Rating: 
Summary: Very solid
Review: This book is a very solid overview of the difference between freedom and democracy, how sometimes they go hand in hand (like with the United States) but other times a country can be absolutely democratic without freedom.
He discusses how to create a democracy which is both free and democratic, using examples from the past to show why each country ended up the way it did.
This book gets 4 stars because it is very solid and founded in its research and theses. However, it is just an overview and an entire book probably could be written on each chapter.
Rating: 
Summary: good debate fodder
Review: "Democracy is flourishing; liberty is not." That divide forms the core of Fareed Zakaria's framework in this book. Indeed, it is a distinction that is lost on many, to whom liberty means democracy and vice versa. This is not always the case, and one can exist in the absence of the other. Zakaria's focus is where democracy, in whatever form, exists but where it is limited, where there liberty is checked--hence, illiberal.
After an introduction, the book opens with a chapter tracing the history of liberty, which Zakaria argues arose from tensions between church and state (tensions which began in 324 when Constantine moved his capital from Rome to Byzantium). Much of the development of liberty is rooted in conflict and competition, whether between church and state, or between the number of states that had sprung up in Europe, or, later, between lords and monarchs (from which the Magna Carta was generated). The book also discusses the problems of the 20th century, particularly Nazism, which was basically a "democratic" phenomenon. From this history, Zakaria attempts to glean lessons or prerequisites for democracy. His big two are "genuine" economic development and the existence of effective political institutions.
Zakaria then turns to modern times and applies the lessons of the past. His argument is rife in economic determinism--too much so. He frequently and sometimes approvingly quotes Marx to illustrate his points. Perhaps this is somewhat unavoidable since Marx has penetrated our modes of thought so thoroughly, if subtly, but even so, Zakaria takes the deterministic argument quite far, even going so far as to suggest a threshold per capita income ($6,000) for stable democracy to take root. Certainly, a productive economy is important, but I think Zakaria overstates its impact.
I do, however, like his discussion of natural resources and how a vast supply can inhibit the development of genuinely democratic institutions. Plentiful natural resources--or "unearned riches" (oil, for example)--provide governments with huge inflows of revenue, so much so that the government need not even (or virtually so) tax its people. But taxes, Zakaria argues, are what generate government responsiveness to the people. We Americans know the lesson well: "No taxation without representation." But a government that doesn't tax its people doesn't rely on them for revenue, doesn't provide them much, and doesn't need to listen them much either; institutional development is hindered. This isn't to suggest that we need more taxes. But Zakaria makes a fascinating point here.
Overall, Zakaria solidly and logically argues his ideas, even if he does sometimes overstate his points. If nothing else (and it is probably much more), the book should provide food for thought and debate--and maybe even policy. And especially as we try to install democracy in Iraq, the book couldn't have come at a better time.
Rating: 
Summary: Thought provoking
Review: I've found this book able to articulate unexpressed thoughts that I've had about modern potitics. I appreciated the new ideas that help mold one's world view.
Rating:
Summary: thought-provoking and insightful
Review: I became a big Zakaria fan when his articles began appearing in Newsweek - when I stumbled upon this book I snatched it up - not long and not a tedious exploration of the issues, I think he makes some very intriguing points about what the Western world (as in, the US) should pursue as goals in countries like Afghanistan and Iraq - in particular, I think most readers will find very interesting his view of how the increasing democratization of our government in response to calls for reforms in the '60s and '70s has resulted in increasingly dysfunctional government. Highly recommend this book.
