Rating: 
Summary: Democracy doesn't equal freedom!
Review: This book is very good. It examines the state of democracy and freedom today and argues convincingly that the two don't necessarily go hand in hand. Many people fail to recognize that the United States was not founded as a democracy, but a constitutional republic. The founding fathers were very wise men who understand the difference between the two and crafted a constitution that sought to prevent run-away democracy from triumphing. This book returns to those reasons and the history behind those reasons to effectively demonstrate the superiority of this original form. Too often we hear today of un-democratic principles and the supposed superior wisdom of the "majority". This is leading to some unfortunate developments in freedom in this country and abroad, and an obsession with polling data. As a California resident, I am all too familiar with the sorry state of democracy in my own state that has resulted in an almost un-governable situation. Since the publication of this book, I can add the ridiculous populist effort to recall Governor Davis to the list of dysfunctions. Isn't this why we have elections!? The author examines the history of freedom and it's particular development over centuries in England as primarily the result of evolving common law and contrasts this with continental Europe's historical practice of civil law. He effectively demonstrates the superiority of the former and it's impact over the whole globe. He rescues the idea of liberal democracy and reclaims the "liberal" word for what it rightly means. He also examines freedom from an Islamic perspective and provides an argument reconciling the concepts of Islam and freedom. This argument is fairly convincing, but not thorough. He then proceeds into his apology by examining the state of politics in California and concludes with proposals to rescue freedom. His main solution, if it can be called so, is more appointed bodies like the Supreme Court and the Federal Reserve. I happen to agree in principle with these suggestions, most especially when it comes to tax and environmental policy. In principle, this is an excellent idea. The see-sawing of tax policy from one president to the next results in economic distortions, negative politics, and extreme partisan bickering. One president cuts taxes the next raises, and the next cuts. This is no way to run a modern economy. Tax policy is extremely complex with significant long-term consequences for everyone's well being. It needs to be approached with much more care than it presently is. In reality, however, I don't see how this can ever happen. Taxes are politically sensitive, and it is the primary means of political posturing between the two dominant parties today. Take that away from them, and what do they have? They won't give this up easily. The American people would be very skeptical to this idea in my opinion. Accountability to the voters also would need to be ensured. The book is very thought provoking and should be read more widely than it has been.
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting ideas, mediocre arguements
Review: Zakaria has written a book that is short, easy to digest and full of interesting ideas. His writing style is light and easy to follow. However some of his research is also on the light side. His version of history is full of platitudes and conventional wisdom and short on solid thinking and research. His conclusions about the Middle Ages and Islamic cultures are interesting but dubious. He is at his best when analyzing the recent and the superficial: pop culture, evangelical religion and the news media. Even though his premises are weak, and his arguments are suspect; his conclusions are interesting and may have some merit (although probably not for the reasons he suggests). If you get tired of his over-simplified "Newsweek" view of world events and politics skip ahead to the concluding chapter, "The Way Out" for some ideas that are worth thoughtful, serious consideration. Unfortunately, the thoughtful, serious consideration will have to come in some other book, probably by some other author. The book makes for fun non-fiction summer reading. The wealth of ideas and the simplicity of expression would make "The Future of Freedom" an interesting selection for reading and book discussion groups.
Rating:
Summary: A great explanatory model of why democracies succeed or not.
