The policy is very complicated and multifaceted thing. Humanity has long interesting history, and humanity is accompanied by the policy throughout a very long period of time. Despite the fact that the policy has already become familiar and integral part of modern society, it remains a very controversial issue, which generates a lot of emotional debates and disagreements.
The representative of contemporary democratic society got used to consider that democracy is inviolable or even sacred. A modern citizen believes in his rights and freedoms; moreover, he strongly believes that the state, namely the democratic system is intended for protection of his liberties and rights; he even believes that the government does exactly this.
However, as we have already pointed out, the policy is very complex and multifaceted. It consists of a variety of visible and invisible components, which are divided into other cunningly devised subdivisions. If we look at policy in general, everything may seem extremely simple. However, if we try to understand the essence of things, we will involuntarily begin to wonder about all contradiction or even hypocrisy of the political regimes, even democratic.
Of course, it’s not a secret that the world is not perfect. Despite the fact that many average citizens (and other citizens as well) tend to think that democracy is the best or even ideal system of government, it has some disadvantages too. We will permit ourselves to recall a quote of Winston Churchill, who once said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.( "DEMOCRACY: Democracy and Churchill 09.05.03.")
In the contemporary world everything is subjected to analysis and scrutiny and the policy is not an exception. There are many political analysts, who argue for their interesting concepts concerning the political doctrines and regimes. Among these scholars a notable place belongs to Fareed Zakaria, who proposed the concept of the illiberal democracy. He compares a true democracy, based on the entrenched traditions, with unnatural democracy, which isn’t characterized by democratic rules and traditions, but by clumsy duplication of them. Such unnatural kind of democracy called the illiberal democracy. F.Zakaria gives vivid examples of how the illiberal democracy was becoming and still becomes an important tool for policy-making. Let's try to figure out the expediency or even usefulness of the illiberal democracy in the making and implementation of policies in the different countries of the world.
The concept of illiberal democracy can be both useful and disadvantageous. It can be useful for the political forces that promote or implement it. However, it may not be beneficial for the residents of the country, in which such hybrid type of democracy is implementing.
On the geopolitical arena of the world, democracy has already become not a goal, but a political instrument. Most likely this transformation should be connected to the era of Cold War, during which the United States of America and the Soviet Union have participated in the global struggle. While the United States tried to impose a democracy on different countries, the Soviet Union tried to spread a communism worldwide. Probably from that time the value of constitutional liberalism has sunk into oblivion, and the illiberal democracy has become a useful political tool for the USA.
Thus for the USA, illiberal democracy is beneficial instrument, which helps them to dominate on the geopolitical arena for a long period of time. Also such kind of democracy can be useful for the government of country, in which such democracy is implementing, because it helps those politicians to be at authority and at the same time enjoy the public image of progressive reformers.
However, such low intensity democracy is not helpful for the residents of the country, in which it takes place. While these citizens are waiting for positive changes in the social life, improvement of their standard of living, they receive only a single realization that now they live in a democratic state. After all, the elections don’t play the most important role. After the elections, everything won’t begin to change automatically; after the elections the government should implement a number of reforms that would improve the level of standard of living. As Fareed Zakaria has pointed out, “”Western model” is best symbolized not by the mass plebiscite but the impartial judge.”
Also worth noting is the fact that the establishment of a democratic regime in a certain backward country, in the majority of cases, was provoked by the need for the financial support from the United States of America, which acted as a wealthy mentor. This is another evidence of the usefulness of the partial democracy; however, often this funding didn’t change the state of affairs in the country.
Moreover, the value doesn’t consist in the ideology itself, but in the ability to carry out it. Consequently, democracy, or rather the establishment of a democratic regime can appear in two basic forms. In the first case, democracy is the result of prolonged path of the nation to the final establishment of a democratic regime, the result of a hard work of the society and government for the sake of common prosperity (but also relatively, because democracy is the absolute form is impossible, as well as any other doctrine).
England, France and even the USA can be the examples of such process of the establishment of democracy. These countries fought for what they consider democratic values for a long time and they succeeded. As F. Zakaria has pointed out, “Constitutional liberalism developed in Western Europe and the USA as a defense of the individual's right to life and property, and freedom of religion and speech”. Moreover, during this struggle, these countries have gone through a variety of wars and revolutions (it’s worth recalling at least the French Revolution!).
Consequently, in some countries, including those, about which we have already mentioned, democratic values have already become traditional and customary, or rather the struggle for democratic values, the willingness of citizens to defend their inalienable rights have become customary.
However, in the second case, the democratic regime and the establishment of it can be illiberal. Before we start talking about such cases, it’s worth mentioning that in the contemporary world, or even already from the beginning of second half of the 20th century, democratic values and democracy itself became a kind of brand. The popularization of democracy has become commonplace. So-called “Pax Americana” is a world, where democracy prevails, or rather a world, where the United States of America prevails.
Countries that during the 20th century gained independence, found themselves faced with a choice of the political regime (and the United States or the Soviet Union were actively helping them to choose it, of course). So, exactly this "a free choice" in favor of the democratic system is the first step towards the implementation of the illiberal democracy. If democracy is imposed by the external country, raises the question - where is the democracy? In such cases there is no constitutional liberalism, which is the basis of genuine democracy. So, it’s a typical model of the establishment of the partial democracy.
Such unnatural democracy does not imply fundamental social and political changes in the country, which with the help of powerful mentors were proclaimed democratic. Even fair elections don’t mean the triumph of democracy. In most countries that became democratic spontaneously, the elections were a simple procedure, some kind of a tribute to modernity. For example, Fareed Zakaria wrote that after World War II, after several attempts to move towards democracy most East Asian regimes turned authoritarian.
It’s important to mention once again the significance of the entrenched democratic traditions. For example, while in the UK struggle for rights and various freedoms is familiar, in most Eastern countries a dictatorship is more customary. As F. Zakaria has noted, “Constitutional liberalism has led to democracy, but democracy does not seem to bring constitutional liberalism”.
However, it’s also necessary to note the fact that many Central European countries rather quickly moved from the communism to liberal democracy. A striking example of such a relatively rapid transition can be Czech Republic. However, even here we can find more profound historical causes, namely the entrenched tradition of constitutional liberalism. After all, most of the countries of Central Europe were parts of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which was a classic liberal autocracy. A scientist in his article also pointed out that this amazing connection between a constitutional past and a liberal democratic present is evident in the countries of the Central Europe.
In conclusion we can say that in the modern world the concept of democracy and the ways of its implementation have changed. The illiberal democracy is becoming more extended ones. It is characterized by a kind of artificiality and political hypocrisy. It can be compared with the facelift when internal weaknesses are hidden under the cover of official declarations. The partial democracy may be useful only for the country, which promotes it and for politicians, who play the roles of independent performers of the popular will. However, such a hybrid kind of democracy cannot bear some practical benefits; and it cannot change the situation in the country, in which it is carried out. Moreover, the constitutional liberalism, which is the basis of genuine democracy, forming over a long period of time and only because of it a true democratic state can arise.
Works cited:
"DEMOCRACY: Democracy and Churchill 09.05.03." DEMOCRACY: Democracy and Churchill 09.05.03. Web. 04 May 2016. <http://wais.stanford.edu/Democracy/democracy_DemocracyAndChurchill(090503).html>.
Zakaria, Fareed Rafiq. "The Rise of Illiberal Democracy." Foreign Affairs, Vol. 76, No. 6 (Nov. - Dec., 1997), Pp. 22-43. Council on Foreign Relations, 2015. Web. 04 May 2016. <https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/1997-11-01/rise-illiberal-democracy>.
