Rating: 
Summary: We've confused elections with freedom
Review: "The Future of Freedom" is worth reading if only because it calls into question one of our most unexamined assumptions: that democracy is inherently good and that more democracy, necessarily, is better. Zakaria highlights many examples, the most compelling of which may be post-soviet Russia. Vladimir Putin is a democratically elected president who censors the press, withholds the salaries of judges he dislikes, hires and fires regional governors, and represses the business class, making them wealthy but politically powerless. The effect has been to concentrate power in the executive and prevent the rise of an independent judiciary, a free press or an independent business class that could challenge his czar-like power. It is a system without respect for the rule of law, minority rights, and without the checks and balances that are necessary for a liberal (in the classical sense, apart from American political parties) society. Compare this with China, where an unelected one party state has joined the WTO, promised to protect property rights, promoted a more independent judiciary and created an expanding entrepreneurial middle class (at least on the pacific coast). The theory holds that this middle class will help promote economic and legal reforms over time, so that they can protect their property and enforce contracts. These reforms will gradually be introduced and elections (presumably) will follow generations after liberal institutions are built and established. Zakaria argues that elections without liberal institutions (a free press, an independent judiciary, the protection of property rights, an independent business class etc.) can lead to ethnic and religious politics, tyranny and less freedom. Milosevich and Hitler both capitalized on ethnic and religious hatred spawned by war torn nations that were deeply illiberal, and both won elections because of it. This has obvious implications for the future of Iraq after American troops leave. It also is a warning to those who now call for "Iraqification" and elections by the next summer. Perhaps because of our post 1960's, anti-elitist culture, "undemocratic" has become four letter word. Factory workers, secretaries, doctors and bank vice presidents will all label themselves as "middle class". While this populism has many benefits, we fail to see that a popular, democratic choice can be uninformed and awful. In a sense, the book is about semantics. It is a needed call to change our ultimate goal, both here and overseas, from "democracy" to "constitutional liberalism", of which elections are only one part. I don't think the change is as daunting as Zakaria believes. When we talk about "democracy" in conversations with friends, or when politicians and pundits speak of it, I think we all mean liberalism. We recognize the difference between Russia and China but lack a vocabulary to express it, for fear of sounding "undemocratic" or neo-colonial in our support for liberal autocrats. A new vocabulary is now required because we have confused elections with freedom. Zakaria's brief book is a well argued, and badly needed, counterpoint.
Rating: 
Summary: Is democracy the best form of government for everyone?
Review: The author of this book is the editor of Newsweek International and a political analyst for ABC news. He has a thorough knowledge of history, which he couples with his basic premise -- that democracy, in itself, is not necessarily the best form of government. An excellent example of this is that Hitler was elected in a democratic election. The book, which is really a long essay, gives us an overview of history and brings us right up to today's political scene with its emphasis on populism. He wants us all to agree with his conclusion that democracy and good government are not necessarily the same thing. I learned a lot from this book, especially about the way that various governments work, but I'll likely not retain much of it because every word was targeted only to advance his particular point of view. I agree up to a point. Our world seems to be run by popularity polls that change from day to day. And it seems obvious to me that when change in legislation is being debated, it is not in anyone's interest to have the public and media aware of every little detail. This is because it is mostly the paid lobbyists and special interest groups that follow these public debates, and their agendas are often in direct conflict with the public good. Even though there were only 264 pages in this book, it was much too long. Everything he had to say could have been condensed into a few dozen pages. I suspect he's written articles about this topic and decided to expand them into a book. Frankly, I was bored most of the time and struggled to finish it. Therefore, I can only give it a mild recommendation.
Rating: 
Summary: "And the survey says........"
Review: Mr. Zakaria's thesis is that we live in a democratic age, but we'd be better off with less democracy, not more. "By this," he means, not that we should "embrace strongmen and dictators but rather we should ask why certain institutions -- the Federal Reserve and the Supreme Court -- function so well and why others -- such as legislatures -- function poorly." The thesis is intended not just for the United States, but on a global scale; Singapore would not, arguably, be where it is had it been captured by special interests, as too often happens in democracies. Zakaria, following Richard Holbrooke, is concerned about the proliferation of illiberal democracies -- that is, governments in which the majority rule, thus satisfying democracy's procedural requirement, but which produce substantive outcomes at odds with Constitutional democracy -- protection of minority rights, property, due process and the like.
This is a wide-ranging book. In its sweep he offers a quick survey of the evolution of liberty in the West, and a discussion of Islam and liberty which addresses the way Islam has evolved outside the Middle East, where, he correctly notes, most of its believers reside. In the end, he lands almost precisely where James Madison started; that is, he views with disdain direct democracy and opts for a Republican form of government for the U.S.
The problem with this book is not its thesis, which is as sound today as when Madison first articulated it. The real challenge is in attempting to achieve Zakaria's aim in a world that places a premium on transparency, the flow of information and individual empowerment. It's not clear that citizens will today easily tolerate the level of delegation that Zakaria proposes. In fact, there have been times relatively recently, as during the New Deal, when the Supreme Court itself has had its jurisdiction seriously challenged. We would benefit tremendously if Mr. Zakaria would channel his intellectual gifts toward the development of other options. Until then, the Future of Freedom, for all its virtues, is going to seem like an exhortation to swim like mad against a really strong current.
