conflicts.
As people participate in the democratic process by voting for their government and representatives, they also accept responsibility for the state of society. This accountability prevents them from rebelling against the system, considering it was their own choice that led to the current situation. This implies that democracy helps maintain harmony and can be connected to Hobbes’ concept of the state of nature. Initially, the state of nature was ideal, but it deteriorated into a state of war. Eventually, rational individuals decided to establish a formal state. Additionally, democracy promotes pluralism by offering individuals the freedom to choose who they vote for and diverse policy options.
Another positive aspect is that all groups have a voice and can express their opinions. Even though a minority is formed due to the system, they still have the opportunity to voice their concerns. Some may oppose this idea, but in the following election, they have the option to either withdraw their support or give their consent to another political party. Furthermore, liberals may have concerns about democracy, but they also provide arguments for its regulation. They simply believe that democracy is acceptable as long as certain limitations are in place to safeguard individuals. Js Mill’s stance on the ‘uneducated’ contradicts liberal ideology. However, it can be argued that this illustrates a clear apprehension towards democracy.
He had such a strong fear of democracy that he started developing theories to argue against the ideology. However, his intention was not to express his genuine belief but rather to demonstrate that democracy is a subject that instills fear. The presence of numerous thinkers opposing democracy indicates a widespread fear, although some thinkers have proposed advantages of this system. This implies that the fear is evident within the ideology; it does not necessarily imply that democracy should be eliminated or abolished but rather that the benefits must be reinforced due to this fear.