Review: Summary
Mr. Zakaria covers two different subjects. The first is why democracies succeed or fail. He states that successful democracies are preceded by transition governments (liberal autocracies) during which a strong foundation for future democracy is established. This foundation includes protection of citizen liberties, including an effective judicial system, and economic reforms leading to capitalism. Mr. Zakaria second theme is how to improve our U.S. democracy. He feels many aspects of our society have been overly democratized and corrupted. His solutions is to have more political independent bodies. Here Zakaria is less convincing, as we have already passed stringent laws to restore the integrity of our capitalist system. This is a very interesting book. Mr. Zakaria treating of the first subject is exceptional. Abstract
Mr. Zakaria develops a sophisticated model which groups governments into four different buckets along two axis (democracy, and liberty). The four different government types are: a) illiberal autocracy, b) liberal autocracy, c) illiberal democracy, and d) liberal democracy. An illiberal autocracy is a tyranny. The country is ruled by a tyrant who controls virtually everything. Citizens are exploited and do not benefit of any human rights. Representative elections are out of the question. Under such a regime, you have no democracy and no liberty. A liberal autocracy is run by a leader or ruling elite. General Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan is an example. Most aspects of political life are not democratic. However, such governments are undergoing a slow but successful transition towards democracy. The leader or ruling elite supports the necessary foundations for a liberal democracy. These include civil rights, property rights, a well established judicial system, and economic reforms leading to capitalism. Here, you don't have much democracy yet, but you have quite a bit of liberty. Zakaria mentions numerous example of liberal autocracies that are progressing towards liberal democracies. These include: Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Malaysia, Chile, and Mexico. An illiberal democracy is just the opposite of a liberal autocracy. It is synonymous with a failed democracy. Political leaders are elected democratically. But, the country lacks the necessary foundation for true democracy. According to Zakaria 42 of the 48 states in Africa fall in this category. Other examples include Iran, the Balkans, and Indonesia. The judicial system is corrupt. Individual rights are limited. The economy is dysfunctional. You have some democracy, but not much liberty. Most inevitably these regimes will revert back to illiberal autocracy. A liberal democracy is a true democracy such as what we have in the West. Here we have a lot of democracy and liberty. It is a solid political system marked by free elections, the rule of law, the separation of powers, human rights, including private property, free speech, women's right, and tolerance for religious and ethnic diversity. The forces that established liberal democracy in the West included: the separation of church and state, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the Reformation, capitalism, and the resulting of a wealthy, informed, and independent middle class. Zakaria states that the Middle East currently lacks the necessary foundation to build successful democracies. There are large segments of the population that are illiterate, illiberal, violent, and extreme. To hope that liberalism will come by throwing open the democratic process to these elements seems absurd. The U.S. should not press the Middle East to democratize. It should instead pressure it to liberalize. This means reinforcing fair judicial systems, improve on human rights including women's rights, and also support economic reform and open markets through trade agreements. Liberalizing the economy is the great Trojan horse of political liberalization because regimes are generally willing to do it. Over time, this creates a powerful middle class that naturally pushes to open up the political system. In Iraq, we have to first establish a constitution with a bill of rights, an independent judiciary, a sound central bank. Only then, move to a full-fledged democracy. Young democracies associated with too rapid a transition have a really poor record of handling ethnic and religious conflict. The former Yugoslavia comes to mind. Thus, the democratization of Iraq has to be planned to avoid a similar fate. The electoral system should not create a "winner take all" system, in which a party that wins 51% of the vote gets all the political power. Let the losers share in the spoils. Have both a head of state (a president) who could be a Kurd with a Shiite head of government (a prime minister). So, different ethnic and religious groups get represented and share the power. Moving on to the domestic domain, Zakaria debates the excessive level of democratization in the U.S. where democracy has descended into ?a simple-minded populism that values popularity and openness.? Everything is run by polls and Nielsen ratings sometimes to the detriment of our democracy. The solution, Zakaria says, is more appointed bodies, like the World Trade Organization and the U.S. Supreme Court, which are effective precisely because they are insulated from political pressures. Certain institutions like the securities and accounting professions are being corrupted by loosing their independent judgments, and being weakened by economics incentives. The accounting scandals of the past few years are a testimony to this effect. What he is talking about were "conflict of interest" which were pervasive throughout our capitalist society. It is a point well taken, but our society has already dealt with this. During the past couple of years, new laws have corrected these conflict of interests within corporations, the securities industry, and the accounting industry.
