Rating: 
Summary: Refreshing Insight into the Role of Democracy
Review: Several decades ago I spent two years in the Peace Corps in a "Democratic" West African country. The experience was a real eye-opener for me, and lead me to believe most of what Dr. Zakaria discusses in the first half of his book. Just as a human being does not come into the world fully formed and at it's maximum capabilities, a newly created nation is often wanting in the financial, legal, and educational institutions needed to successfully support democracy in today's world. Those of us lucky enough to live in one of the modern democracries need to recognize that an effective democracy is more than polling stations and the universal right to vote. As discussed by Dr. Zakaria, a benign dictator who puts in place the institutions and infrastructure needed to economically develop his country can be better for a poor developing nation than a lousy democratically elected government.We tend to forget that our American form of government was not created spontaneously in the colonies, but was the result of hundreds of years of evolution in Western Europe. In forging our foreign policy, we need to spend more time assisting new nations in putting in place the institutions necessary to ultimately support democracy, and less time worrying about elections. Once earned per captia income reaches a cetain level in a developing nation(about $6000), a new democracy stands a much better chance of survival than in very poor country.
In the second half of his book Dr. Zakaria launches into a less well-written discussion of how democracy has degraded in America. As a Californian, I have to agree with his comments on the breakdown of our state's government. However, I think that Dr. Zakaria downplays the uncontained greed of local governments, which in turn lead to the landmark Proposition 13, and the resulting (mis)governance in our state by popular initiatives in the last two decades. Dr. Zakaria makes some provocative suggestions for changing our government by having more decision making done by non-elected bodies.
I recommend this book to anyone interested in how we could improve our foreign policy as we embark on nation-building.
Rating: 
Summary: The history of Freedom is the better title for the book
Review: The book is good for a person with no or little background about democracy. It mainly focussed on what had happened in the past without much insightful idea about what would occur in the future.
Rating: 
Summary: The Dark Side of Democracy
Review: The U.S. television comedy show "Saturday Night Live" once presented a skit about a television quiz show in which the winning answers to factual questions were determined by popular vote of the studio audience. The bewildered contestants eventually realized that the winning answers were seldom the correct answers. Today, news media report the results of public opinion polls, with questions like "Do you believe life on earth evolved naturally?", as if the results determined the facts of the matter.The Twentieth Century saw the collapse of fascism and communism and the triumph of democracy and capitalism. The United States has reached a position of economic and political prominence unequalled in world history. Yet, much of the world resents American hegemony and a substantial portion of the world's population sees the U.S. as the single greatest obstacle to world peace. Political apathy permeates the United States despite genuine attempts to enfranchise all segments of the population. Many social critics see a broad "dumbing-down" of western society and culture. The political left and right argue about who is to blame. The Greek philosopher Socrates stated that democracy was at once the best and worst of political systems. With the demise of the Greek city-states, two millennia lapsed before democracy returned as a viable political system. The success of democracy in the past two centuries is unparalleled. We have elevated the concept of democracy to the sanctity of eternal goodness. In the United States, we virtually worship freedom of speech, yet neither left, right, nor middle dare challenge the unblemished virtue of democracy. Perhaps we have overlooked something. Dr. Fareed Zakaria is the editor of "Newsweek International" and the former managing editor of "Foreign Affairs." Zakaria is an Indian Muslim who grew up in Bombay (now Mumbai), but graduated from both Yale and Harvard. In "The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad," Dr. Zakaria dares to suggest the antiquated, contrarian, and highly unpopular notion that democracy itself may be to blame. Dr. Zakaria explores a panorama of the world's social and political problems in a search for root cause. Few readers will agree with all of Zakaria's conclusions, but his analysis raises profound question about the direction of our institutions. The fresh and journalistic prose engages readers who may normally eschew social commentary. (I can forgive the sentence without a verb and other minor abominations.) What the good doctor fails to address in this book is the equitable distribution of power and wealth. Zakaria states that the democratic process will inevitably resolve this impasse, but that without order and prosperity, the process cannot work. An equal share of an empty pot feeds no one.
Rating:
Summary: Important Questions for Our Time
Review: There are arguments that have engrossed the United States since our founding. They started in Europe before that. The most explicit airing was during the fight for the confirmation of our Constitution. The case for our constitution was most forcefully and successfully presented in "The Federalist Papers." The Constitution was ratified, but the argument has not ended. It is continued in Fareed Zakarias' book. Simply put the questions are: "What kind of government best protects individual and collective freedom?" and "In a democratic government, how are minorities protected from an oppressive majority?" There is a new question that is added here: "In a democratic government, how is the majority protected from a highly organized and well financed minority?" As this book points out, it is a particularly important time for us to be clear about our definition of phrases like "good government," "democracy," and "freedom." We are in a new position, responsible for defining and guaranteeing those ideas for countries (or should we say a groups of people) we have occupied (Afghanistan, Iraq), in a region with no real experience in either democracy or constitutional law.
