Rating: 
Summary: Has Democracy Gone Too Far?
Review: "The Future of Freedom" is a difficult book to review, in part because the author hedges his bets. The book contains many fragments of wisdom, but it also conveys one Big Idea: the world suffers from excess democracy. In the words of the author, the book "is a call for self-control, for a restoration of balance between democracy and liberty. It is not an argument against democracy. But it is a claim that there can be such a thing as too much democracy-too much of an emphatically good thing" (p. 26). In the twentieth century, America fought to make the world safe for democracy. "As we enter the twenty-first century, our [America's] task is to make democracy safe for the world" (p. 256).The author begins by explaining that democracy and liberty are not synonyms: it is possible to have one without the other. Democracy is universal suffrage and majority rule. Liberty is freedom of speech and assembly, the right to own property and other human rights. A majority of an electorate can deny rights to minorities, producing an 'illiberal democracy.' And it is possible to have liberty without democracy in a 'liberal autocracy'. In Western Europe it is a fact that liberty (freedom of speech, rule of law, and other human rights) predated democracy. For centuries, universal suffrage was not even a distant goal in liberal Europe, and it was common to deny voting rights to slaves, women, minority ethnic groups, illiterates, the indigent and those without property. A more recent example is Hong Kong, whose residents enjoyed liberty (rule of law) without voting rights, for the British Crown Colony was ruled by a Governor appointed in London. Liberty trumps democracy, so liberal autocracy is preferred to illiberal democracy. But, how does one move from illiberal democracy to liberal government? Zakaria provides little guidance, other than recommending that government officials be appointed rather than elected to office. Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen, writing in the 6 October 2003 issue of The New Republic, questions the wisdom of moving away from electoral democracy: "There is ... a genuine loss of political freedom and restrictions of civil rights in even the best-performing authoritarian regimes, such as Singapore or pre-democratic South Korea; and, furthermore, there is no guarantee that the suppression of democracy would make, say, India more like Singapore than like Sudan or Afghanistan, or more like South Korea than like North Korea." Zakaria seems to concur when he writes (p. 251) "In general dictators have not done better ... than democrats-far from it. Most dictators have ravaged their countries for personal gain. Scholars have asked whether democracy helps or hurts the economic growth of poor countries and, despite many surveys, have come to no conclusive answer." Immediately, however, Zakaria adds "But over the past fifty years almost every success story in the developing world has taken place under a liberal authoritarian regime. Whether in Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, Chile, Indonesia, or even China, governments that were able to make shrewd choices for the long term were rewarded with strong economic growth and rising levels of literacy, life expectancy and education." He specifically admonishes India, which "for all its democratic glories ... has slipped further and further behind on almost every measure of human development". Zakaria assumes there is a trade-off between liberty and democracy: more liberty can be obtained by sacrificing democracy. In reality, liberty and democracy most often go together. Democratic governments tend to be more liberal, with more respect for human rights, than authoritarian regimes. This is not an accident, for democracy without freedom of speech and freedom of assembly is not an 'illiberal democracy', it is a sham democracy where elections are meaningless. Zakaria ends his book acknowledging "democracy, with all its flaws, represents the 'last best hope' for people around the world" (p. 256). This statement is not controversial. Controversial are his claims that there is excess democracy in the world and that the best hope for developing countries is a 'liberal autocracy' to prepare them for democracy. Fareed Zakaria was born in India, educated at Yale and Harvard universities, and writes well, with exceptionally clear, lively prose. This book is an expanded version of his seminal Foreign Affairs essay "The Rise of Illiberal Democracy" (November/December 1997).
Rating:
Summary: Should be on Book of The Year List for 2003
Review: I strongly recommend this book to anybody interested in public policy, particularly as it has pertains to the functioning of democracy both here and abroad. Others have done a good job of summarizing the main points of the book, I just want to encourage people to read this book. I consider it the most important I've read in many years. This is a well-written book by someone who knows how to describe complex issues simply and directly. It's not a long book, but it's filled with food for thought.
Rating:
Summary: Zakaria - a name worth remembering
Review: Fareed Zakaria has long impressed me with his pointed essays in Newsweek magazine. In this book, he expounds on the role of institutions in government, primarily democratic governments and what makes them fail and succeed. Zakaria's magic is in his ability to shed illumination on things that sound common sense only in retrospect. He points out that many of today's modern successful democratic governments were actually started by strong men in a dictatorship that had the vision to modernize their country starting with economics and following it up with subsequent civil reform. All in all, a very excellent read.
Rating:
Summary: Brilliant Analysis
Review: Fareed Zakaria turned my world upside down with this book. He proves the common misconception that democracy is the best solution to any problem, which is interesting in that everyone champions democracy but rarely wonders why it has failed so often (see all of Africa, minus South Africa). Zakaria's insight into the world of Islam is the most interesting part of this book. Two things which Zakaria called in advance of them actually happening: That Iraq would be an excellent place to instill democracy into the Arab world and that California's pure form of democracy was headed for an explosion (such as a recall). Great read.
