My new column—part of a series we're calling "First Drafts":
Is democracy its own end, or a means to other things we hold dear? Is there a way to promote democracy abroad *without* promoting liberalism?
wisdomofcrowds.substack.com/p/first-draft-…
Is democracy its own end, or a means to other things we hold dear? Is there a way to promote democracy abroad *without* promoting liberalism?
wisdomofcrowds.substack.com/p/first-draft-…
Some additional thoughts based on some of the replies. First, democracy is good even if it leads to bad outcomes. We've become so used to seeing democracy & liberalism as intertwined that we've lost sight of why democracy, as a set of mechanisms and procedures, is so valuable 1/
Why is democracy good even when it doesn't bring about liberal outcomes? Democracy allows for peaceful transfer of power, particularly in ideologically polarized contexts. As a system of conflict regulation, it contributes to long-term, if not necessarily short-term, stability 2/
Democracy offers predictability, since losers of elections have the chance to fight another day, as long as they’re willing to fight peacefully 3/
If democracy is merely a means to liberalism, that has serious implications. If liberalism is the ultimate goal, and democracy matters insofar as it guarantees liberalism, then discarding democracy can be justified if it doesn't produce liberal outcomes (which it often won't) 4/
To explicitly prioritize liberalism over democracy invites both citizens and leaders to attack the foundations of democracy in the name of liberalism 5/
This is why I'd argue that those who prioritize liberalism over democracy when the two are in tension aren't necessarily democrats. Because the default is that they are in tension; the notion that they go together is a recent (and misleading) innovation 6/
