Future of Freedom

Rating:
Summary: The Real Challenge of the Twenty-First Century
Review: I only became of Dr. Zakaria recently, when I read a piece he wrote called "The Arrogant Empire," a incisive piece on the hubristic and messianic foreign policy of the Bush Administration. After a little research I quickly discovered that Dr. Zakaria is some kind of foreign-policy wunderkind, who became an editor of the presitigious magazine Foreign Affairs at the age of twenty-eight. This book clearly demonstrates that his precipitious climb to the top of the intelletual heap of America is certainly well-deserved.

This book is a remarkable guide to the major challenges, both foreign and domestic, that face America in the twenty-first century. The thesis of this book is essentially that too much democratization and decentralization, two notions that are often hailed as universally good, can be disasterous. This argument is not new, as Dr. Zakaria readily admits. What is new is the contextualization of these problems to the modern world.

The author brilliantly analyzes both foreign and domestic policy through the prism of what he calls "Illiberal Democracy." The analysis is both lucid and cogent, and it is remarkable how much insight exists on every page. Dr. Zakaria is a polymath with prodigious analytical ability, and, as a result, both knowledge and sagacity ooze off the page.

The book ranges from topic to topic, yet still remains coherent. Dr. Zakaria ranges from topics such as Islamic Fundamentalism, to the decline of Congressional presitige on the national political stage, to the virtual disintigration of good governence in the state of California. Despite his reputation as a foreign policy maven, his analysis of domestic affairs is also brilliant:

"The deregulation of democracy has gone too far ... although [sic] none would dare speak ill of present-day democracy, most people instinctively sense a problem ... More intriguingly, in poll after poll, when Americans are asked what public institutions they most respect, three bodies are always at the top of their list: the Supreme Court, the armed forces, and the Federal Reserve. All three have one thing in common: they are insulated from public pressures and operate undemocratically."

One aspect of this book that might grate on American sensibilities is the unabashedly proelite stance this book takes. It serves as almost a rallying cry to the elite to save the institutions that save the commoners from themselves. Although that description may be overexaggerated, undoubtedly this book laments for the halcyon days of a socially-responsible elite in America. However, in the end a lot of this analysis seems correct.

Despite this slight misgiving, this is a brilliant book that provides an intellectual framework for many of problems facing Americans in the twenty-first century, ranging from the scourge of mass terrorism to the cultural malaise here at home.

*****

Rating:
Summary: A must-read for all after-dinner politicians
Review: Anyone who is a frequent reader of Newsweek or Foreign Affairs will have already recognized the name of Fareed Zakaria, and has already worked their mind through his somewhat different views. That too was my first reaction when I read the New York Times Book Review of this book; and for the most part, I wasn't suprised.

Zakaria is an intelligent political analyst with a gift at subtely seducing you into believing (or accepting) his sometimes extreme opinions. In his latest book he topples probably his most extreme view- that democracy is not the 'golden shrine' of governmental order.

The American Dream since the end of the 20th century has now transformed itself into globalization, and the belief that democracy is the fundamental pillar to a successful society. Zakaria challenges this idea through a series of theories, each of which include one or two examples. He has a bland way of expressing these ideas, but the very fact that he is proposing them is gutsy, and for that the book is enjoyable to read (whether in the end you believe him or not.)

If you are one who blindly quotes de Tocqueville and company without considering the potential risks inherent in democracy, this should be the first book on your reading pile. Not only will it challenge you, but, ironically enough, may (like it did to me), only make my views on democracy more credible (I now have seen the most sensible arguements against democracy, and I feel prepared to rebuke whatever comes my way). I put this book down as millions of thoughts raced through my head. Zakaria has written a wonderful nonfiction book that will make you think, and finally, have a much more well informed opinion (whatever it may be) when you are finished.

Rating:
Summary: This year's "must read" by the new Walter Lippmann
Review: Along with Tom Friedman, Zakaria is one of the country's top foreign affairs columnists. Unlike Friedman's "Longitudes and Attitudes," however, this book isn't just a rehash of old columns. It's a fascinating look at the past, present, and future of democracy, here in the States and all over the world. The book is essential reading, for example, for anybody interested in the Bush administration's attempt to "democratize" Iraq. Basically, Zakaria argues that although we take the concept of "liberal democracy" for granted, in fact the two components of it have not always gone together. "Constitutional liberalism" is responsible for a lot of the good things we like (rule of law, protection of human rights, etc.), but it hasn't always been associated with democracy. Democracy, meanwhile--rule by a popular majority--isn't always or necessarily connnected to liberalism. With these ideas in mind, the author covers an incredible amount of ground, both historically and geographically. And he writes amazingly well, so every page is not just filled with interesting information, but is also lively and fun. This is that rare kind of "big" book, in other words, that people not only talk about, but enjoy reading. If you liked Fukuyama, Huntington, Bernard Lewis, and stuff like that, you'll just love Zakaria...