Over two hundred years ago, the question was resolved by removing much of the government in the United States from direct involvement of the people (a President selected by electors, Senators selected by State Legislators, Judges appointed for life). Since then, much has changed. Most of the changes have been by adding more democracy. The questions raised here are two fold. First, have the changes been good for us. Are we closer to "good government"? Second, and more importantly as we develop policies and expectations for the Middle East, what does it take to establish freedom and democracy in that region? These are important questions to ask. This book presents an argument, and suggests an approach. Agree or disagree, the argument must be raised repeatedly. It is important to get the answer right, again.
Rating:
Summary: reexamine precepts
Review: I read Niall Ferguson's review of this book in the New York Times and thought it sounded like a tract: arguments on why democracy shouldn't be considered appropriate in certain countries once it became clear that election outcome would support interests contrary to the overseeing power. It called to mind how Algeria's elections, which pointed to a fundamentalist outcome, were cast aside by the military government, and how the US recently ignored the UN when the vote wasn't looking favorable to its ambitions. So on reading the work, I was extraordinarily surprised to discover that its tone is reasonable and the evidence adduced is substantial and well considered. So my knee-jerk rejection of the thesis has been stalled, for how long I cannot say. In any case, Zakaria writes well and has the makings of a wise man, though my impression is that he is quite young. Do read this book, even if you reject the conclusion: it is soundly argued and worth a rebuttal.
Rating:
Summary: Well written book and an in depth look at Democracy
Review: First I want to commend the author, Fareed Zakaria, for writing a book that is easy to read, and well written. To take on this topic in the manner he does is courageous to be sure, as the idea of criticizing "democracy" is not one with much support. Despite the fact that book is researched well, and his ideas are outlined clearly, it is apparent that there is a certain bias inherent in his worldview. For example, he states that "democracy is not inherently good". What does he mean by this? He seems to be trying to start with a premise, and then support it through his conclusions. However, the premise is weak. I do agree that a "democracy" in and of itself does not mean that the result of that "democracy" will be inherently good. Democracy is not a result, but rather a process. A process that can result in positive or negative consequences depending upon how it is used, and by whom participates. Another reviewer here nailed it when he said that a democracy needs "good people" to function properly. This is truly the heart of the matter, and is usually so obvious as to be "self evident". However, Zakaria misses this point entirely. 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. In the first sense, an election which "legitimizes tyranny" is in effect a self-refuting concept. Either the elections are not truly a democratic process at all by not allowing for free and open decision making by the people (thus the tyranny), or the result of the election is the chosen path by the people. In one case, democracy exists in name only and simply does not really exist at all, and in the other case it has worked as it should. Since democracy is a process by which people determine the outcome, the blame for a negative result of the true use of a democratic process lies with the morality of the people participating, not the process itself. In the examples he uses throughout the book, he seems to miss this point. He also argues that "liberty depends less on the will of the majority than it does on the institutional safeguards for the rights of minorities." This is a common tactic, but one that isn't the neutral worldview he would have you believe it is. It implies that the "minority" in opinion "should" be treated with the same level of weight as the majority. Why? He seems unaware that this view is in itself a philosophical worldview that has no foundation. Falling into the illogical spiral that is moral relativism, he equates "minority" opinion as being more valid than majority opinion, to the point of saying the failure to safeguard the minority opinion threatens liberty. Strong words indeed, but what does he truly mean by them? Are all minority opinions valid inherently simply because they are in the minority? One hopes not. In this country there are many minority opinions, such as neo-nazi's, and other racist hategroups. Is he implying that because these views are not popular, and not held to the same standard as the majority view of freedom for all that liberty is threatened? I will agree with him on one thing, democracy in and of itself is not inherently good. Without a moral compass to guide, and standards of morality on which to base judgements of good vs. evil, a democracy can a failure. The majority can be tragically wrong, as he points out as one example of democracy gone badly: 1930's Germany. He is right in implying that the majority view is not always good, but what he in the end fails to do is to provide any solution. One could walk away from his work thinking that there is some formula of the right mix of democracy and dictatorship that will result in a moral and "good" society. Sadly though, democracy is but a process, and with any process, the true determination of whether it is good or bad is the hearts of the people participating. In the end, his views are not new; they are scattered throughout the New Testament of the Bible, where the ultimate consideration for governing and decision making is a reliance on the "law written on our hearts". All other processes, including his idea of liberalizing international politics, will only be as successful as those who participate. Another reviewer quoted Winston Churchill: "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." Nothing in this book suggests otherwise.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent analysis of the underpinnings of US foreign policy
Review: This is an excellent book about the essential underpinnings of foreign policy. Most foreign policy decisions implicitly rely on an answer to the question: "What is good government?" Zakaria argues that Americans are apt to focus on democracy as the ultimate judge of regimes and determine foreign policy on that basis. Using examples from his wide knowledge of current affairs and history, Zakaria illustrates the problem with that standard: democracy is a means to an end, not an end in itself. In a clear and effective argument, he spells this thesis out. My only complaint is that he carries this thesis a bit far in chapters on populism in America, where, he argues, too much democracy has hurt our own government. It would also be interesting to know more of to what he attributes the unwise emphasis on democracy. Perhaps, democracy, unlike liberalism, sounds value-neutral (even if it isn't), making it a tempting substitute in the quagmire of foreign policy debates.