Rating:
Summary: A magnificent book - essential reading for today's world
Review: This is a magnificent book, a tour de force by the editor of the International Edition of Newsweek, and himself a former citizen of India. It is worth reading for the superb chapter on the Middle East and the sad failure of so many states in that area to find the democratic path. As he points out, do we really want full democracy in a state in which Osama bin Laden would win hands down? This shows that democracy in and of itself does not work (remember Hitler was elected....) and that what you also need is strong civil society and the rule of law. Get those two things and then genuine liberal democracy will prevail. This is no elitist book but sheer common sense! Christopher Catherwood, author of CHRISTIANS MUSLIMS AND ISLAMIC RAGE (Zondervan, 2003)
Rating:
Summary: Critics fundamentally misinterpret this book. ILLIBERAL
Review: There were two critiques that i read. I think the reason they misinterpret this book is that he is addressing both liberal...and illiberal democracy. Not just the "generic" DEMOCRACY which can be either liberal, illberal or a combination. One argument is that Zakaria started out with a premise and tries to find evidence to support it. I think this is a bad critique against the book, because obviously Zakaria has come to a conclusion after studying the subject of "democracy". So when he puts down his arguments for his conclusion, it will necessarily support his analyzed understanding of the problems with democracy. This does not lessen the premise of the book rather it works for it. They don't argue with his statement that democracy is not inherently good, because his evidence supports his claim. The other argument the first critic makes is - "Another weak point being made is that "in numerous new democratic processes, the elections serve not as a guarantee of liberty, but a legitimization of tyranny". I believe he is at best over simplifying and at worst completely wrong". The critic goes on to say that either the democracy is in name only or it worked as it should. Zakaria never said that it wasn't democratic, what he said is that in many cases democracies end up legitimizing tyranny. So how is this point an argument against the statement made by Zakaria. It isn't oversimplyfying anything, it just states what has been observed by political scientists and others collecting data for well over 100+ years. The main critique by the second critic goes along the line that Zakaria is wrong is suggesting that democracy needs strong controls like a good constitution. He claims that the solution is good people rather than good laws. It's absurd to hope in "good people" as a control on democracies going awry rather than having the conventional checks and balances along the line of what the United States has. While it may seem "obvious" as he put it, doesn't make it so because there are too many examples where good people alone weren't enough to secure a democracy where there is also liberty. Once again Zakaria main point is that democracy alone will not lead to liberty. He maintains that a strong constitution and check and balances are what's necessary for democracy to succeed.
Rating:
Summary: Freedom's Prospects
Review: That democracy is the worst form of government except for all its alternatives is a frequently heard boast. Zakaria's book is an extended analysis of democracy's grounds for humility. His main distinction between the constitutional libertarian and the enfranchisement elements of democracy serves as the basis of his analysis. Free elections don't necessarily lead to individual liberties, much less to efficient and equitable solutions to social problems. Zakaria shines the light of his analysis on many current international and domestic issues from nation building in Iraq to the recall election in California, always with brilliant effect. The only reservations I have are minor. The scope of his endeavor is bound to betray areas where his expertise attenuates. The example that jumps out at me is financial, where he lumps the development of stock mutual funds with money market funds, implying that the former derived from the latter. Also, the book could have profited from better proofreading. More than one time a sentence that requires "it" reads "is." Nevertheless, its combination of incandescent intelligence and mature judgement is a rare contribution.
Rating:
Summary: Fareed Zakaria does it again!
