Transcription
All right. So, hi everyone. Um, and welcome to our podcast. So, today we're going to dive into one of the biggest modern political questions being, is liberal democracy still the best way to keep things stable or is it becoming more broken?
I'm Eleanor and I'll be moderating. >> I'm Love and I'll be advocating for the uh liberal democratic liberal model. Um, I'm Mal and I'm also defending the liberal democratic model. >> I'm Eli and I'm defending populism and arguing against liberal democracies. >> And I'm Victor and I'm defending populism model. >>
Um, so this debate is inspired by the ideas of John Lockach who's known as the father of liberalism. So Loach believed that the government should only have power if people agree to it. But it seems like in recent years we've seen quite an increase of populism around the world. And that's really challenged some of Lock's core ideas and it's raising new questions about things like consent, representation, um the protection of individual liberties, things like that.
So like they were saying earlier um on one side defending liberal democracy we have levan mao they'll argue that um liberal democracy has its flaws but it's still the most stable and just form of government. Um and then on the other side arguing from a populist perspective are Eli and Victor. Um and maybe liberal democracy isn't really resonating with people the way it has in the past. um and it might be time that we reconsider what system is being used.
So before we get into it, there are a few key terms to define. So first up we have liberalism um that focus on things like individual rights um it's limited government and it protects things like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Um it's about the rule of law and getting people's consent to govern. Um and then we have the social contract which is this idea that the government power um will only work if people actually agree to follow the laws. Um but those laws would need to protect their basic rights. So it's about trying to find that sweet spot in balancing things like freedom and authority.
And then there's populism which is more of a political style. It's when a leader claims to speak for the people um and says that the elite or establishment is corrupt or out of touch and populist movements can come from either the left or the right side. Um but it seems like there's usually um there's ri rallying behind a very charismatic leader. Um and then finally political stability. So this means that a government can actually do its job like making sure that there's order uh responding to problems or maintaining the trust of its people over a long period of time. Um
So with that out of the way um our first question is do modern day democracies adequately protect life, liberty and property? Um so as outlined by uh lock the sort of foundations of the legitimacy of government relies in its ability to protect life, liberty and property and we believe that overall it does um since it's aiming for that it it really commits to it and is overall successful. And we can see this in modern democracies where they maintain the rule of law. They create constitutions and maintain these constitutional rights and they hold checks and balances to prevent arbitrary power from leaders to um happen. And we can also see this in nations for example um nations with liberal institutions such as the EU states, Canada, Japan where they score consistently higher on freedom, safety, security indexes compared to other um institutions of um policy. Um
So we we believe that populism threatens these protections made for the people um by having populist leaders who um concentrate their power in either their own hands or the hands of just them and a few other people um attack the press when they express opposing values to their own um uh their own inroup. Uh which both are things that uh Loach warned against. uh and said are a threat to a um healthy and uh successful democracy. And we believe that democracies on the whole are much better for suit uh are much better suited for protecting the rights of people in comparison to authoritarian regimes which is what populist leaders are either aiming for or have achieved um as it allows for them to make the sort of executive decisions. And uh while the processes of a liberal democratic system may be slow and bureaucratic and have sort of lots of um steps to go through, in the end it does allow for equal protections and preventative measures to keep the government from overstepping its authority and um infringing on on rights. Uh which is very important to keep in check if you're trying to protect life, liberty, and property. And we can see uh an authoritarian regime such as uh Russia has not been successful at this um with their treatment of Alexander Nali um whose uh protection of life was clearly violated as he experienced one attack on his life and which was unsuccessful but then also imprisonment which ended in his death after uh expressing opinions which uh contradicted those of Vladimir Putin's government.
