Liberal democracy: Difference between revisions

[[Vladimir Lenin]] once argued that liberal democracy had simply been used to give an illusion of democracy while maintaining the dictatorship of the [[bourgeoisie]].{{cncitation needed|date=November 2020}}

Other studies predicted that the global trend toward [[plutonomy|plutonomies]] would continue, for various reasons, including "capitalist-friendly governments and tax regimes".<ref> Kapur, Ajay, Niall Macleod, Narendra Singh: "Plutonomy: Buying Luxury, Explaining Global Imbalances", Citigroup, Equity Strategy, Industry Note: October 16, 2005. p. 9f.</ref> They do, however, also warn of the risk that, since "political enfranchisement remains as was—one person, one vote, at some point it is likely that labor will fight back against the rising profit share of the rich and there will be a political backlash against the rising wealth of the rich."<ref> Kapur, Ajay, Niall Macleod, Narendra Singh: "Revisiting Plutonomy: The Rich Getting Richer", Citigroup, Equity Strategy, Industry Note: March 5, 2006. p. 10.</ref>

On September 18, 2014, Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page's study concluded "Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism."<ref>Gilens, M., & Page, B. (2014). Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens. Perspectives on Politics, 12(3), 564–81. {{doi|10.1017/S1537592714001595}}</ref>

Critics of the role of the media in liberal democracies allege that [[concentration of media ownership]] leads to major distortions of democratic processes. In ''[[Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media]]'', [[Edward S. Herman]] and [[Noam Chomsky]] argue via their [[Propaganda Model]]<ref>Edward S. Herman [http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/199607--.htm "The Propaganda Model Revisited"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120106195120/http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/199607--.htm |date=6 January 2012 }}, ''Monthly Review'', July 1996, as reproduced on the Chomsky.info website</ref> that the corporate media limits the availability of contesting views and assert this creates a narrow spectrum of elite opinion. This is a natural consequence, they say, of the close ties between powerful [[corporation]]s and the media and thus limited and restricted to the explicit views of those who can afford it.<ref>James Curran and [[Jean Seaton]] ''[[Power Without Responsibility: the Press and Broadcasting in Britain]]'', London: Routledge, 1997, p. 1</ref>. Furthermore, the media's negative influence can be seen in social media where vast numbers of individuals seek their political information which is not always correct and may be controlled. For example, as of 2017, two-thirds (67%) of Americans report that they get at least some of their news from social media,<ref>{{Cite web|last=Shearer|first=Elisa|last2=Gottfried|first2=Jeffrey|date=2017-09-07|title=News Use Across Social Media Platforms 2017|url=https://www.journalism.org/2017/09/07/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-2017/|access-date=2021-01-14|website=Pew Research Center's Journalism Project|language=en-US}}</ref>, as well as a rising number of countries are exercising extreme control over the flow of information.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Chapman|first=Terri|date=2019-10-27|title=Liberal democracy is under threat from digitisation as govts, tech firms gain more power|url=https://theprint.in/opinion/liberal-democracy-is-under-threat-from-digitisation-as-govts-tech-firms-gain-more-power/312081/|access-date=2021-01-14|website=ThePrint|language=en-US}}</ref>. This may contribute to large numbers of individuals using social media platforms but not always gaining correct political information. This may cause conflict with liberal democracy and some of its core principles, such as freedom, if individuals are not entirely free since their governments are seizing that level of control on media sites

One argument for democracy is that by creating a system where the public can remove administrations, without changing the legal basis for government, democracy aims at reducing political uncertainty and instability and assuring citizens that however much they may disagree with present policies, they will be given a regular chance to change those who are in power, or change policies with which they disagree. This is preferable to a system where political change takes place through violence.{{cncitation needed|date=June 2020}}

One notable feature of liberal democracies is that their opponents (those groups who wish to abolish liberal democracy) rarely win elections. Advocates use this as an argument to support their view that liberal democracy is inherently stable and can usually only be overthrown by external force, while opponents argue that the system is inherently stacked against them despite its claims to impartiality. In the past, it was feared that democracy could be easily exploited by leaders with dictatorial aspirations, who could get themselves elected into power. However, the actual number of liberal democracies that have elected dictators into power is low. When it has occurred, it is usually after a major crisis has caused many people to doubt the system or in young/poorly functioning democracies. Some possible examples include [[Adolf Hitler]] during the [[Great Depression]] and [[Napoleon III]], who became first President of the [[Second French Republic]] and later Emperor.{{cncitation needed|date=June 2020}}

Numerous studies using many different kinds of data, definitions and statistical analyses have found support for the democratic peace theory.{{citation needed|date=August 2016}} The original finding was that liberal democracies have never made war with one another. More recent research has extended the theory and finds that democracies have few [[militarized interstate dispute]]s causing less than 1,000 battle deaths with one another, that those militarized interstate disputes that have occurred between democracies have caused few deaths and that democracies have few [[civil wars]].<ref>{{cite journal |author=Hegre, Håvard, Tanja Ellington, Scott Gates, and Nils Petter Gleditsch |title=Towards A Democratic Civil Peace? Opportunity, Grievance, and Civil War 1816–1992 |journal=American Political Science Review |year=2001 |volume=95 |pages=33–48 |url=http://www.worldbank.org/research/conflict/papers/peace.htm |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060209113811/http://www.worldbank.org/research/conflict/papers/peace.htm |archive-date=9 February 2006 |doi=10.1017/s0003055401000119}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |author=Ray, James Lee |title=A Lakatosian View of the Democratic Peace Research Program From Progress in International Relations Theory, edited by Colin and Miriam Fendius Elman |url=http://sitemason.vanderbilt.edu/files/g/gDf5Ty/6%20ray%20demo%20peace%20FIRST%20PROOFS.pdf |publisher=MIT Press |year=2003 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060625203811/http://sitemason.vanderbilt.edu/files/g/gDf5Ty/6%20ray%20demo%20peace%20FIRST%20PROOFS.pdf |archive-date=25 June 2006 }}</ref> There are various criticisms of the theory, including at least as many refutations as alleged proofs of the theory, some 200 deviant cases, failure to treat "democracy" as a multidimensional concept and that correlation is not causation.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Haas |first1=Michael |title=Deconstructing the "democratic peace" : how a research agenda boomeranged |publisher=Publishinghouse for Scholars |location=Los Angeles, CA |isbn=9780983962625}}</ref>{{page? needed|date=January 2021}}