Review: Fareed Zakaria is always on the money in his great weekly comments in Newsweek - his post 9/11 analysis was the very best on that sad day that I have read. He and his fellow student at Harvard, John Owen IV, came up with the concept of illiberal democracy one day in the gym - and ever since that article first appeared in Foreign Affairs, many of us have been waiting for the full length book. It does not disappoint! Christopher Catherwood, author of CHRISTIANS, MUSLIMS AND ISLAMIC RAGE (Zondervan, 2003)
Rating:
Summary: An interesting lesson on world politics
Review: This is an excellent account of the origins of democracy, and an informative treatise on the state of worldwide democracy, both liberal and illiberal, at the moment. Zakaria deftly talks about the history of the Western style democracy tracing its roots from the Ancient Romans, through Western Europe, and the separation of church and state. Most interesting was Zakaria's account of the rise of the bourgeoisie in Great Britain in the nineteenth century, and the political and economic power that was given to them. He contrasts this Continental Europe and shows how aristocracy and centralization hampered a similar movement towards economic and political freedom. Zakaria talks about communism, fascism, theocracies, and totalitarian societies that exist, and have existed worldwide, and he does this with authority and enthusiasm. Zakaria also highlights the central problem of the Middle East. Many of the countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the Gulf states have been so busy accumulating so much wealth through oil, that they have failed to effectively tax their people, and have therefore created illiberal, non-functioning institutions, and, therefore, governments that do not effectively represent the people. Because they haven't had to actually work and earn their wealth these counties, with their corrupt, authoritarian governments, do not feel obliged to offer their citizens anything in return. Zakaria echo's Thomas Friedman's concerns, that they are like spoiled children, who have been given momentous oil wealth, and lots of leisure time! The author is also particularly harsh on president Musharraf's Pakistan and Russia under Vladimir Putin. He likens Putin to a "super president" which surprised me because I thought that Putin was doing quite a good job at "liberalizing" Russia, and setting it on the track to economic wealth. I can understand why he would feel the way he does about Musharraf, as the man did take control of the country in an undemocratic way through the military. Of course, maybe it was for the best when one considers the current and past volatility of the country. Much of Zakaria's work has been covered in depth by other geo-political pundits such as Noreena Hertz's The Silent Takeover, Daniel Yergin's The Commanding Heights, and of course, Tom Friedman's Longitudes and Attitudes. But the difference with Zakaria is that he also includes an in-depth analysis of the state of liberal democracy in the United States. In this age of terrorism, international free trade agreements, globalism and politicians' preferences for special interest groups, Americans are in danger of losing their democracy, as they know it. Zakaria fears that "liberal" democracy is being hijacked by "popularism" and the respected democratic institutions of the past that have helped build the country and secure the rule the law have been gradually dismantled and discredited. Zakaria's style does at times tend to meander, and he doesn't necessarily keep to the point, but his arguments about the current state of the world, including the problems with Iraq, Latin America, and the Dictators of the Third World are indeed illuminating and enlightening. This isn't the best book on geo-politics - you need to read Noreena Hertz's The Silent Takeover for that - but it is still an interesting and provocative read. Michael.
Rating:
Summary: I've felt this for decades - Fareed does the heavy lifting.
Review: I fought Prop 13 in California and predicted the demise of the once number 1 California school system. It is now rated number 49 by most metrics. I fought against the Reagan FTC efforts to gut the accounting profession and lost. We now have Enron, Worldcom, etc. - exactly as predicted. Fareed weaves these and hundreds of other issues into a fine tapestry of intellectual composition that clearly points to a threat to our liberty. Yes, liberty and democracy are not the same. As was discovered long ago in a few city-states in Greece, democracy can crush liberty. We are re-discovering that in California with the recall as I write this. Not just a recall, but two emotional propositions are included on the ballot. We are taught that democracy is all-good. Pure democracy, which my native California is flirting with, is not good for anyone but lobbyists - and that limits our liberty. Fareed gets it like the founding fathers of the US did. OK, most people reading this could care less, but Fareed brings in some of my favorite historians and political thinkers from the 60's. How he ever found guys like Richard Hofstetter I'll never know. His research is thorough. His thoughts are complete. Now, if we could just get fellow intellectual Kissinger to understand what happend in Nam... One more point. I had an office in the Soviet Union and was involved with the State Privatization Committee and the Central Bank of Russia to a minor extent. I emplored the powers to be not to privatize so fast and to forget democracy for years. My advice then is exactly what Fareed proposes for Iraq and the Middle East. I was quickly eclipsed by the Harvard boys such as Jeffrey Sacks and USAID consultants who wanted democracy immediately. Russia will suffer for a long time for developing backwards to the processes that Fareed so clearly states. This book is a must read for anyone interested in local, national, or international politics. Keep it by your bed with the Federalist Papers :-) - jim preston
Former organizer - United Farmworkers Organizing Committee
Former leader in the Draft Resistance.
CPA, entrepreneur, businessman.
|
