Introduction
Illiberal democracy, a controversial political concept, has challenged liberal democracy in recent years. Illiberal democracies seem democratic but weaken liberal concepts like the rule of law, individual rights, and pluralism (Zakaria, 1997). Illiberal democracy’s problems, rewards, and effects on democratic government and social development are examined in this study. This research examines illiberal democracies in many places and circumstances to illuminate their complexity. The study uses a variety of academic sources and empirical data to examine how illiberal tendencies affect democratic government and social ideals. Illiberal democracy threatens human rights, democratic institutions, global democracy, and cooperation. Illiberal democracy supporters claim it may boost economic development and populist political victory in the near run. The study contends that the long-term effects of illiberal democracy raise questions about its viability and prospective effects on democratic norms and institutions. This paper examines the pros and cons of illiberal democracies to advance political models and democratic governance debates. It emphasizes the need for a thorough knowledge of illiberal democracy to guide global democratic principles and institutional initiatives.
Illiberal Democracy
Illiberal democracy is a hybrid style of administration with elected leaders and democratic institutions but illiberal inclinations. Illiberal democracy may vary by country and environment. These democracies may initially (Zakaria, 1997). have free and fair elections to elect leaders and institutions. They challenge liberal democratic norms and ideals once in power. Illiberal tendencies may limit civil rights, freedom of speech, press, and assembly, the rule of law, power concentration in the governing class, and media and judicial independence.
Analyzing Democracy-Liberalism Tensions
Democracy and liberalism’s differing values cause conflict. Majority rule and political representation define democracy. It promotes frequent, competitive elections to give the people political control. Liberalism promotes individual rights, liberties, and the rule of law, protecting minorities and resisting majority control. Democratic results that violate liberal values cause conflict. Illiberal democracies may allow elected leaders to reduce checks and balances. It may involve appointing government allies to the court or censoring critical media. Thus, liberal democratic institutions are weakened, compromising the separation of powers and the rule of law.
Illiberal leaders with electoral mandates hinder civil freedoms and free speech, creating another contradiction. They may claim they protect the majority or national security, yet their actions may affect individual and human rights. In these cases, democratic legitimacy conflicts with liberal ideals, making the democratic process anti-liberal. Illiberal democracies also threaten democratic norms and institutions. Liberal ideas may damage democratic regimes by eroding public faith in institutions, political engagement, and individual rights.
Illiberal democracy is a complicated political paradigm that conflicts with liberal values. Civil freedoms, power centralization, and assaults on independent institutions threaten liberal democracy. Illiberal democracies’ effects on governance, human rights, and political stability depend on understanding these contradictions. To understand this changing political system and guide global democratic norms and institutions policy.
Practical Illiberal Democracies
Hungary: Viktor Orbán’s Illiberal Revolution
Under Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, Hungary has steadily moved toward illiberalism. Since 2010, Orbán and Fidesz have adopted policies and reforms that have prompted worries about democratic loss and power consolidation (Deák, 2013).
Hungary’s illiberal tilt weakens democracy and checks & balances. Critics say Orbán’s constitutional reforms have consolidated executive authority and weakened the judiciary. After reorganization, the Constitutional Court can no longer question government activities. Fidesz has also stacked the National Media and Infocommunications Authority with supporters, restricting media freedom and critical voices. This weakening of institutional independence has concentrated power in the governing party, making it harder for opposition parties and civil society to oppose the government.
Hungary’s democracy is also threatened by Orbán’s civil liberties and human rights attacks. The “NGO Law” restricts civil society groups and has hampered government-critical non-governmental organizations. The government’s dominance over state-funded media has likewise hampered journalistic freedom. These restrictions have reduced dissent and critical voices, eroding liberal democracy’s pluralism.
Turkey: Erdogan’s Authoritarianism
Under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey, a beacon of moderate Islam and democratic reform, has moved toward illiberal authoritarianism. After initially strengthening democratic institutions and human rights, Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party (AKP) has sparked worries about democratic backsliding and political plurality (Karaveli, 2016).
Erdogan’s presidency is centralized. The contentious 2017 constitutional referendum that created an executive presidential system increased the president’s power and weakened legislative checks and balances. This shift worries about presidential overreach and democratic accountability.
Human rights violations and civil freedoms have resulted from the government’s crackdown on perceived dissent, especially after the 2016 coup attempt. Thousands of academics, journalists, and government workers have been detained or fired, restricting academic and free speech. Acquisitions by pro-government enterprises have reduced media variety and independence.
