Illiberal

I’ll try this again. Not sure my previous writings have hit the mark or captured reader attention.


What do liberal and illiberal mean in the international context? And what does that mean or affect domestic national politics?


First, liberal governance in foreign affairs refers to democracies. People have a legitimate power and responsibility to authorize their government’s actions and processes. Those same people monitor their government for honesty and effectiveness. If OK, monitoring continues without action. If not OK, corrective actions are pursued to bring the government into compliance with the wishes of the people.


Second, illiberal governance in foreign affairs refers to nations whose governments are not democracies, such as dictatorships, tyrannical, communist and socialist, as well as monarchies with absolute power. Many nations with monarchy pasts – or emperors, too – continue to maintain such legacies but have modernized with democratic institutions that manage the day to day affairs of the nation and its relations with other countries. I’m not referring to them here; I refer to those whose government operates without the consent of its own people.


Russia is such an illiberal nation. Its governance is of, for and by the Community Party. There are elections but only one candidate is on the ballot, or an opponent in name only. There is more to this than I can explain in this space, but decisions are made by a few people for reasons unexplained to the public. And the history remains dark and unavailable.


Same in China. One party rule is not democracy. Other autocratic rulers in Africa, Asia, and South America, are illiberal state systems, too. They make difficult trading partners on one hand, and most difficult foreign policy negotiators on the other hand.


Third, in domestic political terms, liberal means many things over the years. Today it is viewed as ‘progressive,’ that is, what’s good for the common good and how do we manage toward desirable outcomes that are not intrusive to individual liberties? That position is not leftist; that old term means granting government larger power to control more of the lives of its citizens. Think socialist or communist.


Leftist is not a term in favored use. Liberal is not leftist. Liberal is not socialist, or communist. In fact, liberal in the old days was taken to be a closer approximation to socialist forms of governance. Not so much today.


The ideology debates pit liberal and conservative thinkers against one another. The terms are not the same as illiberal and liberal in foreign affairs speak. Try not to be confused by this.  Venezuela is illiberal; it has a dictator at the helm and an independent democratic opponent who claims to be head of government. Russia sides with the dictator for complicated reasons. Trump sides with the opponent for complicated reasons. This is the face of liberal and illiberal terms in foreign affairs. It has some resonance with internal national politics, but not directly. Confusing, I know. I’ve struggled with this for years.


For a better foundation in these matters, read Foreign Affairs journal bi-monthly. It will help the reader understand this mosh pit better.


May 7, 2019