The Cultural Particularity of Liberal Democracy

Liberal democracy is liberalized democracy: that is, democracy defined and structured within the limits set by liberalism. The paper outlines the constitutive features of liberalism and shows how they determined the form and content of democracy and gave rise to liberal democracy as we know it today. It then goes on to argue that liberal democracy is specific to a particular cultural context and cannot claim universal validity. This, however, does not lead to cultural relativism as it is possible to formulate universal principles that every good government should respect. The paper offers one way of reconciling universalism and cultural diversity.     

On monarchy

Monarchy is liberalism’s little secret. Given the number of articles and books appearing every year dealing with liberal democracy as the hallmark of contemporary Western societies, it is astonishing that monarchy is rarely ever mentioned despite the fact that monarchy, and not a republic, is the constitutional form of quite a number of Western liberal states. I argue that considering the political reality of the established monarchies in Europe leads into a dilemma: either contemporary liberalism is not the kind of theory it claims to be or it has to reconsider its central tenets. In conclusion, I show that the dilemma cannot be solved or avoided but needs to be embraced by conceiving liberalism not as a applied moral theory but as a political theory that leaves room for various symbolic self-understandings and acknowledges the crooked timber of historical realities.     

Liberal reformism and democratic citizenship

Although not its sole dimension, the idea of equality of rights and resources is one of the basic tenets of liberalism. Liberal equality introduces a reformist thrift in government by determining that government action should aim to create opportunities for the realization of the civil condition. This is a legal and political condition, thereby citizens enjoy a statute of equal rights. Hence, the liberal idea of reformism proceeds by removing the obstacles to the realization of the civil condition and by providing the legal and the material resources for the exercise of citizenship rights. This interpretation is not self‐evident, especially in times when neoliberalism seems to represent the entire liberal tradition. I shall argue that liberal reformism makes up a vital foundation for democracy. Even more, the own survival of democracy in our times depends on its rooting in liberalism.     

Social Democracy or Social Liberalism? Ideological Sources of Liberal Democrat Policy

Liberal Democrat policy has been labelled as social democratic, yet the party has been reluctant to so describe itself. Taking Crosland's The Future of Socialism as a reference point, there appears to be much shared ground between social democracy and Liberal Democrat policy. Meanwhile, the party's tax policy adopted in 2006 takes the Croslandite approach of taxing wealth rather than income. Despite this, the article argues that the party is a social liberal rather than a social democratic one. These two political philosophies have so much in common that it is understandable that some commentators see the influence of social democracy where they might instead perceive social liberalism. Yet the two differ in their attitudes to the state. Both see a positive role for the state in furthering social goods. However, social liberalism shares classical liberal concerns about the dangers of an over-mighty state. This approach underpins Liberal Democrat policy.     

The New Feudalism: Globalization,the Market,and the Great Chain of Consumption*

Drawing on a substantive connection between liberalism and feudalism, I argue that in spite of a nominal commitment to democracy, the American political system is not substantively democratic. On the contrary, the increasing commitment to neoliberal ideology over the past 30 years is having the effect of establishing a private government, one that is strikingly similar to feudalism, where the few rule the many in the interests of the few and status arrives via consumption and market connections. Furthermore, the internationalization of the American politico-economic model, largely via transnational corporations, promises the extension of this New Feudalism throughout the world. Despite the claims that "liberal democracy" promises the end to history, in other words, the future of democracy looks particularly bleak.     

The Kantian Liberal Peace (Revisited)

Democratic peace studies have traditionally identified Kantian "republicanism" with procedural democracy and largely ignored liberalism and constitutionalism, which are even more fundamental for Kant's reasoning behind the liberal peace. A closer look into his major political works reveals that peaceful relations are expected from states with the protection of individual freedoms (liberalism), the rule of law and legal equality (constitutionalism), and representative government (democracy). Only when all three constitutive elements are jointly considered can we uncover the multifaceted nature of Kant's approach to the domestic sources of international peace. In this way, we not only find that monadic and dyadic expectations are consistent with Kant's theory, but also that both normative and interest-based explanations for international peace can equally draw on Kant as their theoretical precursor. We further demonstrate that it is plausible to infer that the Kantian legacy is related to civil peace as well. The propositions we derive from our theoretical reexamination of the Kantian legacy are strongly supported in our quantitative empirical test. Moreover, constitutional liberalism, rather than democracy, shows to be both more central for Kant's theory and empirically more robustly related to international as well as domestic peace.     