The AKP’s dominance has also eroded political plurality in Turkey. Opposition parties have struggled to access state-controlled media and campaign chances, increasing worries about election integrity. The government’s efforts to limit Kurdish political organizations and pro-Kurdish activities have further raised tensions.
Finally, Hungary and Turkey show how illiberal democracies may grow and undermine democracy. The illiberal shift in these nations weakens democratic checks and balances, media independence, and civil rights. Understanding the paths of illiberal democracies in diverse situations helps explain their problems and their effects on democratic governance and human rights. These examples show that illiberal democracies pose complicated and nuanced difficulties that need study to shape democratic norms and values policies.
Illiberal Democracy’s Problems
Human Rights Threats
Illiberal democracies threaten civil and human rights. These political systems may seem democratic but limit people’s speech, expression, and assembly (Zakaria, 1997). Illiberal politicians may use their election mandate to suppress dissent and diminish political plurality and free speech.
Illiberal societies sometimes limit free speech by silencing critical media and journalists. Threats, intimidation, and legal action may discourage investigative work and self-censorship in independent media. The governing elite’s dominance or co-optation of state-controlled media limits public access to balanced news and different opinions.
Opposition parties may be hindered in illiberal democracies. Civil society groups critical of the government may need more support in organizing and engaging individuals by laws or regulations. Opposition parties may need help to get state campaign resources and contend with biased election commissioners.
Illiberal democracies threaten minority rights and disadvantaged communities. The governing class may discriminate against minority groups due to power concentration. As their rights and voices are stifled, marginalized groups, including ethnic or religious minorities, LGBTQ+ communities, and women, may become more vulnerable.
Democracy Erosion
Illiberal democracies struggle with institutional decay. Illiberal tendencies may erode essential institutions’ independence and effectiveness, endangering these systems’ democratic underpinnings (Zakaria, 1997).
In a democracy, the court protects individual rights and upholds the law. In illiberal democracies, the governing class may try to influence court selections and judgments. Politicizing the court may damage public faith in its impartiality and capacity to curb political authority.
In illiberal democracies, electoral commissions may be threatened. Gerrymandering and voting suppression may help governments consolidate power. Such tactics damage election fairness and credibility, casting doubt on democratic results.
Legislative bodies may need help to control presidential authority. Dominant governing parties may adopt legislation that reduces checks and balances, increasing executive authority. Opposition parties may have fewer legislative possibilities, limiting the democratic representation of varied ideas.
In summary, illiberal democracy threatens human rights, civil freedoms, political participation, and democratic institutions. Illiberal democracies may impede freedoms and political participation. The erosion of democratic institutions, including the courts, electoral commissions, and legislatures, raises worries about the long-term viability of these political systems. Understanding these problems is essential for informed policymaking and tactics to defend democratic principles against illiberal inclinations. Understanding these problems and their effects on democratic government and human rights requires a high level of understanding.
Illiberal Democracy’s Advantages
Economic growth and stability arguments
Illiberal democracy may boost growth and stability(Zakaria, 1997). This idea holds that illiberal leaders’ strong leadership and decisiveness can accelerate economic changes and progress. Leaders in illiberal democracies can avoid bureaucratic impediments and execute programs quickly without liberal checks and balances. Decision-making agility may help implement economic initiatives, attract investment, and boost economic growth.
Illiberal politicians also put economic interests before civil liberty and human rights. This focus on economic development may prioritize infrastructure improvements, foreign direct investment, and industrial growth. These leaders may gain local and international backing for economic progress, improving stability and prospects.
Illiberal leaders’ concentrated power allows for a more coordinated and consistent economic vision, avoiding the deadlock that can occur in pluralistic and diverse liberal democracies. This centralization promotes economic growth and company stability.
Popularity and Elections
In illiberal democracies, populist leaders exploit nationalist and anti-establishment sentiments. These politicians appeal to disaffected and marginalized people’s discontent with political elites and institutions (Zakaria, 1997). Populist leaders in illiberal democracies win over disenfranchised voters by portraying themselves as outsiders who can transform the system.
Populist leaders utilize emotional language to create a sense of identity and belonging. They use nationalist myths to foster national pride and a distinct cultural identity, appealing to those who fear globalization and cultural uniformity.
