Constitutional liberalism or illiberal democracy

Democrats.com provides the following highly edited concept taken from an article by Fareed Zakaria:

Constitutional liberalism is about the limitation of power, illiberal democracy is about accumulation and use of power. Constitutional liberalism has meant 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. Illiberal democracy is an elected regime routinely ignoring constitutional limits on their power and depriving their citizens of basic rights and freedoms.

Zakaria in his 1997 article in Foreign Affairs wrote:

Illiberal democracy is a growth industry. Seven years ago only 22 percent of democratizing countries could have been so categorized; five years ago that figure had risen to 35 percent. n2 And to date few illiberal democracies have matured into liberal democracies; if anything, they are moving toward heightened illiberalism. Far from being a temporary or transitional stage, it appears that many countries are settling into a form of government that mixes a substantial degree of democracy with a substantial degree of illiberalism. Just as nations across the world have become comfortable with many variations of capitalism, they could well adopt and sustain varied forms of democracy. Western liberal democracy might prove to be not the final destination on the democratic road, but just one of many possible exits.

Comment: It seems that Constitutional Liberalism is about liberty and personal freedom. I suspect that if one had to choose, personal freedom would be preferred by most people to participation in elections. Indeed, my neighbors seem not to come out to vote even though they enjoy the privalege, except in a few of the most heavily publicized elections. (I think the last primary local election got a six percent turnout in my precinct!)

Indeed, the extension of suffrage seems often to have focused on extending participation in elections to people less and less interested in the public affairs and often to people less and less likely to be well informed about issues and less likely to have the analytic tools to make good decisions on public policy.

As Zakaria points out, the U.S. federal government has many constraints on the democratic process, including a bill of Constitutional rights and an independent judiciary. It should also be recognized that it is a representative government, with elected representatives (who have staffs to help gather and analyze information) supported by the bureaucracy of the executive branch to enact laws and make policy.

USAID years ago adopted the promotion of democracy as one of the "pilars" of its program, but it quickly became apparent that much of the effort would be focused on liberalism, including the rule of law, the development of civil society, and the promotion of freedom of expression.

Words change their meaning over time in an inevitable and largely useful process. Still I am nostalgic for the 19th century definition of liberal as promoting liberty, rather than the current definition which has been adapted by "conservative" political parties in the United States and United Kingdom to serve as an epithet for political positions that they dislike. Indeed, American "liberals" (in the old sense) are tending to term themselves "progressives".

So lets go about promoting liberalism, and worry about the promotion of democracy in countries that have not developed the institutions needed to protect liberal values. JAD