All right. And then from the populist perspective, >> well, populist uh we believe that modern democracy no longer truly protect life, liberty, and property. Why? Because today's democracy have become systems controlled by political, economic, and media elites. Um in fact, modern democracy are supposed to rest on popular sovereignity. But today the most important decision are no longer made by the people. Um today we faced for example to the loss of national sovereignity since the creation of the European Union and especially after the mass twitch treaty in 1992. Many state have transferred much uh of their political and economic power to Brussel uh for decision about trade currency for example the euro in 1999 and agricultural policy are now made made by an addicted institution such as the European Commission and a concrete while million of small business just went bankrupt. So it's another proof that modern democracy no really longer protects citizen property but more the assets of the ultraish. >>
All right. And then any rebuttals >> um to address the um populist claim that like um institutions like the EU um have gotten a rid of national sovereignty. um it does mean that um democracy or it doesn't mean that democracy has been confiscated from these nations rather the EU is built on representative consent and the member states have joined voluntarily into the EU and these citizens elect the European Parliament and each government participates in the decision-making for the European Union and so instead of destroying sovereignty the EU shows how liberal democracies can put together their sovereignty to protect each other's rights, economies, and security in a globalizing world. And populists may call this a loss of power, but um in liberalism um they'd see it as sharing power for mutual protection. And we can see this from when um Russia invaded Ukraine. um EU nations they coordinated sanctions, aid and defense to protect um themselves but along with Ukraine and that is what like liberalism is. It defends civility and it's not elites stealing democracy >> and um additionally the concentration of wealth is an issue but liberal democracy itself is not to blame for it. uh and it can fix these issues through um through regulation, through taxation and social reform which is also another benefit of liberal democracies that it does it is a flexible system. It allows for um feedback to be implemented back into the way that um governments function. And uh during the pandemic, billionaires did, sorry, billionaires did grow richer, but uh it was liberal democracies that expanded welfare, unemployment aid, um stimulus checks, and all of these sort of um social benefits that then ultimately did help uh your regular pe regular people during this uh time of distress. And uh this was seen both in the US and the EU uh with their respective governments passing uh like massive relief packages and uh adjusting policies to also help uh smaller businesses and workers um economically recover. >>
All right. Um, as populist ideas continue to gain ground in many places, liberal democracies are being tested, so how could they adapt to solve challenges that do come with the increased of populist ideals >> designed to be adaptive? It involves lock's um concept of the uh idea of the governed allowing for um civil society to um express their discontent and then for the government to revise and change its laws through representation and deliberation. And this is stressed in contrast to Thomas Hobb's uh previous uh concept of a um social contract where the people would be under Leviathan against whom they could not um express their dissatisfaction. They could not revolt. which definitely mirrors the uh dynamics of a lot of authoritarian regimes and the way in which current populist leaders such as Victor Orban um run their run their states. And we could also see that universal suffrage, the um civil rights movement and the welfare system, welfare systems have all uh grown under and been created within liberal frameworks. And uh they were created in response to challenges faced by the civilians and um brought about real change in the forms of laws which the government implemented. governments implemented and uh the checks and balances which these new laws had to go through. Um encourage encourage reform without completely collapsing the institution and leaving um these demands and um matters to be dealt with by uh a single individual or few individuals uh which is usually very volatile and um can also be misdirected quite often. And we can see an example of Germany and their response to the far-right ASD. Um, and it they used this to like reinforce and strengthen civic education that promoted media literacy and programs that were against misinformation and extremism. So instead of like suppressing this um far-right ideology, the liberal framework um adapted to protect free speech while still defending these key democratic values. And Loach um emphasized this as providing an education as a means of granting political ideological freedom to the people. >>
All right. And then the populist perspective. >> Well, the way the question is asked mean that populism is a threat or a danger for democracy or people. But populism is not a random movement from nowhere. It's more a symptom. It's the direct result of a deep disconnection between political elite and ordinary citizen. Uh for decades liberal democracy have been dominated by professional politician, global cooperation and unelected bureaucrats. They claim to defend freedom and equality. However, they often they more often serve the same narrow interest ignoring the struggles of working people. And when uh the people demand change uh on um for example on immigration, globalization or even national sovereignity, the establishment called them extremist or racist for example in Italy and France populist leader are constantly labelled as threat to democracy simply because they question your policies or mass immigration. And I'd also like to add uh due to increase of globalization um we've been neglecting the people. Um we are putting more emphasis on the jobs outside of um the nation that needs to be protected. The whole point is to protect the government to protect its people. And if we can't even protect jobs, then what are we? Like we we it's failed. So we we need populism to secure these staples to life and security such as jobs. Um and also also liberal democracies um often adapts very slow to challenges um through like different logistical and judicial complications. Um, which this off this as well will continue into the idea where people just don't feel heard because they're not moving quick enough. Change needs to happen and it's not happening. >>
