Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The rise of illiberal democracy. Fareed Zakaria. Foreign Affairs; Nov/Dec ; 76, 6; ABI/INFORM Global pg. By Fareed Zakaria. From Foreign Affairs, November/ December Summary: Around the world, democratically elected regimes are routinely ignoring limits. In Defense of a. Liberal Education. FAREED ZAKARIA. W. W. NORTON & COMPANY New York • London. Page 3. For my children,. Omar, Lila, and Sofia.

Fareed Zakaria Pdf

Language:English, Japanese, Hindi
Published (Last):25.10.2015
ePub File Size:26.56 MB
PDF File Size:16.67 MB
Distribution:Free* [*Register to download]
Uploaded by: GIUSEPPE

Get Instant Access to The Post American World: Release By Fareed Zakaria # f9 EBOOK. EPUB site PDF. Read Download Online. Get Instant Access to The Post American World: Release By Fareed Zakaria # f9 EBOOK EPUB site. PDF. Read Download Online The Post. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data. Zakaria, Fareed. The post- American world / Fareed Zakaria. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and .

The Middle East was essentially dominated by the United States ever since the Soviet withdrawal from Egypt in the early s. The US played the kind of role that Bismarck wanted Germany to play in the 19th century, which is to say it had better relations with every country than they had with each other. So, it was the center of a hub-and-spoke system. That system has decayed because the United States is less willing to put in the time, effort, energy and expenditure, again, largely as a reaction to the Iraq War.

Countries like Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran are, as a result, all jockeying for influence, which is causing a great deal of instability.

You have, in the Middle East now, the worst humanitarian crisis in the world. Twelve million people in Yemen are on the verge of starvation, another 12 million people are in dire need of humanitarian assistance. Now that's the most vivid example, but one will start to wonder what happens if the United States gets less involved in Asia or Europe.

Returning to China: It might not be a hegemon in the same sense as the US in the 20th century, but the country's GDP has grown fold within the last 20 years, and it now claims 15 percent of global GDP.

What do you think that means for the world? At an economic level, that is unmitigated good news.

There will be more consumers, more savers, more investors in the world. All this grows the global economy. And after China will come India. It's not just that China has become quite big, but that it is also moving up the value chain very quickly. Most people would be surprised to hear that nine of the world's 20 top technology companies are from China.


The other 11 are from the US, but ten years ago, 18 or 19 of the companies on this list were American. China is at the cutting edge of the digital economy and will of course try now to assert its own interests and influence — just as the US and Britain did.

The interesting question is whether the United States will allow this expanded self-interest on the part of China. What do you think about it? I've had discussions about this with policymakers in Washington, who bemoan what China is doing in the world. They don't have an answer to the question of what they think an acceptable expansion of China would look like. They apparently have not strategically thought about what it actually means to have another country become an economic superpower and therefore a competitor.

Graham T.

Allison calls this Thucydides's trap, in reference to ancient Sparta's concern about the growing power of Athens and the resulting Peloponnesian War [editor's note: BC]. One famous way to think about the United States is that the US has never been comfortable living in a world that it cannot isolate itself from or dominate. We are in exactly this situation today. What does that mean for liberal democracy, which forms the foundations of the Western nation states?

Statistics and research have shown that the world is getting better and better. Health outcomes and living standards are rising while the number of wars is falling. But it is very difficult to argue that the world is getting better on one metric: liberal democracy.

The situation is similar in Hungary, Poland and India. Latin America is seeing this trend as well.

Look at Brazil — and even Mexico could be heading in this direction. And in all of these cases, what you see is what I call illiberal democracy: the rise of popular leaders who take advantage of their momentary popularity to erode the constitutional basis of liberal democracy. The governments of all of these countries were democratically elected, and some of them are leading their countries to economic success. What, exactly, are you worried about?

There are two components to liberal democracy: the democratic component, with popular participation, voting, elections.

But there is also the liberal component: the rule of law, the protections of individual liberty, the separation of church and state, and the freedom of the press. This liberal element is set out, for example, in the Bill of Rights in America.

Facing a Post‐American World

They are inalienable constitutional rights that cannot be abolished even if the majority wants to do such a thing. In other words, it's a check on democracy to protect against majoritarianism, from the "tyranny of majority," as Alexis de Tocqueville called it. Even these constitutional rights are seemingly being eroded in the illiberal democracies.

Why has there been such an influx of politicians striving for this type of illiberal system? The great challenge for the Western world is to bridge the very deep divide within society between the people who have access to knowledge and capital who are doing well in the world and the people who do not have access to knowledge and capital, who are doing badly.