In illiberal democracies, populist politicians may pose as defenders of the people against entrenched and corrupt political elites. This positioning helps them win over disillusioned voters.
Populist leaders in illiberal democracies win elections by appealing to the masses with charisma and relatability. They promise transformation and a return to a golden age, playing on people’s grievances and fears. Populist leaders can win big elections and gain political power.
Finally, illiberal democracy advocates emphasize economic growth and stability from strong leadership and firm decision-making. Leaders in illiberal democracies win elections with nationalist and anti-establishment populism. These explanations often violate democratic norms, human rights, and institutional integrity. Thus, they must be examined critically. PhD-level analysis is needed to comprehend the complexities and implications of these benefits and explanations in the context of illiberal democracies’ problems and long-term effects.
Illiberal Democracy’s Effects
Threats to Democracy and World Order
Illiberal democracies threaten democracy and world order. The rule of law, human rights, and political pluralism are threatened when illiberal politicians consolidate power and weaken democratic institutions. Illiberal democracies may embolden authoritarian regimes internationally, lowering global democratic standards (Zakaria, 1997).
Illiberal democracies also threaten international collaboration. Illiberalism may impair global health, human rights, and climate change collaboration. Illiberal leaders may prioritize national interests over international collaboration and multilateralism, fragmenting the global order.
Illiberal democracies’ international behavior may generate concerns about their ties to authoritarian regimes. These coalitions could threaten regional stability and democratic forces in adjacent countries.
Regional and Global Stability
Illiberal democracies threaten regional and global stability. In illiberal regions, surrounding countries may face pressure to comply or security issues(Zakaria, 1997). Illiberal presidents may pursue aggressive foreign policies, which could lead to territorial disputes or wars with neighboring states.
Illiberal democracies can also affect foreign relationships. Illiberal politicians may threaten regional order, causing regional instability. These countries aligning with other illiberal or authoritarian states might strain international ties and generate new geopolitical fault lines.
Illiberal democracies can export their practices and ideology, destabilizing regional and global stability. Democratic backsliding or political crises may lead countries to consider illiberal models. Illiberal behaviors exported could jeopardize regional stability and democratic transitions in adjacent governments.
Finally, illiberal regimes threaten democratic norms, international collaboration, and regional stability. These political systems’ democratic values are eroding, which threatens global collaboration. Illiberal democracies can undermine regional stability and international relations, creating new geopolitical concerns. Understanding these implications is crucial to developing effective responses and policies to combat illiberal democracy and protect democratic ideals at the regional and global levels.
Conclusion
Illiberal democracy is a complicated approach that challenges democracy and liberalism. Illiberal democracies may have short-term benefits, but the erosion of liberal values raises worries about their long-term stability and democratic administration. Illiberal democracy and its possible effects on democratic norms and institutions require careful consideration of real examples, problems, benefits, and implications. This report shows that this emergent political model’s effects need additional study and critical debate.
References
The rise of illiberal democracy. Foreign Aff., 76, 22.
https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/fora76&div=110&id=&p age=
Deák, A. (2013). Hungarian Dances-The Origins and the Future of Viktor Orbán’s Revolution.
Lithuanian Annual Strategic Review, 11(1), 145.
https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/74207576/Deak_final_article-libre.pdf?1636053044=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DHungarian_Dances_The_Origins_and_the_Fut.pdf&Expires=1690019423&Signature=bepaFoFAztJFSwnIibA5hYvW21tZUpwidM52cufhRpNgtzlNVKPpZQxppGQvU9ufcPrvgH61NeUiW58x8p7LCEzPC8pQgGHUSLxGvrnX7ux9MHkuIQze4Pj3LXTFJ1l2EbjtokBjmdQ0Ahkx92OaGtBLNAABCvZ0v9P5CGIomwVavy81h8Hh8gFS3CIsrmHkNd9H~cOktYfiGAzA6H~AsJMmGkGvMkyC75CM3PueIl8ofTHYwg00-OyxzpyFZ6rbgk-uM42ZOqLWHgRvMlk37sT9r0m-FVSMViX9jGaOfB0dwd6snednejJ2i1IdGYK41aakGCPoJVet8ufVNAJXKA__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA
Karaveli, H. (2016). Erdogan’s Journey: Conservatism and Authoritarianism in Turkey. Foreign
Affairs, 95(6), 121-130.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/43948388
write