Introduction: The Progressive Dilemma in British Politics

This special edition reflects on the contemporary relevance of the insights and concerns of David Marquand's book The Progressive Dilemma. In this Introduction, the editors set the scene for these reflections. They consider the structural changes that have occurred in politics since the 1990s: the impact of globalisation, the erosion of class identities, the rise of ‘identity politics’ and the continued fragmentation of the party system. There has been no reconciliation between the parties of the centre‐left, nor any re‐examination of the ‘liberal tradition’ and the potential for a new synthesis with revisionist social democracy. On the one hand, Corbynism is a radicalised metropolitan species of liberalism, while on the other there are plenty in Labour who stress the need for the party to re‐engage with the traditional, socially conservative values of the working class in a new ‘postliberal’ appeal. Yet the authors argue that those who broadly identify with progressive causes in British politics—animated by the various overlapping strands of social liberalism, social democracy and liberal socialism—have still to work out how to address the historic failings that Marquand so eloquently exposed, to create a new and inspiring intellectual vision that unites and energises the left and centre‐left.     

UTOPIA DEFENDED AGAINST THE LIBERALS

Abstract. The polarity between the Utopian form of thought and liberalism is analysed first with the unsatisfactory mediation of the idea of totalitarianism, then through a comparison of liberal empiricist epistemology with the necessarily rationalist, theoretical approach of Utopians. Incompatible world-views make utopianism anathema to liberals, whatever its content. Utopia is defended against charges of intolerance, unfreedom and coerciveness, partly through a critique of liberal concepts. The utopianism which liberals denigrate appears largely their own invention. Utopians conversely eschewed liberal democracy because, with some justification, they thought elites natural. Similarities between utopianism and radical democracy are elucidated. The apparent, surprising rapprochement between the Utopian outlook and that of pluralist democracy is analysed. Finally, the value of a Utopian approach to political theory is asserted.
Even with the best intentions of making heaven on earth [utopianism] only succeds in making it a hell—that hell which man alone prepares for his fellow-men.     

Review Article: Modus vivendi versus public reason and liberal equality: three approaches to liberal democracy

Liberal democracy constitutes a particularly attractive political model with its emphasis on both popular sovereignty and individual liberty. Recently several new and innovative articulations of the liberal democratic ideal have been presented. This article reviews three of these recent theories and particularly their democratic credentials. The selection includes theories emphasizing modus vivendi, Rawlsian political liberalism and liberal equality. Taken together these theories show different ways to conceptualize democracy within liberal thought. I argue that ultimately all three approaches struggle with articulating a persuasive conception of democracy, but nevertheless these theories show that liberals do think seriously about the role of democracy in their theories.     

Über die Notwendigkeit und Bestimmung liberaler Bürgertugenden

Numerous sociological studies describe the status of contemporary liberal democracy as frightening. Taking up these investigations, this article asks for the pre-conditions of liberal democracy, particularly for their moral foundations. In contrast to the classic political theory of liberalism, these moral foundations are not assumed to be locked in the institutional order of the state, but in a certain morality of the citizens. The first target of the investigation is to proof that a moral quality of the citizens is a necessary prerequisite for the persistence of a liberal democracy. The second aim of the work is to show how these moral orientations (liberal virtues) should be shaped within each citizen. This is clarified by discussing three liberal thinkers (Charles Larmore, John Rawls, and Ralf Dahrendorf). The so distilled central liberal virtue is formulated as follows: The political convictions of the citizens must be justifiable for everybody, i.e. also to citizens with a different world view. Political convictions and values, which are expressed during the political process and which influence the voting-behaviour, should therefore not rely exclusively on one’s own set of moral values. The work closes with a discussion of the implications of this normative claim.     

Posner,Bentham and the rule of economy

Law and economics is a prominent but understudied discourse of liberal government. This essay examines the work of Richard Posner, with special attention to his rediscovery of Jeremy Bentham as a founder of law and economics. Posner's new reading of Bentham accurately identifies Bentham as a fellow anti-juridical theorist of government and a fellow believer in the rule of economy. But Bentham's economy makes room for a range of disciplinary appropriations, and Posner's does not. Posner's economy is entirely defined and exhausted by a particular economic doctrine. The essay suggests that civil society has been over-emphasized in the literature contrasting classical and contemporary liberalism. Instead, it turns attention to a common understanding of law as a non-autonomous and flexible tactic of economic government and to the role of the various sciences that can inform it.     

Ethics and Foreign Policy: the Antinomies of New Labour's 'Third Way' in Sub-Saharan Africa

This article explores how New Labour has attempted to implement its ideas about a 'third way' foreign policy in sub-Saharan Africa. Through an examination of British foreign policy practices, we explore whether New Labour has succeeded in finding a 'third way' between traditional views of socialism and capitalism in Africa. In particular, the article focuses on New Labour's attempts to build peace, prosperity and democracy on the African continent. We conclude that although New Labour's claims to add an 'ethical dimension' to foreign policy have succeeded in giving Britain a higher profile in the international arena, the implementation of such a policy is intrinsically difficult. These difficulties in turn arise from the antinomies embodied in New Labour's policy, or more specifically from the tension between the liberal internationalism of the third way and traditional concerns for the national interest, as well as the contradictions inherent in a commitment to both political and economic liberalism.     

