Rating: 
Summary: An absolutely fascinating book!
Review: In this fascinating book, author Fareed Zakaria looks at liberty and democracy. In the popular imagination, liberty and democracy go hand-in-hand, with more democracy meaning more freedom and vice versa. But, since the fall of the Soviet Union, the spread of democracy around the world has often resulted in "illiberal democracy," where fanatical groups vote in leaders that use the power of the state against other groups, or even the election of a radical regime that effectively does away with substantive democracy.Following the history of the West (and particularly the Anglo-American part) from the Roman Empire to today, Dr. Zakaria shows that Western History followed a course, where enlightened despotism led to respect for the law, to transparency and balancing of power within government, to capitalism, and finally to restricted democracy (elected representatives instead of direct democracy, unelected judges, a constitution that the government could not violate in spite of overwhelming majority approval, and so forth). But, in the modern West, unfettered democracy has become the newly enthroned ideal, and is being spread to the rest of the world, where it is producing some successes, and some dismal failures. Indeed, one has only to look at the present recall election in California to see what it is doing in the United States. As an added bonus, the author clearly focusing in on recent trends with in India, the Islamic world, and other parts of the world. This is an absolutely fascinating book. I have always heard the Founding Fathers of the United States disparaged for their fear of unfettered democracy and a potential tyranny of the majority, but this book puts into concrete terms that which those men feared. While his solutions are somewhat nebulous, I did find Dr. Zaakaria's analysis to be highly thought provoking. If you are interested in examining what has happened to democracy in the modern world, then I highly recommend this book to you.
Rating: 
Summary: An Overtly Fascistic Diatribe. Corrected Review.
Review: This book is a recipe for fascism: the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary components of finance capital. In case anyone hasn't noticed: we voters here in the US have had our "choice" of 2 corporate candidates for each important position for many many years. A choice of 2 corporate candidates is not an election or democracy: it is an exercise in futility and a disquised dictatorship. Looking at the results of corporate owned government and censored corporate owned media and corporate war machine that the US people have been yoked with for 70 years ...this author declares "this democracy" doesn't work. It would be more accurate to say that the corporate dictatorship hasn't worked. Do you really think that if this were a democracy that we would have so many with no health care, high pollution, decaying infrastructure, highest poverty, corporate media cartel propaganda outlets instead of a free media, and infant mortality rates of any other major industrialized nation to name a few results of the autocracy?
Finally, The US and European oligarchs installed and funded the European fascists and Nazis to prevent a worker's revolution in Europea and to attempt to overthrow the SOviet Union. The Nazis were not elected. They only got 1/3rd of the vote in 1933 even though they had shut down the presses of the other parties and had corporate funded goon squads in the streets. They had the corresponding # of seats in the Reichstag...only 1/3rd. (Some Background= Real History: 55 million members of the "left" were murdered in the WWII holocaust. The Jews were used as a demagogic scapegoat for the people's hatred of the capitalist looting system but were not a target at the upper echelons. The US&UK only showed up in Europe in 1944 after Russia had won the war to prevent them from liberating more of Europe. The US reinstalled the fascists and Nazis where possible and brought many others into the US military. Since WWII the US has installed fascist oligarchic regimes around the globe and murdered an additonal 20 million members of the left). Real history does not support the continued rule of the fascist war machine so you have been denied real history. To return to the author's assertions that autocrats/fascists make better choices than the people: Hindenberg was elected chancellor. He abdicated and appointed Hitler. Hitler was not elected. Hitler then rounded up and murdered many of the worker's groups representatives that had opposed him (social democrats, communists, socialists, and union leaders). I usually reserve judgement but this educated and worldly author's use of this major lie can not be seen as a result of ignorance. This is well known history. Let me guess the pro-dictatorship crowd won't try to pass this lie off in Germany. They'd be laughed at ....after the people quit crying.
Rating:
Summary: "Liberty" is not always consistent with "democracy"
Review: In this truly important work, Fareed Zakaria dares to articulate what I intuitively knew back when I first started working for Congress. The problem with American democracy is not that our representatives are too "out of touch" with their constituents. The problem is that they are, by far, too open to their constituents. The current trend in government, both in the United States and abroad, has been one of radical democratization. In many ways this is a positive, especially for foreign nations that have been ruled in their pasts by a litany of kings, dictators and strongmen. But Zakaria points out that radical democracy also has a host of deleterious effects. Although, as Americans we are trained to think of ourselves as a democracy, and therefore that any change that delegates more power to "the people" is inherently good, this is not the case. On both counts. What people often forget is that the United States is not a democracy. It is a representative republic. And America is a representative republic not because it is a necessary evil (i.e. the country is simply too big to be governed directly) but rather it was constructed in that fashion on purpose. The Founding Fathers were all too aware of the perils of direct democracy that the current voters of California can now attest to. The Founders sought to create a system that, while ultimately beholden to the people, as it should be, was still insulated enough from the caprice of the public whim as to be able to function effectively. They took to Edmund Burke's maxim, "A representative owes you not his obedience, but his judgment." On the international front, Americans tend to push developing nations to democratize, often at the expense of liberal institutions. The problem is that Americans, over the years have tended to collapse the phrase "liberal democracy" into just "democracy." But liberalism, or as Zakaria terms it, "liberal constitutionalism" is not exactly the same thing as democracy. In some cases, (and counter intuitively to most Americans) liberty demands a contraction of democracy. For instance, in our own republic, the Bill of Rights is inherently undemocratic. If 99% of the population wants to restrict the ability of Islamic jihadists to rant in newspapers, television or other media, the government is still prohibited from censoring them. This is undemocratic, but it is liberal. Zakaria claims that promoting liberty and liberal institutions abroad should be the main focus of American policy instead of merely pushing for free and fair elections. Otherwise, what you end up with, as demonstrated by the experience of democratic development throughout the 1990's, are elected autocrats. The Future of Freedom is critical reading for U.S. policy makers and indeed, anyone interested in the prospects for liberty worldwide in the 21st century. It provides a serious alternative to the dominant viewpoint in American society that more democracy is always a good thing.