Rating:
Summary: How to sustain a liberal democracy?
Review: 'The Future of Freedom' is a provocative book, arguing convincingly that our task is to protect the world from democracy. America did become great because its system of democracy is more about protecting the minorities than empowering the majority. But this has evolved over 200 years with many amendments to the Constitution and liberal judiciary. African Americans for example, as slaves had no rights, got their freedom and only after the enactment of civil rights they could feel protected. Once they are free and protected, should the minorities have any special obligations? Arab Americans for example are now concerned about being targeted for investigations. Shouldn't they take active measures to weed out the bad elements themselves? What happens if the protection afforded to the minorities in a democracy allows them to enrage the majority by their activities? If a Muslim comes to the Bible Belt in the South and declares openly that Christians will burn in hell for calling Jesus the Son of God, would it not help make Christians less liberal? India is also a case in point. Hindu-Muslim conflict is worsening according to the book because of the Hindu fundamentalist government (BJP). Percentage of people voting in India has gone up from 45% to 70% and this too much of democracy has resulted BJP winning the elections. What goaded these people to come to vote in record numbers? Is it perhaps the security that was afforded to the minorities by the Nehru regime, without any responsibilities? Would it not be irresponsible for the Muslims to denigrate openly what Hindus consider holy? Fareed Zakaria calls Rama, who many Hindus believe God incarnate, a mythical figure. As a member of minority community growing up in India during the Nehru regime, he has gotten used to insulting Hindus, knowing fully that he is protected by the government. Zakaria would not dare to call Adam, Abraham or Moses as mythical characters. I agree that security of the minorities is extremely important in a democracy. They should have responsibilities also. I wish Zakaria, a great thinker that he is comes up with what the minorities should do to sustain a liberal democracy.
Rating:
Summary: Best Book I've Read in Some Time
Review: Excellent history of liberal democracy and provides a context for understanding the ongoing democratization of the world. I think it hits the nail on the head both at home and abroad as the title implies. Great warnings and recommendations. I put it in a class with Guns, Germs, and Steel as one of those books that helps put large issues and currents in an understandable context.
Rating:
Summary: Read this Book
Review: The Future of Freedom is the most important book I have read in the last year. And I read at least 150 books a year. It may be the most affecting political book I have ever read. It is clear, (almost) non-partisan, timely, and just incredibly, heartbreakingly sane. Fareed Zakaria illustrates the ways in which we misunderstand democracy -- primarily the way in which we confuse democracy with liberty. Also the failure of the international community (often the US) to understand how best to aid the transition from autocratic governments to democratic ones without simply creating new autocratic elites (particularly relevant now -- Bush, and Jay Garner, please read this book). Along the way he gives a terrific history of liberty, as well as a much-needed smackdown of the idea that Islam needs to be 'reformed' in order to be compatible with any of the following: capitalism, democracy, liberty. Then, just when I thought I couldn't get more pleased, he eviscerates the short-sighted thinking behind referendums in my own country and even quotes a bit of Evelyn Waugh. :-) People who think that total democracy is an absolute good tend to have blind faith (that's all I can call it) that it is possible to educate an entire population to vote in a way that will value the past, present, and future. This is idealism at best, hubris at worst. It's like a teacher who believes that if she just teaches hard enough, or spends enough money, or time, then every single student will score perfectly. It has no basis in history to support it. Such people are so terrified of visible elites controling everything that they are willing to stick their I'm-so-populist heads in the sand and ignore when invisible (and therefore far less accountable) elites control everything. Like all other absolutists they cling to Truth, not realizing that Truth keeps its shape about as well as a puddle of water. Go back to Evelyn Waugh! -- "every good idea is valid, 'up to a point.'" But, if the above describes you, you should still read this book. It's the best way to quickly inform yourself of the opposing viewpoint. The only problem I had with The Future of Freedom is that it was obviously rushed out as a result of current events -- I saw a shocking number of typos, I'd say at least ten, and I wasn't exactly reading this thing as a copyeditor. But in terms of explaining a difficult subject in a way that almost anyone can understand, The Future of Freedom does for democracy what A Brief History of Time did for theoretical physics. I can only pray that it will be similarly successful.
|