Any uh other comments? >> um, liberal democracies, they're self-correcting. They allow these anger and this impatience that people have to be turned into action through elections, protests and policy, not like authoritarian shortcuts like u populism. And we can see how populist regimes they abandon liberal values and show um power consolidation along with democratic delay. And for example, we can see this in Venezuela when Hugo Chavez, he claimed to speak for the people. However, he centralized power, weakened courts, silenced the press and ignored their constitution. And once these liberal checks disappeared, so did the um citizens rights to property, political freedom, political safety. and Venezuela went from one of the wealthiest nations in South in Latin America and turned into a collapse authoritarian state. And so these liberal democracies can um channel this populist frustration into policy change rather than institutional breakdowns. And we can also see a more contemporary example of this happening uh with uh Trump in the US where he actively paints himself as one of one of the people as representative of his um largely rural uh American supporter base. Um, but this is in spite of the fact that he is one of the elites that um he claims to be detrimental to um Americans as a whole. And while he may rally people on the basis of uh trying to help them being uh for example promising lower lower prices for uh consumer goods, things of this matter. ultimately the um the goals that we have seen him pursue uh in his second time in office benefit are are meant to benefit him and others like him and there's a great disconnect between the majority of um American citizens and uh Trump naturally through the massive wealth divide and all of the goals that he pursues are for the benefit of people like him uh not actually um the benefit of everyday civilians, which is what he may um claim but not actually go through with.
Okay. And so how do contemporary issues such as social and economic inequality, immigration, climate change, things like that um muddle this idea of a government by consent? >> So issues like inequality, immigration, climate change does test the consent of the government. However, it doesn't invalidate it. Since modern society is very complex, this consent happens through representation rather than direct uh election of these laws. And so this government by consent um it doesn't mean that everyision must please every citizen but it means that these citizens have um the right to voice their concerns and opinions. And this is also a key part of uh liberal democracy in the sense that it allows for pluralism, meaning that multiple voices and perspectives and opinions can coexist and can be expressed uh without being silenced as they most often are in um authoritarian regimes. And this is essential for the uh diverse in for diverse societies facing global problems as you need uh to hear from multiple um multiple sides and not just base for instance laws uh on these very important matters off of the say and opinion of only one group. >> And we can see an example of this um within the European Union and climate change policies. Um it so there was disagreements among 27 nations and the citizens of these countries um shaped these outcomes through the elections, debate and protest. And um although civic engagement may be messy, it's proof that representation still works and people are able to influence policy without breaking down the entire institution that it's based on. And through this, the EU was able to build a green deal. Despite um the represent representatives of the nations disagreeing, the citizens were able to um fight for what they believed was the correct solution. >>
All right. And then the populace. >> Why? Well, I will start with a case of immigration and open borders. uh liberalism often frames immigration as an economic opportunity or moral imperative. However, they completely ignores the concern of local citizen. Immigration is like always often managed by urban elites or super national institution um leaving the population feeling their priorities like overlooked. We have a great example today in Europe um with EU mandated migration cotas in country like Hungary and Poland spark public backlash as local citizen as the little say um we see in that today the today's government decide for the people without deciding with them and then I will talk about uh the climate change uh today there is a lot of environmental policy who are frequently promoted by expert and liberal institution as urgent and necessary. However, we see this mour as imposed from above and disconnected from citizen economic realities. Uh example in France for example uh the carbon tax introduced without considering the working class purchasing power spark the yellow vest movement in 2018. Um showing that liberal government preourising sorry ideology and scientific narrative over the people's lived experience. And I'd also add with the um environmental policies um we liberal governments tend to outsource the um the idea of climate change to like individual people which makes it more like oppressive and especially when you if you don't see climate change as a actual issue then it's like I'm I'm being forced to do something against my will from the elites which makes sense. And but I mean if even if you want to accomplish and solve climate change, then you would need to outsource it and like get corporations and governments to properly put laws instead of being this weird wishy-washy state that liberal democracies have at the moment. And and then with immigration, uh immigration is just causing more and more people who maybe are in distress to enter a nation. Um which causes a lack of security and confusion for a people of a nation. Um this just doesn't help at all uh for the public image. >>
All right. And then any rebuttals? >> Yeah. So for instance in on the matter of um immigration the points made by populists uh on such matters are often unrepresentative of actual reality as they um base a lot of these narratives on myths for instance of like the violent immigrant and they rely on citizens who may not be uh very properly informed on the actuality of um immigration. who these people are, what they are actually like trying to achieve, which is usually just a stable life. Um, and so these populist figures rely on this immediate emotional reaction of usually fear and distress um which uh for them to gain support and they often perpetuate these uh myths for their um for their own political means. And um an instance of this could be seen with uh Poland's um law and justice or pervos party. Uh and so the the peace party which was in parliament in power perpetuated these um myths of uh Ukrainian refugees being um disruptive to polar societies of being threats. Um, and they use this to uh sort of rally these negative sentiments towards uh refugees of war. Um, and now in this case, because Poland still is a a liberal democracy, there was uh backlash that was expressed in, for example, through media um which countered these narratives, but it was still uh very damaging to um the the immigrants, which did not pose nearly as much of a a threat as uh many of these populist parties would sort of want the uh population to believe they did.