Rating:
Summary: A fascinating, easy-to-read and highly educational book.
Review: This is a fantastic book. If you like international affairs, you will love it. I cannot recommend this highly enough, especially for anyone interested in geopolitical affairs and foreign policy. The book is written with the touch of a fine journalist. It is at once a breeze to read and highly informative. Zakaria fills the book with interesting research that makes the reader feel as if he or she were participating in an advanced course on globalization, except this class is all fun. There is none of the boring homework or dreary academic reading often associated with political science courses. With a Ph.D. from Harvard, Zakaria is a scholar, but he does not write like your typical academic. His style is easy going and clear, which makes his exceptionally interesting content easier to digest. The content varies from theories about democratic development to the history of the Catholic Church and its role in the formation of individual liberties. You will learn about why oil-rich nations like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia face difficult paths on the road to democracy. You will also learn about how popular referendums in California may have created more problems than they have solved in that state. Is it possible to give too much power to the people? Can an autocratic leader be good for a nation? Why do political liberties differ so much from Sinapore to Egypt to the UK?Zakaria explores these and other questions in this fascinating book. Read it and you will be wiser because of it.
Rating:
Summary: "Liberal" is not a four-letter word
Review: This is a great book. It's filled with historical information on why some societies thrive and others do not. Zakaria's theories are backed up by facts that are hard to dispute. It's a warning about societies charging blindly into democracy before they are ready. He splits the word 'democracy' itself into two basic categories, illiberal democracy and liberal constitutional democracy. Each category has its extremes--too much or too little of either can send a nation into termoil. He discusses the path of Germany in the early twentieth century and its elected Nazi party; Russia, despite its elected government, remains a corrupt, illiberal society--something Vladimir Putin seeks to change even though he's essentially a "czar"--a liberal autocrat; the Middle East and the collapse of many of its nations in the wake of Islamic fundamentalism; the recent "democratic dysfunction" of Venezuela under Hugo Chavez. He discusses California (very timely in light of the upcoming Gray Davis recall election) and how its experiments in direct democracy, legislation by referendum, have thrown the state into dire economic times. Conservatives in the state have taken advantage of the situation by trying to recall its Democrat governor (my own thought, not Zakaria's). Zakaria calls California's "extreme form of open, non-heirarchical, non-party based, initiative-friendly" political system "the closest thing to anarchy as any civilized society as aseen." He illustrates how sometimes illiberal democracy can be a stepping stone to a constitutional, liberal, free society. Zakaria is a great source of knowledge on many subjects--economics, history, politics. This is an engaging read. I recommend it to anyone who wants to learn more about the world they live in.
Rating:
Summary: Intellectual slight of hand
Review: I throughly enjoyed Mr. Z.'s book. He took some dense information and made it into amazyingly light reading. Plus, I think Mr. Z.'s comments about the Middle East, like T. Friedman's are always excellent.
I say 'intellectual slight of hand' came into play regarding Mr. Z.'s take on Reform within Islam and his claim that, ". . . U.S., Canada, and Europe have large Muslim communities. . . (wherein) Islam is adapting to modern life without a grand Reformation" Pg. 150.
Islam needs to Reform. 9/11 points to the need for moderate Islam to reclaim 'true Islam' from the minority, i.e., fundamentalists. No matter how one slices the issue, moderate Islamists are failing by not being as forceful as Islamic fundamentalists, in reclaiming Islam's heart, soul and intellect.
Secondly, Islam is not adapting to modern life. The U.N. Middle Eastern Report or some such, for 2002 or 2003, indicates the failure of Islamic countries to adapt to modernity. "In The Shadow of The Prophet" also notes, quite well, the failure of Islam to accept modernity.
Lastly, Mr. Z., thinly makes his point writing that Islam is adapting to modernity, citing the develop of Islam within the U.S., Canada and Europe. Islamic development is needed in the Middle East, i.e., Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, to name a few countries. When Middle Eastern countries, themselves, can be cited as examples of Islamic modernity, Mr. Z. will have made his point.
Otherwise, Mr. Z., writes an excellent book. Very inciteful, literally it seems as if Mr. Z., is speaking to the reader, as he does to the viewer on, 'This Week' on ABC. I strongly endorse this book as a must read, for those interested in political science.
Respectfully,
I. Webster/Detroit, Michigan
Rating:
Summary: "And the survey says........"
Review: Mr. Zakaria's thesis is that we live in a democratic age, but we'd be better off with less democracy, not more. "By this," he means, not that we should "embrace strongmen and dictators but rather we should ask why certain institutions -- the Federal Reserve and the Supreme Court -- function so well and why others -- such as legislatures -- function poorly." The thesis is intended not just for the United States, but on a global scale; Singapore would not, arguably, be where it is had it been captured by special interests, as too often happens in democracies. Zakaria, following Richard Holbrooke, is concerned about the proliferation of illiberal democracies -- that is, governments in which the majority rule, thus satisfying democracy's procedural requirement, but which produce substantive outcomes at odds with Constitutional democracy -- protection of minority rights, property, due process and the like.