Rating: 
Summary: A modern interpretation of the Federalist Papers
Review: This is a timely review of the virtues of liberty. It applies the lessons of Madison's Federalists Papers and Tocqueville to current events. The basic thesis of this book is that liberal democracies depend upon institutions and those institutions require time and effort to build...and are not built de novo simply through free elections. The chapters on the Arab world could not be more timely as we attempt to rebuild Iraq. Although noone will agree with all of Zakaria's conclusions, it is very well-written, timely, and important book.
Rating:
Summary: Socio-Economic Organization
Review: I follow the author right up until the end, the prescription for the ills of democracy cannot be found in the creation of more agencies along the lines of the World Trade Organization, the Supreme Court, the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the Federal Reserve. Society can no longer endure the obfuscation of risk, excessive taxation on private property, nor the crippling hold of regulation on industry that underlines our polity today. It is long past due for a return to the natural order of property right recognition combined with the catallactics of market coordination in all walks of life.
Rating:
Summary: A good reminder, but
Review: Like any important book, Fareed Zakaria's "Future of Freedom" goes back to the fundamentals. His thesis is straightforward: democracy needs to come hand in hand with constitutional liberalism -- a codified respect for individual liberties. This book raises an alert: let's not fall in love with democracy so much that we forget that the tyranny of the majority and the minority are equally disastrous and unwanted. At the same time, however, this book makes me a bit pessimistic. The origins of constitutional liberalism in Europe and America can be traced to competition between power centers (read: limited authority). Constitutional liberalism and democracy come together through evolution, not by design. At no point does Zakaria show how design can produce this necessary symbiosis between liberalism and democracy (his idea of delegation is the only exception, but it's too short to be impressive). That's why I think the book is a good reminder, but I would like to have read more of Zakaria's thoughts on "The Way Out."
Rating:
Summary: Illiberal Democracy
Review: THE FUTURE OF FREEDOM By Fareed Zakaria
Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad I have been looking forward to writing a review for this book. I am actually proud to write this review on one of the best book I have found on the possible future of humans and the World and the people trying to govern it? All from the lack of knowledge--they just don't know or care? I believe that they have let their exaggerated ego override their common sense. Dr. Zakaria has written the story of a large nation, which has over time gotten the worst type of democracy. A democracy by the people and all decisions are primary made by the illiberal masses and special interests, which means money, with cheerleaders leading them. I will use a description of a pure democracy to mean that everything and everyone is voted on. We have carried it a step further and appointed several people in the administration who are not democratic and depend upon the elite meaning people with money to tell them what to do. This is not the type of people that our constitution meant. This was not the intent of the people who wrote the constitution. We would elect intelligent people and let them make the day-to-day decisions, which would keep the nation on an even keel. The USA was governed this way for nearly 4 centuries with the type of democracy. We had an excellent democracy that worked and what is more we were thought well of, and a country with a political system to emulate most of this time. Dr. Zakaria has a very good brain and is using it to advantage by writing this a wonderfully detailed book on what is happening to the United States in the 21 century. He had even written quite a bit on the other countries and the United Nations, which was in my opinion, is very perceptive. He attempts to come up with a solution at the end of the book, and it might work if he could get it tried. There are a lot of humans who are good at classifying history after it has passed or at lease telling us why something happened after the event or events have long passed. It is like the revolution in France in 1789, which left the country with a pure democracy, and no leaders. But there will be very few or no one around to speculate on the history of this event if we don't stop what is happening. If I were to try to put his book in as few a words as possible and to clarify, he says is, what's happing to the World, as we know it, I would say, "debt and corruption"! The people are being taught to make money and forget moral values, or their not being taught anything about the moral ethics that meant so much to our parents and our ancestors. Dr. Zakaria has written a very good book on what has happened to the USA and is happening to the rest of our small World. Although, he has not blamed anyone for what is happening he really shows that the World required a small push in the direction that he writes about to get in the trouble it's in although he does not say this. He blames our times in the USA on our condition. Mr. Zakaria's book does not say this, but in other words, the humans who were leading us were not thinking or maybe they were thinking too much about money? Maybe we should take his book as a warning to the rest of the World and to the United Nations. This is not the way democracy is supposed to work? It is surely not the type of government that every country should have. The thinking humans have got to become more active in democracy countries. They should at least spend as much time thinking at the humans who put money and power ahead of everything. This shows what happens when the thinking people who have ethics get lazy. We need a UN described below. If we could find the right humans, they could put us on the right path. But they would have to be completely selfless and dedicated to their job as well as being very intelligent and charismatic. We could use Dr. Zakaria ideas as a good start. Where are these humans? They could be made of several humans with one in charge and the aid of Artificial Intelligent in a very large and fast computer with several interfaces to the Network. The Nations in the World would be tasked to send in generated reports periodically so that they could be guided in the direction the World needed. Dr. Zakaria wrote a book, which should be used by schools, and universities to assure that we have a good democracy, as it was intended and guided by the correct people who should be tested on their ability and their validly. By validly I mean honestly. Over the years the USA and the rest of the world has to balance the budget of a good life and money.