Rating:
Summary: The Future of a New Political Discourse
Review: America has been fortunate in the last fifty years to have had brilliant authors plotting both the possible and plausible courses of her foreign policy. There are few seminal works though - ones that somehow palpably alter the structures within which everything we consider must necessarily be examined. After Sir Winston's Churchill's warnings of an Iron Curtain descending across Europe, we were given the equally prophetic George F. Kennan who wrote his famous article in Foreign Affairs. As the decades clicked by and liberal democracy seemed to progress unchecked, Francis Fukuyama presented his "The End of History and the Last Man." Another decade sped by, and as globalization and interdependence became the focus for international theory academics, pundits, and practitioners alike, Samuel P. Huntington alerted the world to another problem in his "The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order" (again first printed in Foreign Affairs). More recently we've been given Robert Kagan's "Of Paradise and Power," which, while it certainly puts the trans-Atlantic relationship in perspective for us, the world remains a bit hazy. This is especially true if one considers that neither Huntington nor Fukuyama has been unequivocally disproved; and hence, the world seems all the more complex.

Hence, Fareed Zakaria arrives on the doorstep of our minds, and like those before him, offers his book as a substitute for a crystal ball. Indeed, Dr. Zakaria has received favorable reviews by Huntington, which accurately note that this is a study that hasn't been articulated since Aristotle and Tocqueville. The major premise is this: unregulated democracy undermines liberty and the rule of law. There are a plethora of parallels to be drawn from this domestically (e.g. Benjamin Barber and Don Eberly), or internationally (e.g. Robert Kaplan, Robert Keegan, etc). "The Future of Freedom" will prove to be a profoundly troubling book for those who believe democracy flourishes anywhere it is planted or whatever culture it is grafted onto, and for those who believe democracy is synonymous with freedom. This is a very old argument, one that finds itself centered in political philosophy, and Zakaria's book is all the more important because of its timeliness, and because, even as it is an old argument, it is one that has never reconciled the individual with society, or freedom with duty.

This book will be important to the student especially - whether they read it or not, it will shape the discussions and debates they engage in. They would be better prepared by understanding it. Academics, though many verge on becoming synonymous with abstract and impractical philologasters, will likely also find it the counter-weight to their own, more liberal ideas. Policy makers should read it because I can only presume that it will inform closed-door discussions on whether illiberal democracy abroad is better than no democracy at all. Many books inform us as to where we have been, a few, quickly written texts tell us where we are in greater depth than do newspapers or magazines; however, Mr. Zakaria's text is one of the elite few that manages to show us where we might be going.

Rating:
Summary: More is not always Better
Review: Fareed Zakaria (born in India, Harvard PhD, Editor of Foreign Affairs, Editor of Newsweek's International Edition) examines Liberal Democracy in his recent book, The Future of Freedom. His main themes:

1."Liberal Democracy" must be both Liberal and Democratic, Liberal in that it protects its citizens from abuse by the government and Democratic in the sense that it is responsible to its citizens.
2."More Democratic" is not necessarily better than "Reasonably Democratic". Socrates was forced to drink hemlock by Athenian Democracy. The Reign of Terror in Revolutionary France sent thousands to the guillotine via very Democratic National Assembly. Hitler was democratically elected. None of these examples were Liberal.
3.Emerging/developing nations have demonstrated a propensity to form stable democratic governments only when their per capita GDP exceeds a threshold of $3000 - 6000. Instituting democracy at lower levels of per capita GDP has usually resulted in unstable governments that end up being illiberal, undemocratic and economically stagnant. I interpret this phenomenon as an example of Maslow's hierarchy of needs: People are unlikely to have the time, energy, or motivation to be active participants in a democratic process if their primary concerns are hunger, safety or other lower level needs.
4.Liberal Autocracies are not entirely bad. Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea, and Chile are all examples of Liberal Autocracies that have or are evolving into Liberal Democracies.
5.In mature Liberal Democracies, more democracy may also be a bad thing. The US has become more democratic in many ways (direct election of senators, nominating primaries, open congressional hearings). One result is that elected officials are increasingly focused on winning their next election and less focused on the long term public good. A second result is that special interests, the narrower the better, have had increasing influence on public policy. This results from the phenomenon described by economist Mancur Olson in The logic of Collective Action: A small group with narrow interests will be more committed to achieving their goals at the expense of society in general than society in general will be in defeating them.
6.A possible solution for the current US problem is delegated democracy: Remove politics from key decisions by entrusting the formulation of policy to an appointed group of experts, analogous to the way Federal Reserve sets monetary policy. Democratic control is exercised over the appointed body of experts by their selection and confirmation by elected bodies.