This is a wide-ranging book. In its sweep he offers a quick survey of the evolution of liberty in the West, and a discussion of Islam and liberty which addresses the way Islam has evolved outside the Middle East, where, he correctly notes, most of its believers reside. In the end, he lands almost precisely where James Madison started; that is, he views with disdain direct democracy and opts for a Republican form of government for the U.S.
The problem with this book is not its thesis, which is as sound today as when Madison first articulated it. The real challenge is in attempting to achieve Zakaria's aim in a world that places a premium on transparency, the flow of information and individual empowerment. It's not clear that citizens will today easily tolerate the level of delegation that Zakaria proposes. In fact, there have been times relatively recently, as during the New Deal, when the Supreme Court itself has had its jurisdiction seriously challenged. We would benefit tremendously if Mr. Zakaria would channel his intellectual gifts toward the development of other options. Until then, the Future of Freedom, for all its virtues, is going to seem like an exhortation to swim like mad against a really strong current.
Rating:
Summary: Democracy and Constitutional Liberalism
Review: A must read for any serious student of History and Political Science. A highly readable work.
Mr Zakaria develops well documented, lucid arguments to explain WHY democratic elections alone do not produce western style liberal democracy. He goes on to discribe and document the conditions which must be met if liberal democracy is to develop and survive in the long term.
His thesis is as important to nations (such as the U.S.) with long standing histories of constitutional liberalism as it is for nations striving to attain liberal democratic institutions.
Rating:
Summary: Skillful political analysis but weak on history
Review: Zakaria skillfully outlines a theory present in both the founding of the American Republic and one that appears in some relatively recent academia--i.e. that direct democracy is in the end a dangerous proposition and that the U.S. Constitution stands more as a barrier against the consolidation of power than as a gateway to direct rule by the people.
In making his conclusions about the development of liberty versus democracy, however, Zakaria begins with a brief historcal analysis. He runs into some problems, for example by missing key historical details, making assumptions not necessarily backed by historical scholarship, or by taking things out of their contexts.
In the first instance, for example, Zakaria describes the rise of the French absolute monarchy under Louis XIV as being centered on Versailles. This analysis is supported by firsthand documentary evidence, most famously the memoirs of the Duke of Saint-Simon. But Zakaria identifies the political purpose of the lavish palace on the outskirts of the French capital as an attempt by Louis "[to bring] France's aristocrats to Paris permanently, luring them with the most glittering court in Europe."(43) He misses the point that Louis was attempting to lure the nobility OUT of Paris, where, he believed, an attempt to overthrow him in his youth (known colloquially as Fronde), had been hatched. Hence the royal hunting lodge at Versailles was expanded, in order to bring the seat of the monarchy away from the dangers and intrigues of the capital.
As an example of his making assumptions not backed by historical scholarship, consider his classification (p. 36) of Kaiser Wilhelm (He does not designate which Kaiser Wilhelm, so the reader is unsure whether he means the King of Prussia before and after Unification or his grandson who ruled the German Reich until 1918, but here I assume he means the latter, as the index refers this page to him.) as a ruler who attempted to conquer Europe, akin to Napoleon or Hitler. Other than Fritz Fischer's infamous Griff nach der Weltmacht (1961), which took its form only after the Second World War and the postulation of the Sonderweg (special path) thesis, only Allied War Propaganda circa 1916 supports this assertion. Germany's underlying aims in the Great War as an imperial power were hardly different from those of Britain, and probably more honorable than those of Russia. Germany, after all, was standing in defense of its ally Austria-Hungary, whose heir was assassinated by a group of Serb terrorists.
Thirdly, Zakaria in at least one instance takes his sources out of context. In explaining the weakness of Germany's bourgeoisie (and hence, its democratic development), Zakaria cites Blackbourn and Eley's Peculiarities of German History (1984) to demonstrate that the German aristocratic elite held a majority of the bureaucratic and diplomatic positions around the turn of the century. If one turns to the page he cites, however, (244) one finds that the information Zakaria provides is correct, but the context shows that DESPITE these facts, the bureaucracy, army, and diplomatic service in Germany had become overwhelmingly middle-class and bourgeois. In fact, the central thesis of Peculiarities is a refutation of the Sonderweg thesis, which held that Germany's development had been hindered by a tendency of liberals and the commercial middle class to unswervingly obey the aristocratic, bureaucratic and military elites. Zakaria on the other hand seems to support the Sonderweg thesis, thus Peculiarities of German History is not an appropraite book to use to back up this position.
Rating:
Summary: Much ado about nothing
Review: This book is commentary on observations such as: 1) Democracy is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for a market economy, as evidenced by South Korea and Singapore 2) Some conservatives would rather have a tyrant that taxes 10% of your income (the traditional formula historically) rather than a nanny state democracy that confiscates 40-60% of your income 3) Absent a world government, you will have differences in government that create tension (not unlike having multiple currencies). A better book along the same themes is by Angell, "The New Barbarian Manifesto". Better written too.
|
