A political system in its simplest sense is the set of formal and legal institutions that

constitute a government or a state, the system consists of political behavior, political culture and
political socialization which all comprise of how the state functions. With this definition in mind,
can liberal democracy be considered as the most balanced political system? Before such a
question can be answered, we must understand the true concept of liberal democracy along with
the advantages and disadvantages associated with such a system. We must also consider the fact
that there are many different types of political systems, all of which have their own gains and
challenges, some which are more popular than others and may be deemed as more suitable for
the current world in which we live.
The most basic meaning of the word democracy is the rule of the people, whereas,
liberal may be referred to freedom and openness to change. Therefore the word "liberal" in
liberal democracy is not just who rules but how that rule is exercised. According to a column on
uslegal.com a liberal democracy is a form of representative democracy with a free and fair form
of elections and competitive political processes. Buddans (1991) definition is also similar. He
went on to say, elections are held at regular intervals in the context of guaranteed civil and
political rights, the accountability of a government and a system where rights are established by a
constitution. In the modern world, the election of legislative representatives and other public
officials is the chief mechanism by which people exercise their rule. Today it is further
presumed that democracy implies the rights of individuals such as freedom of speech, assembly,
religion etc, it is also limited by the rule of the law (fundamental law or constitution) and
universal adult suffrage i.e. universal voting rights. Despite the number of definitions associated
with Liberal Democracy, elections are regarded as representing the popular feature of
contemporary liberal democracy.

'Democracy is neither black nor white nor red. It is the emporium of passions and
interests, the blend of outrage with virtue, sacredness with villainy. Its value and taste is
especially recognizable when it's already losing the game under the pressure of fundamentalist
ideas. This may be the most important message of the 20th century. (Michnik, 1997). How then is
Liberal Democracy beneficial? Does it strengthen and invigorate the political system? It can be
argued that Liberal Democracies definitely reflects the will of the people and fosters
participation. This is expressed regularly through free and fair elections. The growing
sovereignty of individuals is one of the most important advancements of humankind.
Sovereignty enables people to make choices, according to their own ambitions, possibilities and
sensitivities. By encouraging peoples participation in the entire development processes, more
effective and sustainable development outcomes can be ensured, as people can feel more
ownership towards the activities in which they are participating. Taking this into consideration,
liberal democracy has as its foundation, respect for the human person and the rule of law. In
history, the seemingly arbitrary rule of monarchs or dictators has been heavily criticized in the
leadup to various pro-democratic revolutions.
Along with reflecting the will of the people, Liberal democracy decentralizes power and
prevents small ruling elite from controlling the entire political apparatus. Contemporary liberal
democracies, like those found in North America and Europe are designed in a way which makes
it extremely difficult for one political party to monopolize the system and this is done either by
the separation of powers or the limits of a constitution. Decentralization is intended to bring
numerous improvements as it can contribute to further democratization, more efficient public
administration, more effective development and good governance. According to the article, Good
Governance and Human Rights, United Nations, the term good governance relates to political

and institutional processes and outcomes that are deemed necessary to achieve the goals of
development.
In addition to decentralization and reflecting the will of the people through participation,
a stable or balanced political system must comprise of some form of competition. Competition is
not only politically fundamental but it is also a necessity in the entire world as a more
competitive market fosters a more functional government, generates more wealth, makes the
governments job much easier which in turns makes the people happier. Liberal Democracy
facilitates capitalism and both systems allow for beneficial competition whereas communism
does not. Like a perfect economic market, perfect political competition leads to optimal
outcomes, giving a choice to voters between political products, which forces politicians to
respond to changes in voters preferences and to engage in policy product innovation. On the
other hand, competition provides voters with a mechanism to punish politicians who fail to
implement their electoral promises or who are dishonest or corrupt (cf. Fearon, 1999). As a
result, there is no denying that the liberal democracy with a capitalist economy allows for a
balance between liberty and security.
Even though, competition exists, liberal democracy promotes equality among the citizens
and they have equal political resources in terms of education, organization and citizenship rights.
Any citizen can aspire to contest election for any post irrespective of his or her caste, religion,
socio-economic background. Basically, economic inequalities are not so severe that they rob
large groups of political voice and power. Although, the majority rule, the system gives way
where ethnic minorities have representation in parliament, provincial and local legislatures and
all citizens are treated equally by government regardless of their class, region, religion, ethnicity,
gender, party or beliefs.

Another positive aspect of liberal democracy is the relationship between economic

prosperity and freedom. According to Dr. Fraser Cameron, in his article, Is Liberal Democracy
the best form of Government to produce Public Goods? he stated, According to the World
Bank, of the 80 worst financial catastrophes during the last 40 years, only five were in
democracies. It is also worth noting that no functioning democracy has ever suffered a large
scale famine; and refugee crises almost always occur in non-democracies. Democracies also
tend to manage resources and public goods better than authoritarian systems. Russia, for
example, wastes as much gas each year as France consumes as there is no incentive to apply
strict rules on energy efficiency. Huntington (1991) further attributed the rise of liberal
democracies due to the unprecedented economic growth in the 1960s which raised living
standards, increased education and expanded the urban middle class in many countries.
Despite the many advantages of liberal democracies, there are also several draw-backs
and challenges associated with such a political system. The recent financial crisis of the West
which impacted an economic recession in the United States and Europe shook the foundations of
western liberal values. According to Dr. Fraser Cameron, the assumptions of liberal democracy
have been questioned especially as some authoritarian states such as China have apparently
weathered the storm better than Europe or the US.
In a democratic country, it is the common man who has the supreme right to choose
their legislature and their prevailing authorities, however, not all the people are completely
conscious of the political circumstances in their nation. The common masses may not be
acquainted with the political matters of the society which can lead to poor decisions and mistakes
in the decision and selection process during elections. This is evident right here in Jamaica,
where we have the traditional die-hearted voters. Despite the current political situations, during