Rating:
Summary: Just who is so easily swayed by a demogogue?
Review: Thought-provoking from cover to cover, Fareed Zakaria's section on "the Arab mind" was for me the most intriguing part of his book. He quotes the famous T.E. Lawrence [Lawrence of Arabia] as saying, "Arabs could be swung on an idea as on a cord; for the unpledged allegience of their minds made them obedient servants ... Their mind was strange and dark ... more fertile in belief than any in the world." When a few hundred Arab fanatics can induce the United States, which sees itself as the world "hyper-power," into socially unproductive spending which will undoubtedly reach one trillion dollars in a few short years, I see us as the people most easily swung on a cord, made to dance to the tune of our clever enemies. The Soviet Union went down this same road not so long ago. Our stereotypes blind us to unflattering realities we choose to ignore.
Rating: 
Summary: A brief comment on his main criticism of democracy
Review: I just had a brief comment on Zakariah's main criticism of democracy in this book. He blames democracy for the failure to stop the Nazi's rise to power in 1933. Perhaps, but one case doesn't make a successful argument against democracy. If a people are venal or corrupt or violent enough or are too afraid to confront the powers that be with regard to their bad and evil policies, democracy probably won't work, either. In that sense I agree with Nietzsche's comment that "It is not that our institutions are no longer any good for us; it is we who are no longer any good for our institutions." The real problem, however, which is clear from studies of brain neurophysiology (as well as anyone who has ever read history), is that humans would rather live down to their lowest impulses than the other way around. Although humans can attain to more peaceable and advanced thought sometimes, it's normally too difficult for us because the more violent and primitive limbic system area of our brains (i.e., the paleomammalian brain) still dominates almost everything we do. This neurological finding explains what our history has always told us: that we're really just violent uber-apes with a thin veneer of civilization grafted on top, and not a very secure or sturdy one at that, since it gets peeled off all too often in the violent annals of history. Anyway, all this was by way of saying that given human nature, no form of government is ever going to work that well. It doesn't matter what the outward form of a government is, monarchy, democracy, oligarchy, or whatever, the most aggressive, ruthless, and unprincipled people always rise to the top. Hence, the only social or political system that is appropriate for the human race is one that gives the least amount of power to both ordinary citizens and their rulers, to prevent or limit abuses of power. Democracy works better for that than any other system, so despite its admitted defects and limitations, I have to come down on the side of democracy.
Rating: 
Summary: Compelling but . . .
Review: Well, I guess you can't please everyone and no system is perfect; but even "imperfect" democracy is still better than no democracy.
Rating:
Summary: Hard to Believe
Review: It's amazing that this drivel has been getting so much good press. It is hastilly-written, badly argued and poorly researched. It was rushed into publication so as to come out while the conflict in the Middle East was still hot. Exploitive? You betcha. The recording, at least, benefits from the sonorous tones of an excellent narrator.
