Advantages and disadvantages of liberal democracy

Some people think that "liberal democracy" does not respect absolute majority rule (except when electing representatives of public opinion). Most "freedoms" are restricted by constitutions or conventions formulated by previous generations. In addition, the actual political power is controlled by a few representatives of public opinion, so they advocate that "liberal democracy" is just a beautified version of oligarchy.

Others retort that only liberal democracy can guarantee individual freedom and prevent the country from becoming a dictatorship. Unrestricted majority rule will lead to oppression of the minority. From another perspective, the elected leaders will be more capable and interested in managing the country than ordinary voters. The third view is that if we want to vote on each topic separately, we will spend a lot of resources and efforts to let everyone get information, participate in discussions and even vote.

Some liberal democratic countries have a referendum system similar to direct democracy. Switzerland and Uruguay are such examples; California and some other states in the United States also have referendum systems. Many other countries also have lower-level referendum systems in their political systems. Due to historical reasons, many countries are not exactly the same in race and culture, and there may be strong racial, linguistic, religious and cultural divisions. In fact, different groups may be hostile to each other or even openly confront each other. A democratic system, as its name implies, allows the masses to participate in decision-making, so in theory, groups are also allowed to use democratic political procedures to deal with other "hostile" groups. These phenomena may be particularly common in the process of democratization, especially when the previous undemocratic government tried to suppress certain groups. This can also be seen in established democracies, such as populist anti-immigration movements. However, most of the oppression in human history occurred in countries without electoral systems, such as apartheid in South Africa and Nazi Germany.

With the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the partial democratization of other countries in the former Soviet Union, wars in Yugoslavia, Caucasus, Moldova and other regions are frequent and civil wars continue. To some extent, liberal democracy is a conspiracy of western imperialism, aiming at subverting capitalism in China. Liberal democracy has also become a tool for them to attack the socialist system. Liberalism and monarchism have always criticized the democratic system: the democratic system will encourage the elected representatives of the people to amend laws at will, especially to promote a large number of unnecessary new bills. This is extremely harmful in many ways, and the new law may limit the scope of personal freedom before. The rapid change of law will make people no longer willing to obey the law, which may lead to the abuse of power by law enforcement agencies. They think that the law of chaos may contradict the simple and eternal law of nature-although they don't have a certain understanding of why the law of nature exists. On the other hand, supporters of democracy point out that complex bureaucracy and control can only be produced under dictatorship, such as many countries in the former Soviet Union.

Critics also believe that liberal democracy is quite slow and complicated in terms of decision-making efficiency. By definition, modern liberal democracy holds regular elections to change the government. This has led many people to criticize the short-sightedness of the government. In four to five years, the government must face new elections, and the rulers and political parties must consider how to win the elections. This will encourage candidates to propose policies (or other politicians) that can benefit voters in the short term, rather than policies that can bring long-term benefits with a far-sighted vision, but are not so popular or valued by the people. However, these criticisms presuppose that it is possible to make a long-term prediction of a society, which was criticized by karl popper as historical determinism.

Short-sightedness in a democratic system may be caused by collective short-sighted thinking in addition to general criticism of government entities. For example, policies aimed at reducing environmental pollution may also lead to an increase in unemployment. In any case, these risks are not limited to democratic systems, but may also occur in other political systems. Marxists and socialists believe that liberal democracy is a part of the capitalist system, that is, a system based on class without thorough democracy or participation. They believe that liberal democracy is bourgeois democracy, and only those with financial resources are allowed to rule. They believe that democracy is fundamentally unequal and will allow capitalists to exploit it economically.

In the representative government system of the democratic system, the high cost of participating in the election may represent that the democratic system is biased towards the rich, resulting in chaebol politics that only favors a few rich people. In Athenian democracy, some public officials were randomly assigned to citizens to avoid the influence of chaebol politics. These critics believe that modern democracy is just a lie used by the ruling class to deceive the masses into being content with the status quo, or a means to make them ignore some political issues. They believe that democracy will enable candidates to collude with wealthy supporters, provide favorable policy programs, and maintain their conspiracy and monopoly in certain fields forever.

However, Steven Levitt, an American economist, pointed out that a large amount of money in the campaign can't guarantee the victory of the election results. He compares the candidates in elections, especially the congressional elections in the United States, and their campaign funds and results again and again. He concluded:

"A winning candidate can cut the election expenses by half and only lose one percent of the votes. At the same time, a candidate who thinks he has failed because of financial problems will only increase the number of support votes by 1% after expanding half of the funds. "

The possession of the media may lead to public misjudgment of the election process, because the media itself is an indispensable part of the election process. Some critics believe that criticism of the status quo or specific issues is often suppressed by media groups to defend their own interests. On the other hand, advocates of democracy believe that because the Constitution protects freedom of speech, groups with or without interests can debate or publicize certain issues. They believe that the media in a democratic society only represents the public's preference and is not affected by government censorship. The so-called "tyranny of the majority" is the fear of democratic government, because the views of the majority may oppress a specific minority. Theoretically, the majority represents the majority of those voters, not the majority of all citizens. In this case, a few people also have the opportunity to gain power by manipulating elections and oppress other minorities in the name of the majority. This situation can happen under both direct democracy and representative democracy.