"Democracy" has become so hallowed a concept that most people today (myself included) have accepted it as a universally desirable goal. In reading Dr Zakaria's book, I was reminded of a supplemental reading for a college history course: American Revolutionaries in the Making by Charles Sydnor. His thesis, as I remember it, is that much of the success of the early United States can be attributed to the Gentleman Farmers of Virginia: Washington, Jefferson, et al. These leaders created and practiced a very limited form of democracy but devoted their time, effort and considerable thought to making it work. Sydnor's book is still available. I recommend it as a supplementary reading to The Future of Freedom.

Rating:
Summary: Maybe this book is a satire.
Review: The Future of Freedom, great for some laughs. Ok, Zakaria's basic premise, while hardly original, is sensible. Democracy does not necessarily equal freedom, which is to say a strong national constitution that protects the rights of individuals against the "mob" is needed if individuals wish to retain their liberty. Again, nothing new but it is nice to be reminded of this once in a while I suppose.

Sadly, Zakaria does an awful job defending this point of view.

The book starts off oddly, for some reason Zakaria tries to make the case that Constantine's decision to move the Roman Empire's capitol to Byzantium was the beginning of church-state separation. Yeah, I know what the hell is he talking about? Perhaps he's not aware that the Catholic Church had been functioning until then quite independent of the State (except of course for the occasional persecution of Christians) for hundreds of years. And the Church had become so strong, independent of the Empire, that Constantine made the politically wise decision to ally himself with the Christian bishops. Constantine and future emperors (including ones who lead the west back in Rome) rather than leaving the Church alone (i.e., separate from the State) involved themselves a great deal in the schisms of the early church. Actually, a good argument could be made that Constantine ended the church's independence from the Roman state, but not the other way around.

Well, after that illogical introduction, things got worse. Factual errors abound, Zakaria even tossed out that old myth about Caligula making his horse a Senator. But, aside from the inadvertent errors, what's worse is Zakaria' clear love of dissembling. One could write an entire book pointing them out, but here's a few I noticed, and believe me I'm not exactly an expert on any of this stuff:

1) Zakaria tries to make the point of how important political parties are to a free society, by noting A. Hamilton's writings in the federalist papers. Zakaria states that Hamilton meant Factions to mean what we now call "special interests" and that Hamilton in Federalist 51 makes the case that political parties can protect us from these Factions. Actually, it was Federalist 10 (another factual error) which discusses Factions, and as any 9th grader could tell you, Hamilton meant political parties when he used the term "Factions" NOT what we today call "special interests." Hamilton wasn't promoting political parties in his writings on Factions, he was doing the exact opposite and warning us about them.

2) Zakaria seems to blame democracy for Indonesia's loss of capital in1998. Which is odd, since most of that capital was lost before Suharto's regime fell in 1998 not after it became a democracy.

3) Nothing is better than when Zakaria waxes poetic about the good old days when the US had a noble aristocracy of men who learned to be leaders while roughing it as boys at Groton. Well, I'm not sure what they taught those kids at Groton, but even a passing knowledge of the "Gilded Age" would leave one to guess they learned more than a bit about violent strike breaking, using small children as cheap labor, keeping the poor under crushing poverty, and stealing American natural resources on the cheap. Yep, them's the days huh? But not in Zakaria's world, those days of robber barons and gross injustice were a paradise of freedom for the individual - well I suppose it was for the males educated at Groton.

I could go on and on, but I won't. Suffice it to say this is one silly book, written by an elitist who is as fearful of the working masses, as a radical leftist is of the ruling class. In fact Zakaria's logic is almost identical to certain elements of the far left, "our group needs to control power to prevent `them' from taking away our liberty." Frankly I'd rather not have either side telling me what to do.

Anyway, reasons to buy this book? Like I wrote in the beginning, for some laughs.


Rating:
Summary: Smart Review by a Smart Man
Review: Fareed Zakaria is a unique author in a distressing time of chaotic world-wide change. I truly believe that if anyone should be allowed to direct our foreign policy, it would be him. When I am elected president, I would make Mr. Zakaria my Secretary of State.

His book is not truly biased towards any political mein, but it is biased (rightly so) with an inherent love of freedom (as the title suggests) & economic modernism. This book will borrow many 'liberal' attitudes as well agreeing with old-style conservatism. It is a fresh look at the world, and a well written and researched insight into global historical trends. Who knows, Mr. Zakaria may soon redefine what it means to be a 'globalist neocon' or a 'peace-loving liberal'. At any rate, I recommend this book to anyone interested in the world in general.