The discourse of 19th-century French liberal socialism

ABSTRACT

This article analyses late 19th-century French liberal socialist syntheses of liberty and equality, building on the existing body of literature on liberal socialism to illustrate the influence of the non-Marxist left on its development through a focus on the work of the Radical, Célestin Bouglé, and the Socialists, Benoît Malon and Charles Andler. The analysis of these thinkers demonstrates the ideological similarities of liberal socialisms of thinkers hailing from both the non-Marxist left and the new liberalism. A concluding section suggests that liberal socialism offers social democrats and progressive liberals an ideological heritage from which to pose a radical alternative to contemporary forms of neoliberalism.     

Class, State and Democracy: Laski, Miliband and the Search for a Synthesis

Socialism comprises several distinct traditions but, for much of the twentieth century, it also struggled to define its position in relation both to the revolutionary Marxist claim that all forms of capitalist state were class dictatorships and to the liberal concept of democracy. This article accepts that there are contradictions between the Marxist and liberal positions, but suggests that these can be embraced positively by socialists. It explores the ideas of Harold Laski and Ralph Miliband to demonstrate this. There were some similarities between the two theorists, but their trajectories differed. Laski began with a radical pluralist perspective into which he later attempted to incorporate a Marxist critique of capitalism, while Miliband started as a Marxist but increasingly sought to integrate strands of thought associated with liberalism into his outlook. The article explains why the positions of both thinkers evolved over time and the comparative discussion highlights their insights into some key problems in socialist political theory. More generally, it concludes that both the liberal and Marxist traditions are a necessary part of socialist thought on class, democracy and the state.     

近代西方政府职能理论之嬗变与政治实践

自由资本主义时期,西方社会思潮的主流是古典自由主义。垄断资本主义时期,国家主义逐渐抬头。现代西方社会,政治上出现了两种改良的思潮:新自由主义与社群主义。在欧陆国家,政府具有较大的权力,负有较广泛的职责。在英美国家,政府权力相对较小,职责范围较为有限。我国政府改革的目标应是建立"小"而"强"的政府。     

Liberal Democracy and Neoliberalism: A Critical Juxtaposition

In this essay I argue that neoliberalism is both an economic and a political doctrine and that its historical trajectory, both conceptual and political, especially in the United States, is better understood in relation to its complex relationship of affinity with liberal democracy. The intersection between liberal democracy and neoliberalism is thus better apprehended from the perspective of the separation of the economic and the political in capitalism and the relative autonomy that it structurally grants to each field of power. Liberal democracy has provided a depoliticized framework that nurtures neoliberalism, while providing it with a cloak of legitimacy. Stated somewhat differently, the historical trajectory of liberal democracy, as a theory and as a practice of power, betrays an anti-democratic tendency that leads to depoliticization and has quelled the democratic politics that once gave credence to it, thus paving the way for the rise of neoliberalism.     

Labour's approach to planning: Economics v politics

Since 1964 the Labour Party has been closely associated with the development in government of a conception of planning which gives pride of place to economic rather than representative opinion. Although ofneo‐liberal inspiration, its adoption by Labour is by no means circumstantial but is historically embedded in social democratic ideology concerning economic organisation. This convergence with neo‐liberalism is especially notable for its tendency towards the denial and ultimate impoverishment of politics. Yet the theoretical basis exists for an approach to planning—ultimately more realistic politically—incorporating and developing rather than devaluing representative democracy.     

Liberal Democracy: One Form or Many?

This article examines whether there are significant differences between liberal democracies which warrant them being classified as different forms of democracy. The article begins by outlining six features of liberal democracy which are crucial in understanding how this type of government works. The subsequent section examines the origins of liberal democracy and considers the relevance of arguments derived from American 'exceptionalism'. Attention is then focused on liberal democratic governments today - by reference to Lijphart's distinction between 'majoritarian' and 'consensus' democracies. Finally, the article looks at whether the form of liberal democracy is changed substantially when it is transplanted into a cultural context different from the one in which it originated. The general conclusion is that there is no case for identifying different forms of liberal democracy.     

Liberal Democracy and the Limits of Democratization

Liberalism has provided both a necessary basis for modern democracy and also a constraint upon it. This duality makes a democratic critique of liberalism both imperative and also problematical, in so far as it threatens the conditions of liberal democracy itself. Two of these conditions are examined - the institution of representation and the principle of the limited state - to discover what limits they might impose on the justifiable ambitions of democratizers, to extend political participation on the one hand, and the social agenda for democratization on the other.