elections, these persons vote for the same political party for their entire lifetime because its the
norm in their family. This mentality can be referred to as tribal mentality and in a democracy,
tribal mentality is very dangerous, because it will make you vote for your team instead of
voting according to issues. Hordes can also manipulate and influence the citizens, people may
vote in support of a party under the pressure of the bulk. Constrained by the ideas of those
around, as a result, an individual may not put across their accurate judgment.
Another disadvantage is the fact that authorities may lose sight or focus of their true
function and duty to the citizens. Most of the attention may be centered on gaining power and
winning the elections. After a tenure, since the government is bound to changes and
modifications, the authorities may function with an interim goal which is beneficial to the
citizens. However, the goal may never be met as the government must go through an election
procedure, causing even more changes to the system.
In addition, it can be argued that liberal democracies promote the illusion of equality.
According to the article, Why are Liberal Democracies so bad at creating economic equality?
by Walden Bello. Even more than dictatorships, with Western-style democracies, we are forced
to conclude that the natural system of governance is under neoliberal capitalism, for they
promote rather than restrain the savage forces of accumulation that lead to ever-greater levels of
inequality and poverty. In fact, liberal-democratic systems are ideal for the economic elites, since
they feature periodic electoral exercises that promote the illusion of equality, thus granting these
systems an aura of legitimacy.
Another common criticism of democracy is that in the end, it devolves into a popularity
contest. The polls do not decide who is right, the decision can simply be based on and in favor
of whoever is most willing to say what people like to hear. Furthermore, many candidates resort

to populism, pursuing policies that focus on the immediate satisfaction of whims instead of longterm improvements.
Last but not least, corruption is not a specific flaw of liberal democracy and it can be
argued that this type of system tends to be less prone to corruption than other systems as it opens
up the possibilities of removing someone from office. However, a specific kind of corruption
may exist, where candidates or political parties use bribery or money in exchange for a vote.
Huntington (1991) also attributed liberal democracy to the breakdown of law and order resulting
from terrorism and insurgency which is a more wide-scale form of corruption. Terrorism is
conceived as a form of political communication (Crelinsten 1989), a group of people who
cannot communicate by democratic tools with the government, may resort to terrorism as a form
of communication in any political state including liberal democratic states.
In 1989, Francis Fukuyama declared that democracy would eventually emerge as the
universal form of human government, however, based on research liberal democracy remains a
vigorously contested concept. Even though liberal democracy is now the ideal political system in
the West and it is perceived to maximize power, wealth, income and opportunity, it faces serious
challenges of inequality, unfairness and corruption. All political systems have a faade of pros
and cons, the success of each can be determined by a myriad of factors. Times gone by,
communism may have in fact experienced welfare and economic achievements, however, there is
a possibility that the people and society have been scarred and wounded by dictatorship, lack of
political freedom, restriction of civil liberties and massive repression. According to Trevor
Munroe, the democratic system is likely to be sustained, but democracy in the post-communist
societies is likely to be different in the Western countries because of the disparity in culture and
the fact that socialist parties are likely to have strong popular support. Without doubt, it would

be politically incorrect to state that liberal democracy is the most balanced political system as
each nation deals with a diverse population clothed with an array of distinct histories. Systems
that worked in Western countries like America and the United Kingdom utterly failed in other
countries. It is the historical nature of nations that largely provide the background for a political
system to function within.

REFERENCES

Michnik, A. (1997, 4-5 january). Gazeta Wyborcza. [Weblog]. Retrieved 20 November

2015,

Munroe, T. (1985). An introduction to politics. (3rd ed.). Jamaica: Canoe press

Cameron, F. (2013, 5th july). Is liberal democracy the best form of government to
produce public goods. [Weblog]. Retrieved 19 November 2015, from
http://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg

Bell, D.A. (2006). Beyond Liberal Democracy. England: Princeton university press

Kubiak, H. (, ). Democracy, its principles and achievements. [Weblog]. Retrieved 22

November 2015,
Wilkinson, P. (2011). Terrorism versus democracy. (3 ed.). England: Routledge.
Cinar, B. (2010). The relationship between terrorism and liberal democratic states.
European Journal of Economic and Political Studies, 3(2), 209-210.
Simonson, A.J. (2013). 10 reasons why democracy does not work. Retrieved 21
November, 2015, from http://listverse.com/

UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF THE CARIBBEAN

Liberal Democracy is seen as one of the most balanced

political systems. Discuss five negative and positive
aspects of liberal democracies.

Completed by: Natalie Clarke

ID#20122284

Course: Introduction to Politics (POL100), Sundays @12:15pm

Kemal Brown
November 22nd, 2015