The Doom of Liberalism
Liberalism has always dominated domestic and global politics since the introduction of the US as the world leader. Ever since the triumph of the country, the world saw liberalism as the sole ideology that will ensure peace, participation, and a sense of self-fulfillment.
But what is liberalism, really? The ideology has been used and thrown so easily into arguments that it has become the absolute opposite of contentious. The fervor with which people use the term has, ironically, become the doom of further close inspection of it.
An Idiot’s Guide to Liberalism
Liberalism can be attached to Rousseau’s social-contract theory. This theory tells us that, to avoid a “state of nature” or a state of complete chaos, an order must be maintained. And everyone will supposedly agree with this, since it will be the only assurance of general peace, while retaining individual liberties. This is what liberalism offers: freedom of self in the midst of order.
Liberalism has many elements, the most important of which are individualism, toleration, consent, and constitutionalism. Individualism is all about allowing each person to choose the way of life he feels will satisfy him. This is where toleration comes in. Toleration means allowing opposition, mainly. All opposing ideas will be tolerated and treated with respect; no political ideologist will be oppressed for his beliefs. At the same time, liberalism also believes in consent: the citizens must allow a government to hold power before it does (ergo, the elections). To provide order, consitutionalism will be enforced, although it is assumed of course that the constitution is allowed by the people through consent.
Inherent disaster
I have provided you with the idealisms of liberalism. At first glance, the ideological implications seem to form the Good Society we now dream of: a place of peace with freedom and obligations with rights. However, when further examined, you will see that the ideology is highly unstable due to opposing realities and feasibilities within and without the liberal utopia.
I wished to take an institutionalist approach, but it seems impossible given that the object being studied is an ideology and therefore highly sociological.
Let’s start from the first element I mentioned: individualism. Imagine a group of babies in a society we will call Batumbakal. They are all born equal. Given individualism, however, they will later on pursue different ways of life. Let’s say all the other babies except one choose to become lawyers, doctors, cops, and carenderia owners. They will all pursue their self-interests. As for the single exception who we will from now on call Buboy, he will also pursue his own self-interest. But let’s say his self-interest is to become the corrupt fascist leader of Batumbakal. Surely, we must allow him to pursue this, given individualism! However, a liebral might argue, this will go against the individualisms of the other babies. They will not be allowed to pursue ways of life they desire. But Buboy has a counter-argument: toleration. All political ideologies, no matter how far they are from the tenets of liberalism, must be tolerated. If Buboy becomes an oppositionist, he must certainly be allowed to become one!
Ah, so liberalism seems to be struck now by its own weapons. But it does not end there. The remaining two elements will provide the means for Buboy to actually succeed in becoming the fascist leader of Batumbakal. Let’s say Buboy becomes charismatic, providing dreams for the Batumbakalers. Ergo, Buboy’s political ideals will be given consent, an element allowed by liberalism. Using his charisma, he will drive the people into a frenzy: he will rise into power, be elected as Batumbakal president, and be allowed to drive the politcs of Batumbakal according to his own will. As a final strike to the ideology that has caused his growth, Buboy will end liberalism by changing the constitution, based on consent. After doing so, even if liberalism has withered away, constitutionalism, an element that will remain alive in the people’s values, will be enforced. Every Batumbakaler will abide by the constitution, no matter what it says. I presume chaos will cripple Batumbakal sooner or later.
And that, my friends, is how liberalism is doomed to fail. To provide an empirical base for Buboy and Batumbakal, take a look at the collapse of the social democrat Weimar Republic in Germany and the rise of Adolf Hitler.
Modern Fears
Let’s change the scenes a little. Batumbakal is now the world, the Batumbakalers are now different nation-states. Buboy is now a nation-state with a self-interest and potential to become the world’s next leader. The liberal predecessor of Buboy is now a world leader, a leader long awaited to emerge triumphant by Buboy for his plans to succeed.
Ni hao ma!
interesting blog, you got here.
being a fan of hobbes, liberalism is indeed doomed to fail as it places too much faith in the ability of individuals to make wise judgments and decide for the greater good. as you know, humans are nasty and brutish.
but enough of that now.
toleration, freedom and individualism are the goody-good elements of liberalism. reason is also central. the ideas that survive in a liberal society are those who have hurdled healthy debates and intellectual bouts in the arena of public opinion. if the public has the IQ of a teaspoon, that’s another story. but since we’re tackling the normative here, let’s assume for a moment that the people here are intelligent, rational, and morally upright ones.
as far as toleration is concerned, buboy is free to think whatever he wants to think. but should his ideas become detrimental to the liberties of the other babies, his ideas will be sent to the abyss unless he and the others are able to reconcile their views.
liberalism does not translate to passivity. it engenders respect for opposite ideologies, but never blind docility. buboy may be free to oppose, but others may also oppose his opposition.
hahaha! ang sakit ng loophole. i concede. yes, i did ignore the possibility that people may oppose buboy’s opposition as well.
but take this in consideration too: liberalism entails popularity for a leader (due to consent) or at least popularity among the majority. and if the majority supports buboy, the mob will win, hence the opposition against buboy will be ignored, if not repressed.
one of the drawbacks of liberalism is its inefficacy, and in some cases detrimental nature, in politically immature societies. as this ideology was conceived by western thinkers, it was formulated amidst a background of states with strong institutions and enough social capital.
the possibility of the existence of a tyranny of the majority [or of the elite] is astronomical in nations whose political cultures dwell in between parochial and apathetic. the civic deficit that exists undermines the capacity of citizens for active political participation [going beyond elections] and leaves them more at risk of falling under the swathe of demagogues.
in short, in the case of states whose political cultures have not reached their prime, the situation you presented is very much possible.
[i don't think i'm making any sense anymore. haha!]
hahahaha yes, exactly. that, primarily, is my fear about liberalism. the question is, “are we prepared for liberalism?” it would seem that the world isn’t ready, especially now that such a blatant opposition and therefore disregard against liberalism exists such as (dare i say the culprit?) china.
even if the world might appear as liberal (shut up, fukuyama. haha!), there is no telling whether it will not be swayed by a demagogue, more so if the demagogue is as economically influential and ergo powerful by virtue of its capability to threaten economies as china.