For historical reasons, many states are not culturally and ethnically homogeneous. There can be strong ethnic, linguistic, religious and cultural divisions. In fact, some groups may be actively hostile to each other. A democracy that, by definition, allows massive participation in decision-making also theoretically allows the use of the political process against „hostile“ groups. Liberal states grant legal rights to individual citizens. There were many liberal and undemocratic states. In particular, Britain with its common law, while it is still a serious monarchy. The category „liberal autocracy“ included most of the Western European nations that entered the 2nd century. More recently, while governed by the British, Hong Kong citizens never had a serious choice, but had all the rights under the law. A liberal democracy can take various constitutional forms, as it can be a constitutional monarchy[3] or a republic. It can have a parliamentary system, a presidential system or a semi-presidential system. Liberal democracies generally have universal suffrage that grants the right to vote to all adult citizens, regardless of ethnic origin, gender, property, race, age, sexuality, gender, income, social status or religion. Historically, however, some countries that were considered liberal democracies had more limited voting rights.
Even today, some countries considered liberal democracies do not really have universal suffrage. For example, in the UK, people serving long prison sentences cannot vote, a policy that has been classified as a human rights violation by the European Court of Human Rights. [4] A similar policy is also adopted in most of the United States. [5] According to a study by Coppedge and Reinicke, at least 85% of democracies provided for universal suffrage. [6] Many countries require positive identification before allowing people to vote. For example, in the United States, 2/3 of the states require their citizens to present identification to vote. [7] Decisions made through elections are not made by all citizens, but by those who are members of the electorate and choose to vote. In practice, democracies have restricted certain freedoms. There are various legal restrictions such as copyright and anti-defamation laws.
There may be limits to anti-democratic expressions, attempts to violate human rights and the promotion or justification of terrorism. In the United States, more than in Europe, such restrictions applied to communists during the Cold War. Now, they are more commonly applied to organizations perceived to promote terrorism or incite group hatred. Examples include counterterrorism legislation, the cessation of Hezbollah`s satellite broadcasts, and some laws against hate speech. Critics argue that these restrictions may go too far and that there may not be an appropriate and fair trial. The general justification for these borders is that they are necessary to ensure the existence of democracy or the very existence of freedoms. For example, allowing freedom of expression for those who advocate mass murder undermines the right to life and security. [after whom?] Opinions on the extent to which democracy can expand to include the enemies of democracy in the democratic process are divided.
[Citation needed] If, for these reasons, relatively few people are excluded from these freedoms, a country can still be considered a liberal democracy. Some argue that this differs only quantitatively (and not qualitatively) from autocracies pursuing adversaries, as only a small number of people are affected and restrictions are less severe, but others point out that democracies are different. At least theoretically, opponents of democracy are also allowed due process under the rule of law. Most of the world`s new democracies, on the other hand, emerged in the absence of a liberal tradition and did little to promote it. As the shortcomings of these democracies have become increasingly evident, it has become common to speak of a „democratic recession.“ No one agreed on a definition of populism, with a broader definition established after a lecture at the London School of Economics in 1967. [99] Populism is academically criticized as an ideology with calls from academics to abandon populism as a descriptor because of its imprecision. [100] It is generally not fundamentally undemocratic, but often illiberal. Many will agree on some of the characteristics that characterize populism and populists: a conflict between „the people“ and „the elites,“ with populists siding with the „people“[101], and a strong contempt for the opposition and negative media using labels as „fake news.“ [102] More democracy is associated with higher average self-reported happiness in a nation. Some argue that economic growth, because of its empowerment of citizens, will ensure a transition to democracy in countries like Cuba. However, others deny this, and even though economic growth has led to democratization in the past, it may not do so in the future. Dictators may now have learned to have economic growth without it leading to more political freedom. [47] [48] World Bank research suggests that political institutions are extremely important in determining the prevalence of corruption: (long-term) democracy, parliamentary systems, political stability, and press freedom are all associated with less corruption.
[56] Freedom of information legislation is important for accountability and transparency. India`s Right to Information Act „has already spawned mass movements in the country that bring the lethargic, often corrupt bureaucracy to its knees and completely change the equations of power.“ [57] Galston writes that some observers argue that populism is not unfounded: it represents „an illiberal democratic response to anti-democratic liberalism“ and is therefore less an attack on democracy than a corrective to a deficit in democracy. These observers argue that by removing important issues such as economic, monetary, and regulatory policies from the public agenda and assigning them to isolated institutions of public control and influence, elites have invited the very popular revolt that now threatens to overwhelm them. Orban. extended its control over most areas of life on the path to the formation of a self-proclaimed „illiberal democracy“ in which mutual control was weakened and the prime minister`s allies became the economic elite. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban`s party won another parliamentary majority in last weekend`s elections. Orban, an authoritarian populist, boasts of favoring an „illiberal democracy.“ But what is a liberal democracy? By definition, a liberal democracy implies that power is not concentrated. A critical point is that this could be a disadvantage for a wartime state when a rapid and unified response is needed. Legislators generally have to give consent before starting an offensive military operation, although the executive can sometimes do so itself while keeping the legislature informed. When democracy is under attack, defensive operations usually do not require consent. The people can vote against a conscription army. The tyranny of the majority is the fear that a direct democratic government that reflects majority opinion may take measures that oppress a particular minority.
For example, a minority that possesses property or power (see Federalist No. 10) or a minority of a particular racial and ethnic origin, class or nationality. Theoretically, the majority is a majority of all citizens. If citizens are not legally required to vote, it is usually the majority of those who decide to vote. If such a group is a minority, then it is possible that one minority could theoretically oppress another minority on behalf of the majority. However, such an argument could apply to both direct democracy and representative democracy. Compared to a direct democracy, in which every citizen is forced to vote, in liberal democracies wealth and power are usually concentrated in the hands of a small privileged class that has significant power over the political process (see reverse totalitarianism).