Possible examples include:

Those who may be affected by conscription are in the minority.

Some European countries prohibit students from wearing religious symbols in public schools. Opponents believe that this is an infringement of the right to freedom of belief. Supporters believe that this is a policy that abides by the principle of separation of church and state.

Banning pornographic books and movies is usually the decision of most people.

The legalization (or at least tolerance) of recreational drugs usually begins with the degree of acceptance by most people. Drug addicts may think of themselves as oppressed minorities and victims.

Social attitudes towards homosexuality are also an example. Until a few decades ago, homosexuality was widely classified as illegal in democratic countries; This has not changed in some democratic countries, reflecting the religion and sexual morality of most people.

Democracy in ancient Athens and early America also coexisted with slavery.

Most people usually impose heavy taxes on a few rich people in order to make the rich bear more social expenses. But this is usually offset to some extent, because the rich can hire expert consultants to assist (tax consultants and lawyers).

In prosperous western democratic countries, the poor have become a minority in society and may be retaliated by the majority of others, who have to pay more taxes. Especially when they form a unique lower class, most people may deprive the state of their protection through the democratic process.

An often cited example of "tyranny of the majority" is that Adolf Hitler came to power through legal democratic procedures. The Nazi Party became the largest political party in China, and won the most votes in Weimar democratic election with 1933. Many people think that this is actually an example of "minority tyranny" because Hitler never won more than half of the votes in the election. However, since power is often in the hands of the majority in a democratic system, Hitler's rise cannot be ignored. In any case, Hitler's regime began to violate human rights on a large scale after abolishing democracy. In addition, the Constitution of Weimar Republic allows all powers to be handed over to dictators in the face of "extraordinary moments", and the validity of the Constitution itself is suspended without any vote or election, which is impossible in most liberal and democratic countries.

Advocates of democracy have made many defenses against the so-called "tyranny of the majority". One of them is that the existence of constitutions can protect the rights of all citizens, and amending these constitutions requires more than three-fifths of members of Congress to know, or requires judges and juries to recognize the evidence and procedures put forward by the government, or to vote by other elected representatives of public opinion, or to hold a referendum directly. These thresholds are usually additive. The separation and checks and balances between the executive, judicial and legislative branches also make it difficult for just over half of the majority to act as they please. This shows that the majority can still force a few people (which is morally questionable), but the number of such few people will not be large, and it is difficult to obtain the consent of the majority in practice.

Another theory holds that the majority and the minority will have different attitudes on different issues. People usually agree with the majority view on some issues, but they may agree with the minority view on other issues. A person's point of view may change, so members of the majority will have certain restrictions on the oppression of the minority, because they know that they may become a minority in the future.

Another general theory is that although there are many risks, compared with other systems, the majority decision is still the most ideal system, and the tyranny of the majority is produced under any circumstances to improve the tyranny of the minority. All the above problems may arise under an undemocratic system, and the oppression of the majority by the minority must be added. Democracy advocates believe that statistics show that more democracy will bring less internal conflicts and government massacres. American historian R. J. Rummel put forward a formula: The less democracy and freedom a country has, the more likely its rulers are to slaughter them. One argument for defending democracy is that under a democratic system, people can change the head of government without changing the legal basis of the government, so democracy can reduce political uncertainty and instability, and give those citizens who are dissatisfied with the current policy the opportunity to take power or change their policies through regular elections, so that they are satisfied with the current status quo. Therefore, for countries that often transfer political power through violence, democracy can strengthen political stability.

Some people think that long-term political stability in which certain groups have been in power for too long is also inappropriate. However, this is usually more likely to happen in non-democratic systems. Liberal democracy is literally defined, and political power is not centralized. A common criticism is that this system will become a national disadvantage in wartime, because war mobilization requires rapid and consistent actions within the country. Although sometimes the administrator can make preparations without violating the legislative procedures, it usually requires the legislature to agree to make preparations at home before the enemy attacks, which may create additional risks in terms of consent and time consumption. Generally speaking, if a democratic country is attacked, the government can usually launch a defensive counterattack without any consent. It is possible for people to vote against conscription. Theoretically, monarchies and dictators may indeed have higher efficiency and boldness.