All right. And so for our final question, um both liberal democracy and populism claim to speak for the people, but are they actually delivering on that promise? So what system better represents the will of the people in practice? A representative liberal democracy or a populist movement? >> Um so we believe that a representative liberal democracy is more sustainable and actually truly reflective um of the wants of the people because it balances um majority along with minority rights. It also institutionalizes consent cons consent through elections through the rule of law and free media which ensures accountability um without the um possibility of mob rule or tyranny of the majority >> and we can see it has a lot of representations with many people ruling such as parliaments congress and these people can represent the population while populism um typically the the majority will choose their populist leader, but once this leader um is put into power, it'll collapse to one man rule and um kind of become a tyranny. And we can use the example of um one of the world's most democratic and happiest countries, which is Finland. And we can see that those citizens have free elections, transparency within the government, a strong a strong welfare system for healthcare, education and more. And this is the result of policies that is shaped by governments that genuinely want to reflect the well will of the people and their voter turnout is one of the highest and along with um public trust for the government. >> Um and we should also stress that populists equate um the people with whoever supports them and that is not actual representation. uh it's exclusion of those who um disagree with uh their own ideals. And so liberal democracy although it is imperfect, it's the only system that we have seen is proven to combine freedom stability and reform throughout history. And while uh some other states which are not democracies and have never been democracies for instance uh Russia may have most of its people satisfied with the rule of uh Putin it there are still many who um do not see him as the ideal ruler. But this is because in this case specifically it is built on a history of volatile and unstable leaders and it is a state that has never been democratic. So this should not mean that other states should pursue authoritarian rule um because in some cases it can work out and not receive um immense backlash uh from people and as we have seen for example in uh Hungary it's ruler is a populist but even though he prides himself on this he's not actually um able to satisfy the people and provide them with uh the actual changes that they need, which is um what he essentially based his entire platform off of >>
the populist perspective. >> Well, we truly believe that populist movement uh is better for represent the will of the people in practice. Why? because populist movement to act quickly uh to the concern and needs of citizen um mainly they focus on issue such as employment, social security, immigration, health care and local economies and unlike liberal democracies which are slow and bureaucratic populist government adapt policy rapidly based on public feedback. For instance, I will take the same example of the yellow vest movement in France between 2018 and 2019 where a huge wave of citizen protest against high taxes and inequality and led the government to address policy like quickly in a short time. Um in addition uh I want to say that populism increase uh political participation because in the populism the citizen are directly involved. They participate through rallies, referendums, petition and direct debates. And uh this citizen um feel that they can influence decision in real time not just once every few years at election. Oh yes. And to expand upon the um elections um often times liberal democracies their their electoral officials are representation of the people who are funding them, the donors. Um and the donors are the people who lobby and uh spread their opinion and influence the government officials. So they're more they're not representing the people. They may have policies, but they're representing whoever's putting money in their pocket. So for an example Nancy using America once again Nancy Pelosi um is notorious for her stock and the um the often times when the stock when she buys stock her or her husband cuz I think legally it's her husband who purchases purchases the stock um then it it ends up like increasing maybe a week or two later after she purchases it because of some um American like act or something they did. So this is just a representation that there's just no um it's it's about the elites, not about the people. >>
