Originally posted by GePap
The things about people's rule (democracy) is that most people would want best a democracy where if in the majority, they got what the majority wanted, aka, an unliberal democracy. One has to convincingly argue to individuals why a Liberal democracy is what they should aim for, and why it is a benefit directly to them - demagogues can easily make the case for illiberal democracy, Liberals seem currently unable to make the countercase.
The things about people's rule (democracy) is that most people would want best a democracy where if in the majority, they got what the majority wanted, aka, an unliberal democracy. One has to convincingly argue to individuals why a Liberal democracy is what they should aim for, and why it is a benefit directly to them - demagogues can easily make the case for illiberal democracy, Liberals seem currently unable to make the countercase.
In a place like Iraq, where politics revolves around sect, and one sect has a majority, theres little inclination towards liberalism. Ditto in a place like Venezuala, where politics is focused on race/class. In Pakistan, lots of folks seem very concerned about liberalism. It really varies from polity to polity.
Russia, Im not so sure its a problem of permanent majorities like in Iraq or Venezuala, more its the perceived or actual failure of liberalism to deliver results during its period of quasi-ascendancy.
Comment