Rating:
Summary: A Criticism of "Crony Democracy"
Review: The premise of this book is simple: democracy is not a panacea, and too much of it may be a bane. While this may seem apparent to even the most lay of readers, it is not a truth that the world has taken to heart. Fareed Zakaria's latest book, 'The Future of Freedom' admonishes that ignoring this vital truth has hurt many nations in the past, and has even began to destroy Western democracies today. According to Zakaria, democracy survives and thrives only in the presence of individual rights, economic posterity, and government with balanced branches of power. These are characteristics of what Zakaria dubs "constitutional liberalism." In other words, democracy is not the starting point for a new nation. History shows us that it never was. For example, Chile, Taiwan and South Korea were all governed by undemocratic regimes in their formative years. During these reigns, a predictable court system, property rights and the rule of law emerged. The constitutional liberalism experienced by these nations necessarily gave way to democratic reforms, not the other way around. On the other hand, those nations that attempted democracy before the presence of constitutional liberalism failed. Why? Because the absence of constitutional liberalism meant the absence both a predicatable legal system and a restricted government. The consequence was that the ensuing democracies often led to violent, turbulent politics that eventually collapsed. It was not the absence of democracy that ruined these nations, argues Zakaria. The cause was too much democracy, uninhibited by structural checks and balances, property rights and economic liberty. The United States, too faces a unique democratic crisis today. The cause is not "crony capitalism," as many have suggested, but rather "crony democracy." The electoral system, with its recent invention of popular primaries, have seriously jeopardized the stability of the political party, since the party has little or no say in who the candidate will be. The widespread use of direct democratic referrendums in Calfornia is undermining the legislature and the courts. What is perhaps most frightening is our devolution to a political system that has become based on polling. The restriction of political money in the name of democracy has created a plethora of PACs, each pulling a congressman towards their special interest. Since congress can no longer act behind closed doors, congressmen always vote and act with an eye over their shoulder. The result: a poll-crazed system, where politicians are a mere vehicle of public opinion. This is extremely different from the more limited democracy of days hence, when politicians could do the right thing without the looming fear of public reprisal. The electorate used to be external to the system, which served as an essential check against mob rule. A politician was elected because the populace trusted him to make a decision. But today, with the dissemination of information and the further democritization of politics, an election result is not such an indicator of trust; rather, the polls push and pull a politician about, leading to both inaction and volatility at the same time. The subversion of a representative government to the whims of the masses is a far cry from the constitutionally liberal regime that our founders intended. Yet this is the exact path that we have been following for the last 100 years. There is a weak criticism to Zakaria that follows the line of thinking: "Democracy is not to blame; rather, the electorate that abuses democracy is to blame." This is a shallow argument. It implies that democracy can maintain order if and only if there is a rational populace that always votes for the common good. But if there is a weak link in the history of a country, -- e.g. following a particularly traumatic event like a war or depression -- it stands to good reason that a population may panic or be tricked by a charlatan. An unbridled, unrestricted democracy will eventually turn into chaos. The view that a population will never vote for the evil guy or a suicidal plan is utterly utopian. Zakaria ably demonstrates that no population will always be smart enough to avoid electing a bad man or instuting a bad policy. History is replete with such examples. Populists play on the fears of the ignorant and eventually they win. It just takes one election gone awry to bring a Hitler or even Allende to power, with deleterious consequences. If so-called proponents of democracy are concerned with its perpetuation, then why do they care little about instituting structures of constitutional self-regulation that prevent it from decaying? This book is not against democracy, as some thoughtless reviewers suggest. Rather, this is a book against "crony democracy," a majoritarian democracy divorced from constitutional liberalism. Fareed Zakaria is one of the most thoughtful, incisive, and elegantly spoken commentators today. This book deserves careful scrutiny by politicians and the electorate alike.
Rating:
Summary: PERSONALLY CHARGED TIRADE, BUT LOTS TO MAKE YOU THINK.
Review: The crux of Zakaria's argument is that democratically elected regimes are now routinely ignoring constitutional limits on their power and depriving their citizens of basic rights and freedoms. Apparently, he is supposed to have witnessed this first hand as a muslim growing up in India in the 60s and the 70s. The sins of democracy, he maintains, go beyond the "trampling of rights" to include "economic malfeasance and the impoverishment of peoples" (in Russia, for instance, and post-Suharto Indonesia), "the unleashing of religious fanaticism" (notably in the Muslim world), "the stoking of ethnic hatreds" (in the Balkans, Africa, Central Asia, and the subcontinent). Drawing on the work of the political scientists Edward Mansfield and Jack Snyder, Zakaria even asserts that, contrary to conventional wisdom about the "democratic peace," democracies are more prone to militarism and war. We are told that when political systems are opened up, new groups of enfranchised voters make incompatible demands on leaders, who in turn try to "rally the masses" behind aggressive nationalist crusades. Sound familiar? Many of the examples in this very well researched and fairly well argued book are charged with what seems to be me to be a personal vendetta. Whatever your political moorings, you'll find yourself going "Aha! You bet!" often but will also revulse with disagreement equally frequently. Which is precisely the reason to buy and read this book as soon as you can get your hands on it. It is thoughtful, uncanny, laden with facts, and even scandalous -- just the way I like it. Plus, there is lots to make you think about the quickly swelling imbalance of government in our world.
Rating:
Summary: An Important Book
Review: This is an important book. Read it and you will better understand:
the success and failure of governments;
why too much democracy is actually undesirable;
the true strength of the American political system and why it is being weakened by an increase in democracy;
the critacal importance of constitutional liberalism and why it is different from democracy;
why illiberal democracies are often worse than autocratic governments;
why an abundance of natural resources is actually a curse for most countries;
the almost infallible rule that predicts in which countries democrocies will succeed;
why an election in Iraq now would probably have neagative consequencies;
why Iran may well be the best bet for the an Arab Mideast democracy;
I could go on, but you get the idea. I have always been impressed with Mr. Zakaria as a columnist who displays admirable common sense in his world perceptions and political recommendations. This book maintains the same clear thinking and lucid writing style. One only hopes that Prseident Bush and his advisors read this book.
|