I have studied this book for quite a while and if I had more time and room to write there is a lot more I would like to say. This is the one book I find worth 5 stars for the information that it provides. Roger L. Lee
Rating:
Summary: Strays Beyond the Author's Expertise.
Review: Zakaria has a clear and well-supported point to make. He points out that we have sometimes fallen so deeply in love with democracy, which he defines as linking political power to election results, that we have lost sight of the importance of what he calls constitutional liberty. By constitutional liberty, Zakaria means those features that narrow the range of majority rule, such the Bill of Rights, the rule of law generally, governmental structures such as checks and balances or federalism, and non-governmental power centers covered by the term "civil society." Consequently, we have often cheered the holding of elections in countries that lack constitutional liberty, such as Bosnia, Russia or Indonesia, while chastising countries putting constitutional liberty into place without elections, such as South Korea and Taiwan in the 1980s. In the long run, Zakaria argues, countries with constitutional liberty are likely to develop into full-blown democracies akin to the United States a la South Korea or Taiwan, whereas countries that hold elections without constitutional liberty are likely to descend into what he calls "popular autocracies," which resemble dictatorships but where the dictator submits to election on occasion. The biggest problem comes halfway through the book, when he runs out of things to say about his basic thesis and turns his attention to domestic politics. He tries to attribute many current problems in America to our mistaken elevation of democracy over the restraints of constitutional liberty. But he cannot do so by maintaining his definition of democracy as the holding of elections, for elections have not changed that much over the years except for a few features like popular referenda that Zakaria harps upon. To adjust, Zakaria changes his definition of democratization in this portion of the book to cover nearly all of the ways in which power, not only political but also economic and cultural, is being decentralized. Along the way, he assails such widespread phenomena as the decline of the WASP elite, mass participation in capital markets, campaign finance reform legislation, and the decline of elite literature in favor of popular television. As should be evident from this list, however, he has moved far beyond his initial thesis. He assumes and asserts that these other phenomena grow out of our worship at the altar of popular will, but it seems wildly unlikely that all these changes in realms far removed from politics stem from a preference in political philosophy. Moreover, Zakaria largely ignores what seems a much more plausible link. All these changes appear at first glance to stem from the fact that technology and the growth of markets have given individuals access to ever increasing information and an ever wider array of choices. People are simply not as dependent as they used to be upon the opinions of elites, whether in terms of what entertainment to enjoy, what investment to make or what politician to vote for. Consequently, no single person or group can have the sort of sway that Maxwell Perkins had over American literature in the 1920s, or that stockbrokers had in the 1950s, or that political party bosses had before the rise of television. Not all of these changes have been unadulterated improvements. Good ideas about how to ameliorate the harms arising from these changes would be heartily welcomed. But Zakaria's argument that we can somehow avoid those harms by remembering to place political limits on the will of the majority does not get the job done. Only by properly diagnosing the causes of the problem could he come up with a plausible cure.