However, research shows that democratic countries are more likely to win wars than non-democratic countries. The explanation for this is mainly "political transparency and the stability of people's public opinion." As long as this is established, the democratic system can guide the war more effectively. " Another study pointed out that this is because democratic countries have stronger mobilization ability or resources, so they have a greater chance of winning the war.

Stam and Reiter(2002, pp. 64-70) also noted that emphasizing the importance of individuals in a democratic society means that their soldiers will have higher fighting enthusiasm and better leadership ability. Officials in authoritarian regimes are usually promoted on the basis of political loyalty rather than ability. They are likely to be confined to a handful of classes or religious/ethnic groups that support the current dictatorship. This will also rule out many capable officers. Leaders in undemocratic armies often violently suppress any internal opposition and criticism, which may make soldiers and officers afraid to raise any objections. The army and soldiers who lack enthusiasm are particularly disadvantageous in the modern battlefield. Soldiers from authoritarian countries are also more likely to surrender to democratic countries, because they can expect to be treated relatively well after surrender. Nazi Germany killed two-thirds of the surrendered Soviet soldiers. Statistically, the degree of democracy and gross domestic product (GDP) are interrelated.

However, there are different views on the contribution of democracy in this regard. One view is that democracy will only develop widely after the industrial revolution and the popularization of capitalism. On the other hand, Britain, the birthplace of the industrial revolution, was the most democratic country in Europe at that time.

Some studies, such as the famous economic freedom index, point out that with the popularization of capitalism and economic growth, social prosperity will increase, poverty will decrease and democratization will further occur. However, this is only a statistical trend, with many exceptions, such as India, which is democratic but not prosperous, or Brunei, which has a high GDP but has never been democratized. Many other studies have also pointed out that more democracy can bring more economic freedom, although some surveys have reached the opposite result. One of the objections is that Sweden and Canada scored lower on the index of economic freedom than Chile and Estonia, but their per capita GDP was higher. However, this statement is problematic. The research only points out the influence of economic freedom on economic growth, so the higher the economic freedom, the higher the future GDP. At the same time, it should be noted that according to the index, Sweden and Canada belong to one of the most capitalist countries in the world, because they both have a solid rule of law, attach importance to ownership and have few restrictions on free trade. Critics believe that the economic freedom index can not accurately measure the capitalist index, and advocate choosing other measurement methods.

Some people think that economic growth will automatically lead to democratic transformation, such as in countries like China. However, others disagree. Even if economic growth can lead to democratization in the past, it does not mean that it will be feasible in the future. By now, dictators may have learned how to achieve economic growth without changing the existing political system.

A large number of oil or mineral mining industries are also related to undemocratic rule. This influence can be applied to the whole world, not just the Middle East. Dictators with such huge wealth can invest more money to maintain their political power and provide more benefits to appease the dissatisfaction of the masses. Similarly, such wealth will not produce the social and cultural changes that ordinary economic growth can bring.

A recent comprehensive analysis holds that democracy has no direct impact on economic growth. However, democracy does have a strong indirect impact on economic growth. Democracy has higher capital accumulation per capita, lower inflation, lower political instability and higher economic freedom. However, some surveys show that democracy will lead to greater government and more restrictions on international trade.

Aside from East Asia, in the past 45 years, the economic growth of poor democratic countries was 50% faster than that of non-democratic countries. Poor democratic countries such as the Baltic States, Botswana, Costa Rica, Ghana and Senegal have higher economic growth rates than undemocratic countries such as Angola, Syria, Uzbekistan and Zimbabwe.

Of the 80 worst economic crises in the past 40 years, only five occurred in democratic countries. Similarly, poor democracies are unlikely to see a sharp decline in per capita GDP in a short time. Amartya Kumar Sen, a famous economist, pointed out that democratic countries have never suffered from large-scale famine. This includes less prosperous democracies such as India. The last severe famine in India occurred in 1943, and there were many large-scale famines in the late19th century, all during the period of British rule before democratization. The Indian government after independence has become more and more democratic with the passage of time.

Almost all refugee phenomena occur only in non-democratic countries. If we study the refugee flows in the past 20 years, most of them happened in authoritarian countries. Democracy is also associated with a high human development index and a low human poverty index.

Compared with poor dictatorships, poor democratic countries have better education, longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality, more drinking water resources and better medical care. This is not because of getting a higher level of foreign support or spending more money on these undertakings, but because resources can be managed more effectively under a democratic system.

Some health surveys (life expectancy and maternal and infant mortality) show that these factors have a great relationship with democracy, even higher than their relationship with per capita GDP, public utilities scale or income inequality.

After the collapse of capitalism in eastern European countries, after the initial economic recession, the most democratic countries among them also achieved the most average life expectancy growth. The survey shows that modern democratic countries also have high people's happiness.