Rating:
Summary: They ain't one and the same, people...
Review: Zakaria goes to great lengths to remind us that the words "democracy" and "freedom" are not in the least synonymous. He points to Hong Kong as one example: even before the famed "handover" of the city to Communist China, there was nothing even remotely approaching democracy in the city -yet its capitalistic success and famed tolerance for just about every manner of behavior, fashion, and style points to an extremely free society. On the other side of the coin there are countries like Germany, in which tyrants like Hitler came to power in free and fair elections, in which nearly everyone was franchised. This dichotomy is the core of Zakaria's book and he explores the difficult question of why democracy seems to be flourishing while liberty is not. America's nationwide sense of growing disenchantment with government is dissected, and Zakaria also takes to task the belief that "majority rule" is somehow a good and noble aspiration for any flourishing democracy, and finds more than enough examples throughout history, on all six continents, where the "tyranny of the majority" ended up destroying liberties even while paying lip-service to them.

Rating:
Summary: Mixed bag
Review: Zakaria's analysis of the distintion between "democracy" and "liberty" is well done. It's not new since the point was expressly made at least a couple of centuries ago. Nonetheless, he is quite good at showing by actual example how rule of the majority can have dire effects. The meaning of the word "democracy" has become quite ambiguous in common usage virtually everywhere around the world. Ambiguity in speaking often corresponds with ambiguity in thinking. If the book does no more than clarify the distinction between ends (individual liberty) and means (democratic process)it will be a boon.

The second observation is that liberal democracy, that is, democracy that serves and protects indivdual liberty, seems to require a gestation period of moderate authoritarian (as opposed to totalitarian) rule during which appropriate legal, economic and social institutions are developed. I'm predisposed to agree, if only because I had personally come to this conclusion quite a while before reading the book.

Having acomplished the above, Zakaria turns to what should be done. Here the book becomes weaker. In international policy, Zakaria seems to advise more tolerance for mild dictators. Lee Kuan Yew is the ideal, Pinochet, Franco a few others are acceptable [...]. Being a former colony of the British Empire (North America, India, Kenya, the Antipodes . . .) is certainly helpful. The problem is that on one hand the sun has set on the British Empire, the UN is useless,and the US tax payer unwilling while on the other hand there is only one Lee Kuan Yew and the others typically carry the un palatable air of Fascism upon them. In sum there is no really palatable/practical foriegn policy approach presented.

Regarding domestic affairs Zakaria's observation is that many "democratizing" schemes that were designed to make Congress more responsive to voters instead made them more responsive to lobbyists and "special interests". Examples are campain finance reform, open committee hearings, direct election of Senators. The argument is persuasive. At the very least these should give one pause before entertaining any suggestions about "fixing" the electoral college. Unfortuneatly, Zakaria's proposed solution is to delegate more authoity to non-elected bodies of experts, the Federal Reserve Board being the ideal. This sounds good but would be more convincing if the Federal Reserve's record was not so attributable to just one person. Greenspan won't live forever. Instead of a plan to un-do mistakes, Zakaria's prescription seems to embrace the idea of a technocrat elite. This strikes me as a dubious notion.

Rating:
Summary: Zakaria hits the nail on the head...
Review: As I've watched America try to establish liberal, democratic governments around the world, both today and during the cold war, and repeatedly fail, I keep wondering to myself- why is it easier to establish an authoritarian or totalitarian state than a democracy? And why does democracy so frequently go wrong?

Here, in "The Future of Freedom", Fareed Zakaria, best known for his columns and articles in Foreign Policy and Newsweek magazines, explains what everyone has been missing- the problem isn't just economics (otherwise the rich oil countries of the Middle East would be as liberal as Sweden), intellectual traditions, or insidious ideologies- the most significant problem is the lack of liberal institutions, such as a fair legal system, that make both democracy and capitalism possible. Only when a country establishes these, and builds an economy on it's own ingenuity (rather than resource wealth or handouts from the international community), can it truly be ready for liberal democracy. To Zakaria, this explains why Chile, South Korea, Japan, and Spain have succeeded in creating liberal democracies, whereas nations like India, Iraq, Egypt, and much of the former Soviet Union have failed or are failed.

In addition to his critiques of authoritarian nations, though, Zakaria turns his attentions to problems with democracy in America as well- and threats from both the right and the left. On the left, he points out the problems with California and their "government by referendum", which has emasculated the state government in Sacramento and left them powerless to adjust the budget or deal with crises. On the right, he decries the fall of traditional elites in America, and the rise of ad-hoc populist elites- especially the Christian right, which in his eyes mirrors the worst excesses of their liberal cousins (Jerry Falwell- Religion as Mass Marketing, Pat Robertson- Religion as Feel-Good Therapy, The Bakers- Religion as Hedonism). Rather than fortifying morality, the abandonment of traditional elite virtues and the "high churches" in favor of a mass populist approach to social morals and the demagoguery of religious figures is endangering American democracy at it's roots. These threats, from both sides of the spectrum, need to be held in check both here and abroad.

A powerful, popular book from Zakaria- as a fan of his columns, I hope to see more such books from him. And who knows, maybe he'll be the first Indian Muslim-American to be Secretary of State...