Is Democracy in Crisis? A Talk by Fareed Zakaria

And it is now becoming a very clear geographic divide: The people who live in cities and metropolitan areas are benefiting while the people who live in rural areas are losing. Look at the protests in France now.

This is the backlash of a group of people who are less connected to the world.

They don't benefit from France's great public transport system; they have to drive to work. They have low incomes, and now they have to finance the higher green taxes through increasing gas and diesel prices? A third or maybe more of the population in the West feels they are not benefiting enough from the supposedly wonderful world of globalization and the information revolution.

Although they see these growth numbers and higher wages, their lives aren't affected at all.

What do you think is going wrong here? Interestingly, this situation has arisen because we in the West place great value on meritocracy — much more so than in the old aristocratic order. In a meritocracy, people are successful and rise because they perform well — at least, that's how the term is commonly defined.

This makes people think that their own success is justified and legitimate, which suggests that people who are less successful are likewise at fault for their own failure.

But the fact that we don't live in a purely meritocratic system is often overlooked: Not everyone starts from the same place and factors like luck also play a major role.

So, in a weird way, meritocracy has had this unforeseen dimension of creating class conflict. What can be done to make up for this imbalance? That's a great question. We know all these forces that are pulling us apart. What are the forces that can bring us together? I think the first thing we have to do is create more opportunities for people who do not have access to capital and knowledge. To my mind, that means a much deeper investment in infrastructure.

I think we need to think about ways to recognize that certain activities need greater help and maybe greater public expenditures. So, I would be in favor of a new kind of redistribution that is focused on those who are losing out because of globalization and information technology What role can Europe play in the world?

Europe is an extraordinary experiment that works very well, overall. The continent has created and maintained institutions and norms that protect liberty and individual rights.

Countries that warred against each other over centuries are now collaborating and coexisting peacefully. It's not as much as, maybe, some people dreamed about, but it's really extraordinary and a substantial accomplishment.

I think what Europe needs to do is to be more strategic and active on the world stage and try to be the second pillar of freedom and democracy in the world, especially at a time when the first pillar, the United States, is weakened or seems uninterested in playing that role.

The West is struggling while the East is flourishing. In your own life you've experienced how the focus of the world is shifting. Democracy is about the accumulation of power.

It takes its roots from French Revolution. The philosophy behind constitutional liberalism is natural rights theory which claims that human beings have some inviolable rights like the right to live, right İsa USLU to have property etc.

Whereas democracy is about the accumulation of power, constitutional liberalism is about the limitation of power. Although in the 19th centur the suffrage right percentage was very low and there were autocratic governments, there was still constitutional liberalism up to a degree.

Western model is not only symbolized by plebiscite, but in addition with the impartial judge. However, democracy does not necessarily lead to constitutional democracies.

East-Asian countries: After World War II, they experienced a short period of democracy, but soon they turned into autocratic regimes. However, from autocratic regimes they have been transforming into democracies gradually in recent years. East-Asian governments are like governments of the early 20th century Europe. Other Ways: In other countries, modernization did not emerge like in the West.

In addition, democracy has been introduced before constitutional liberalism in most of these countries. Usurpation is very common among Latin American governments and former Soviet Union countries. In these regimes, presidency is also stronger. Vertical usurpation more common : limiting the power of regional and local authorities as well as private businesses and other non-governmental political actors. In the Middle-East, democracy leads to stronger Islamic, anti-secularist regimes.

Choose your language

However, Zakaria thinks that reforms would not be permanent if they are not supported and made in accordance with constitutional liberalism. They can also choose the populist way Emrah KAYA and cease to make reforms that are against the will of people. However, eastern European countries have been able to pass successfully from communism to liberal democracies.

In assumes that democratic countries would never make war. However, by democracy by Kant and Zakaria mean democracies backed up with constitutional liberalism. We need to revive constitutionalism liberal constitutionalism. We have made overemphasis on elections in transitional countries. Constitutions are not simple paper works. We need not to support illiberal democracies. Reforms made by dictatorships would not be lasting. Instead of searching new lands to democratize, USA should try to improve democracies by promoting constitutional liberalism.I was fascinated by the intellectual element of high school, and I wanted to read things for pleasure and understand the world, but I couldn't find a lot of people who were like-minded.

Fareed Zakaria begins this article[3] by mentioning about rising nationalist and racist movements around the world. Although in the 19th centur the suffrage right percentage was very low and there were autocratic governments, there was still constitutional liberalism up to a degree. It was a completely magical time for me.

"Nobody has a monopoly on the truth"

But there is also the liberal component: the rule of law, the protections of individual liberty, the separation of church and state, and the freedom of the press. Look at Brazil — and even Mexico could be heading in this direction. Company Inc. How should the United States understand and thrive in this rapidly changing international climate?