en.m.wikipedia.org
Talk:Liberal democracy

Credibility of V-Dem Varieties of Democracies
Why is this organization cited as an authority? V-Dem hides their sources, but it looks like its ratings are made by liberal democrats from US academia (which is 90% Democrat)? Shouldn't a cited source be credible or at least have its survey results be based on unbiased participants? Their allegation of the "autocratization" of the US ...see referenced https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/2020-02/FH_FIW_Report_2018_Final.pdf​. ... is based solely on the current democratically elected president executing the office of president according to the US Constitution and held to those standards by congress and the courts. Is V-Dem a sufficiently reliable source to be the only reference for assertion that the USA is somehow less of a constitutional democracy now than it was 4 years ago? — Preceding unsigned comment added by N0w8st8s (talkcontribs) 07:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Definition of liberal democracy does not include
Liberal democracy does not include the concept known as "separation of powers" which is peculiar to the US type systems. For example, the UK has legislative supremacy which is not a variety of the concept called separation of powers and the UK is definitely a liberal democracy. Calif.DonTracy (talk) 23:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Secular state
Aren't the states with liberal democracy secular states? DarkLink (talk) 22:21, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Edit: I'm asking because if the states with liberal democracy are secular states, it should be mentioned in the article. DarkLink (talk) 20:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Populism section lacks neutrality
This section maintains a strong opposition to populism by labeling it a threat to liberal democracy without an adequate explanation for why this is. The examples of populism cited are exclusively right wing without any left wing balance.
for example:
"Populism is a form of majoritarianism, threatening some of the core principles of liberal democracy such as the rights of the individual. Examples of these can vary from Freedom of movement via control on Immigration, or perhaps opposition to Liberal Social Values such as gay marriage"
It's unclear from this how a control on Immigration constitutes a threat to the "rights of the individual," every country has some level of control on immigration, at what point does immigration practices become contrary to natural rights? or is every country populist and anti-individual rights? Similarly, opposition to gay marriage was overwhelmingly the position on both sides of the political divide only 20 years ago. At what point does a political position become solidified as a "liberal social value" and thus opposition is populist and antithetical to liberal democracy? Was everyone populist and antithetical to liberal democracy as recently as the 1990s? Is everyone currently a populist and antithetical to liberal democracy for opposing a majority view held in the future?
"A key weakness of liberal democracies highlighted in 'How Democracies Die',[99] is the conundrum that suppressing populist movements or parties can be seen to be illiberal. The nature of Populism is to appeal to the people against the 'elites' in an 'us against them' type mentality. As a result, Populist movements often appeal to the Working Class and Middle Classes as these are the demographics who form most of the population and are in a position to 'punch up' in society against the 'elite'."
This needs to be elaborated on because it's unclear why opposition to "elites" is bad for liberal democracy? the "conundrum" that suppressing populist movements is illiberal is unclear, it seems entirely illiberal to suppress a political movement and no explanation is provided as to why this would ever be considered necessary to protect liberalism.
"Examples of populist movements can include the Brexit Campaign, 2016.[103] The role of the 'elite' in this circumstance was played by the EU and 'London centric Liberals',[104] while the Brexit campaign appealed to Working class industries, such as fighting, agriculture and industrial, who were worse off due to EU Membership."
It is unclear from this why those who are disproportionately harmed by an existing policy represent a threat to liberal democracy when their grievance manifests politically. Is not the protection of the less fortunate and the individual from oppression a core virtue of liberal democracy?
This section just needs to be balanced and fleshed out. It appears to be written from a very left wing position and portrays populism as any opposition to left wing politics, thus opposition to left wing politics is equated with illiberalism. This is in direct contradiction with the importance of compromise and balancing of opinions that characterizes liberal democracy. It's possible this was unintential and simply the result of being incomplete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pattylabonion (talkcontribs) 11:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Return to "Liberal democracy" page.
Last edited on 6 April 2021, at 17:55
Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless otherwise noted.
Privacy policy
Terms of Use
Desktop
HomeRandomNearbyLog inSettingsDonateAbout WikipediaDisclaimers
WatchEdit