Fareed Zakaria in the Future of Freedom argues that democracy as a form of political organisation is a luxury of a wealthy post-capitalistic society.

He identifies two trends. One, that the rule of law and the principles of limited government such as universal rights, limited executive powers and constitutionalism are developed through the process of capitalism and market economies.

Second, that it is often per capita wealth which determines if a society will be able to maintain democracy as a form of political organisation. Countries with per capita income of over $6,000 survive as democracies. This suggests that democracy requires a great deal of population buy in, as well as being energy and cost intensive to maintain.

Zakaria calls the political forms of organisation that functions limited government constituional liberalism. This is what I, and Deniehy and Harpur, call republicanism. This is where liberalism is the political philosophy, and republicanism is the political science that puts into place the structures and technologies, such as constitutionalism, which support that philosophy of liberalism.

Zakaria also identifies that democracy is now the only thing that gives a political regime legitimacy. He argues that this has led to premature establishment of democracies without the liberal and republican institutions to back them up, consequently, illiberal democracy comes into being with strongman dictators using the structures of a weak democracy to entrench their executive rule. Schmittian conservatism and 'state of exception' rule is a technology to achieve that inside a democratic and republican system with a constitution and separation of powers.

It is a hard thesis to swallow for those that advocate increasing liberty as it means political ogres and tyrants such as Pinochet and Suharto become stepping stones on the path to the social organisation of a democratic market economy of which Chile and Indonesia are two newly thriving forms. For the same reason we all watch China with out fingers crossed and hope for a liberal democratic China.

Zakaria is one of the most interesting of the mainstream pundits, certainly more thinking and rational than the political shock jocks which dominate Sunday talk shows, radio talk back and the current affairs style sensationalists. If nothing else his views are challenging.
Cam Riley: South Sea Republic. Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic.

Comments
  • adam . # . 1/1
    I've heard this argument from friends in China as it happens. It's interesting that Zakaria puts a figure on it. By that measure only 3 Chinese regions are rich enough for democracy - Shanghai, Beijing and Tianjin.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_China_administrative_divisions_by_GDP_per_capita

    Surely India's fifty plus years of federal democracy serve as a pretty potent counterexample? For that matter, according to this site

    http://www.measuringworth.com/usgdp/

    ... US GDP only reached $6000 per capita GDP in 1930.
    Give me utilitiy or give me something slightly better!
    • cam . # . 1/1
      There were some qualifications on it, for instance British colonialism established the institutions of a free market economy which are what is needed for the transition to democracy or constitutional liberalism as he calls it.

      This is also how he describes a liberal-autocrat as being necessary in opening up the economy (like China) until the institutions are established that can lead to democracy. IIRC he said Morocco and Tunisia have dictators and GDP per capita above the 6K mark so may be ready for democracy. He said nations can transition to democracy but without that per capita mark they often don't achieve permanent democracy.
      'Sworn to no party, and of no sect am I.' Frederick Vosper's republican motto.