Thread by @Yascha_Mounk

A defense of the term “illiberal democracy.”

(Thread.)

1/n

In a recent piece, Jan-Werner Mueller slams the term.

His basic argument for this is strangely unscholarly: it is that populists like Viktor Orban relish being called illiberal.

2/

nytimes.com/2018/04/05/opi…

The obvious problem with this argument: It applies not only to “illiberal democracy” but also to “populism,” which Mueller *does* want to use.

After all, because it seemingly concedes their popular appeal, Steve Bannon, Donald Trump and many others also love that term.

3/

In short, if Mueller wants to pick our terms to minimize appropriation by Trump or Orban, he should use *neither* illiberal democracy nor populism. I, for my part, will stick with using the terms that actually make conceptual sense.

Is that true of “illiberal democracy”?

4/

Yes.

Our political system tries to realize two main ambitious: individual liberty and collective self-rule.

5/

To afford its citizens individual liberty, a political system needs to grant individual rights, to sustain the rule of law, and to protect the separation of powers. This is the liberal element.

6/

Meanwhile, to give us collective self-rule, a political system needs to have institutions that actually translate popular views into public policies. That is the democratic element.

7/

Now, the main argument for recognizing that a decent political system needs to be both liberal and democratic—and that these are separate attributes—is to avoid the kind of conceptual nonsense which people who deny this distinction keep falling into.

8/

In 2009, a clear majority of Swiss voters banned the building of minarets.

People like Mueller call this “undemocratic” because it violates minority rights. But that just robs the term “democracy” of any discernible meaning.

9/

By using the term “illiberal democracy,” we can do better.

The Swiss referendum was “democratic” in that it reflected the views of the majority. But it was also dangerously “illiberal” in that it violated the rights of an important religious minority.

Simples.

10/

Does this understate the danger Orban poses ? Nope.

When he attacks the judiciary or undermines the freedom of the press, he is being illiberal. But once those attacks advance far enough, Hungarian institutions become thoroughly insulated from the popular will.

11/

Over time, an illiberal democracy is therefore likely to degenerate into an outright dictatorship.

Though Mueller has repeatedly accused me of missing this point, I state this very clearly in The People vs. Democracy.

12/

Sidenote: First, Mueller accused me of embracing “undemocratic liberalism” as a remedy against illiberal democracy. Then, he accused me of embracing “illiberal democracy” as a necessary response to an unresponsive political system. The book makes very clear I do neither.

13/

It’s legitimate to have different opinions about how we use these terms. There’s no one right answer. It ultimately depends on which conceptual scheme best elucidates the world in your mind.

14/

What’s not legitimate, however, is to misrepresent the views of other scholars, or to accuse them of harboring secret sympathies for people like Orban, because they prefer to use a different conceptual scheme.

15/

Because what ultimately matters is that serious scholars in the field are united in being deeply concerned about the acute danger to liberal democracy posed by demagogues like Viktor Orban.

16/16