-Alec
Rating: 
Summary: Democracy First, Capitalism Second
Review: This book is the recipe for a corporate oligarchy. Democracy in and of itself is virutous. The will of the people is ALWAYS more important than the will of some unelected body (aka the supreme court, or, even worse, a corporate board like the WTO). Fareed Zakaria is my enemy because he is an enemy of democracy, the only true government.
Rating:
Summary: Insightful book, predictions on California came true...
Review: The book is very well motivated and written, with a history of democracy and the current state. It made a very interesting read. The author draws non-trivial conclusions on when the country has to enter a state of being fully democratic with examples of Singapore, India and USA. Other interesting facts which people tend to forget also makes an interesting read - Germany democratically elected Hitler / Citizens of USA followed a pseudo democracy where only the cream were allowed to vote and women were not allowed to vote till recently. A lot more intriguing and well-researched facts present in the book. The author draws excellent conclusions on the per-capita income of nations and the success/failure rate of democracy. This theory holds water for most countries, except for a countable few like India. The author also explains the reason for the anamoly. If the reader is interested in knowing the effect of "too much of democracy" which is discussed in the book, he/she can see what happened in California in 2003 recall elections. (This book, and the critiques on the California's direct/by-people policy making were written before the talk of recall elections). Last, but not the least, the author is in capacity to comment on the future of democracy by becoming the youngest "Editor-in-chief of International Affairs" for Newsweek.
Rating: 
Summary: About the author: To be assessed before reading
Review: Fareed Zakaria is one of the "runaways", who has been able to show his "mettle" which was facilitated after having fled to the magical environs of America, and not where they really belong. The actual test for the calibre of all such Asian intellectuals is the adage: "This is Rhodes, leap here". I don't think much of those who, once they have got there, start spinning such "expert" yarns. The one thing about (genuine) Western/European critics is that they neglect this angle when reviewing such matter. And there is a lot hidden there, as yet another adage, this time from Mr.Zakaria's native language, highlights: "There is darkness beneath the base of the Lamp itself, that bearer of light..."
Rating:
Summary: A brilliant work that everyone should read
Review: There are few adjectives that could do justice to the sheer briliiance of this book. It starts by charting a chronological history of the birth and development of democracy and then relates it to our time. It dispels a lot of Myths about democracy explaining very profound realities that we can relate to in everyday living. The narrative is simple and the ease with which he puts it all together - not losing detail and yet holding your attention at all times, makes reading this book an especially fullfilling experience. Whereas the points beeing made in this book may have been made elsewhere, the sheer "completeness" of this work and the remarkable illustrations to support each argument is unprecendented. For instance the realation between the Per capita Income of a state to its chances of having a successful stint with democracy is fabulous - but then again so is every other argument. As a reader you feel you are taken on a enjoyable ride through a wide ranges of topics - and yet there seems to be an underlying "thread" which keeps it all in context the author never losses.
If you are interetsed in current affairs, just go ahead and read this book you will not be dissapointed. If not i suggest you read the following article href=http://www.fareedzakaria.com/articles/newsweek/101501_why.html
its one of the authors best. If you like it - you will like this book.
Rating:
Summary: No Way Out ?
Review: The book gives a wonderful time line explanation of liberal democracy, from where this country started from to where we now find ourselves. While Mr. Zakaria states that the book is not a "historical scholarship" it is as close as I think anybody can come while covering so much ground and providing meaningful and detailed support for views, while still making it highly readable. If there is any complaint it has to do with what felt like a hurried mix of conclusions to finish the work. The implicit conclusion that one can arrive at is that there is no way out, no way for this liberal democracy to survive as we strive to make things more democratic. It may be very well that this is what he believes but simply did not want to say . After a detailed and logical explanation as to how we got where we are he took about two pages to close, with a few quick fixes and platitudes, regarding the difficult future. I believe Mr. Zakaria has some definite views as to how it will all come out.I wish he had included them in his summary.
Rating: 
Summary: Democracy ain't the same as liberty
Review: For years I've complained about how democracy is so often confused with liberty. People seem to use the terms interchangeably, but they are very different. Liberty is the greatest state of social ordering, while democracy is just a way of picking government administrators. Finally, someone wrote a book clarifying the distinction. In The Future of Freedom, Fareed Zakaria also goes a step further. He makes the case that you can't have a successful democracy without a liberal order first. In fact, democracy with no liberal basis is a recipe for disaster. What's more, unbounded democracy can kill a liberal order. Zakaria expounds his thesis very well and in wonderful prose, but I have two critiques. First is that after showing beyond a doubt how countries with no liberal history and natural resources that can prop up governments without the need for taxation (and thus popular assent), Zakaria proceeds to make the case that with a couple of years of "nation building" Iraq should be ready for democracy. It's as if he didn't read his own book. Second is that Zakaria conflates his legitimate, well-reasoned warning against unchecked democracy with an argument against free-wheeling capitalism and consumerism. The distinction he misses is that decisions made at the ballot box affect a whole society, while decisions made at the cash register affect only the individual. But still this book is a great, engaging read. Democracy is a wonderful system, but as Zakaria clearly shows, unfettered it is a threat "at home and abroad".
| 