All right. And then any rebuttals? >> Um, yeah. So while we can acknowledge that uh immense and uh private funding of politicians is a definite issue within liberal democracies since it places the wants and the say of large coop corporations over those of the people who will be most impacted by um law changes can most benefit from them. Um, and this is because politicians will naturally always side towards the party that will be able to the body that will give them the most support and the most power and this obviously includes um financial support. This is not an issue that is inherent to liberal democracy and it is an issue that can be um addressed with imposing either limits or outright bans on private financial funding of politicians and their campaigns so that they are uh more so they're incentivized to actually make policy and law changes um for the benefits of their of the people who support them. And that's ordinary people and not um mega corporations with lots or individual wealthy people um who want to see for instance tax cuts or other benefits that will directly um help them. >> To add on to this, we can see in liberal systems, citizens have the right to challenge corruption and push for transparencies. And we can see that when um they elect leaders who campaign against big money um in movements like Bernie Sanders grassroots fundraising or anti-corruption reforms in the EU and Canada this all happens within liberal frameworks and like um many um um populist u frameworks they kind of restrict the freedom of speech and freedom of um press and journalists and it wouldn't allow the people to be able to um challenge this corruption. So the same freedom that allows um us to criticize Nancy Pelopian investment is something that you would rarely see in populist or authoritarian states where elite corruption is hidden instead of imposed or exposed. And so liberal democracies had self-correcting mechanisms such as like the free press, independent courts, and civil activism that can keep this kind of power in check. >>
All right. >> Well, and I would like to add a rebuttal um to the uh the idea that the happiest nations the study of like liberalism creates the happiest nations. They often are like Nordic countries and we use the example of Finland. Um, but it's often times it's based off of like financial stability because it's a it's a wealthy nation. They can provide um things such as like healthcare, housing, internet that other countries cannot afford to do. Um so it and often times like something like Finland's they rank pretty high on like um depression and loneliness and like mental dis mental like decay um from just sadness of quality of life. So I feel like this the study isn't a good um measure of liberal democracies.
All right. So in conclusion, liberal democracy isn't perfect, but it's still probably the most effective and fair system. uh it does a sufficient job of balancing what people want while also making sure that uh not a single person or group ends up with too much power. Um it seems like once in power, populists kind of tend to start focusing on their own interests um and actually become a part of the elite that they say that they're fighting. Um so in the end, populists aren't really offering a better alternative. Um are there any personal comments on the topic that anyone would like to share? >> Uh well I would like to say that uh a lot of these opinions don't reflect my opinions but I definitely uh liberal democracy is in decay and we're not fulfilling these ideas of like life uh property pursuit of happiness. So and it makes sense that populism would rise up from this. >> Yeah. I mean I certainly have uh sympathy towards the people who support populist leaders because often times it stems from okay there's a person who is saying things in a way that I can understand and they're promising that they will improve like my quality of life whether it's so that I can um afford groceries or their consumer goods or just be paid more attention to by these big political figures um it's still ultimately definitely a not not the solution. Uh and I definitely think that once again liberal democracy is flawed especially in the sense that um money plays so much of a a part in what politicians say and do. And that just really fractures what democracy should actually be because it should focus on the wants of the people, not these massive corporations who just want to be even more welloff than they are now. Um, but that it definitely does require reforms and um limitations on things like funding if we actually want to see um proper functional liberal democracies. And just to add >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um, just to add on to that, I definitely think both sides have their flaws. However, I find it interesting of like in populism you can see like rightwing populism, leftwing populism and they they could be completely different but the method they use to like gain support and gather um support and more votes and stuff. It's so similar and you can see how despite the ideologies being different. They gain so much support from the people through like manipulation and saying that they're for the people and in turn once they get into power it's so easy to um take advantage of that power and the people who elected them. So yes, I want to say like Ellie, uh, populism doesn't reflect my opinion, but I can understand people who believe in populism because a lot of them don't feel like well represented or uh don't don't find leader who correspond them. but I can't deny that often uh populist leader are more here like to get the power and doesn't really care about uh the uh the s of people like the opinions of people. So yes, but I understand people who vote for populism. >> Yeah. Um I agree with all of you. I think that both are doubleedged sword. Like there's good and bad parts of each. Um, but yeah. Um any other comments. >> That's it. >> Like it's good. >> Thank you for listening to our podcast. >> Thank you very much. Thank you very much. >> Thank you.