Rating:
Summary: Timely and necessary book
Review: Mr. Zakaria's central point of the book is that democracy alone is not necessarily the best form of government for a newly freed people. Democracy must be coupled by the strong forces of constitutional liberation which reinforces democracy through freedom of the press, an incorruptible legal system, a protective and not oppressive security forces (i.e. police and/or military) and other basic but necessary functioning organizations of society. Without these organizations and practices, a country will spiral into disaster even though it may be considered a democracy because the country will be illiberal. An illiberal democracy may have free elections but the citizens will not have liberty. The rush to free elections in a developing country is not the best course of action for a country. Some level of autocratic government can be more beneficial for a people instead. Zakaria cogently supports his ideas with numerous examples from various countries around the globe - Singapore, India, Chile, China, Chad, etc. He effectively illustrates countries where stability and people's freedom have ultimately flourished and foundered. Zakaria also argues that excessive public participation in government is not necessarily healthy for functioning democracies. He spends a significant chapter discussing the state of democracy within the United States. Here, he grimly lays out evidence of a deteriorating democracy that is crippling the U.S. government's ability to lead. The increase in direct democratization has given exceptional power to special interest groups which has allowed these organizations, that represent a sliver of the entire population, to hijack government's ability to create effective policies. Zakaria interestingly points out that the three most effective (and most revered) institutions in the United States are the Supreme Court, the armed forces and the Federal Reserve System. All three institutions are insulated from the pressures of public opinion and have the autonomy to do what its members feel is in the best national interest. Yet with an effective freedom of the press, these institutions' powers are held in check. In the United States, we have come to take for granted that constitutional liberalism and democracy coexist in our society. But that has not always been the case. This book's great value is in helping the reader understand that and why we should care.
Rating:
Summary: Eye opening but lacks something
Review: Dr. Zakaria's argument that democracy does not necessarily equate to freedom or liberty comes as a revelation. Democracy is merely a means to an end not an end intself. That end is constitutional liberalism. Equally important is Dr. Zakaria's argument that institutions dealing with highly technical issues such as tax policy should be shielded against the democratic process. He cites the independence of the Federal Reserve and the Supreme Court from the electorate as the main reason behind their effectiveness. This book will certainly shape the future debate about democracy. Although Dr. Zakaria presents a powerful thesis he sometimes slips and makes absurd statements. For example in his chapter about Islam he says: "Quranic condemnations of usury and gambling, the dietary restrictions, the requirement for fasting - are all similar to precepts in the bible. But Christians live in societies that modernized politically, economically, and socially, and , along the way adapted their faith... The Bible still condemns masturbation, usury, and the wearing of woven cloth; Christian societies just no longer see it as an authority on these matters." Does Dr. Zakaria mean that Muslims should abandon the restrictions that their religion puts on the drinking of wine and the consumption of pork if they are to achieve a liberal political system? Should they abandon the mandatory fasting during the month of Ramadan? Should they abandon the regulations imposed on immoral sexual behaviour? This is simply absurd and has nothing to do with the determination of the type of political system that a country adopts. (For the record, unlike Christianity, Islam does not ban the wearing of woven cloth). Dr. Zakaria's background as a journalist may be to blame for some of these simplistic remarks. Like Thomas Friedman before him in the "Lexus and the Olive Tree", there is a sense of fluffiness and amateurism. It just does not have that extra something that distinguishes a masterpiece from a merely good book. Ignoring such slips, the book fails to provide a framework in which the democratic system could be adjusted to address its inherent flaws. For this reason I do not consider this book ground breaking but rather a precursor for a much more powerful and revolutionary book. Expect such a book to pop up within the next ten years and expect it to have an impact akin to that of "The Wealth of Nations" or "The Communist Manifesto".
| 
