Why Should Liberal Democracies Exist? - Dani Rodrik

[@-.sy.5367]

Thank you! Im Hungarian and i can feel "illiberal" democracy on my own skin. I think the presentation was very clear and easy to understand. I watched the video to find the answer how can i translate Liberal Democracy meaning to proletarian language. It seems important role to me since most of peaple who support illiberal democracy think it means "letting migrants in with the leftists". I dont mean offend them by any means, but its clear to me that these groups wont start to interpret long pages wikipedia to find the answer. I was searching for answer, havent found any short ones, so i'd like to construct one myself. Liberal Democracy: "System where government's power can be controlled any day, not only every 4 years." How do you like it?

[@-.sy.5367]

@@houstonharwood7197 In Hungary government has bought almost all media. Newspaper, TV, everything. They have posted billboards "Soros wants migrants in Hungary and EU supports him". In every government news you can hear "EU wants migrants" (latelay there is no Soros) So basicly when you want approach someone in Hungary, there is a big chance this person has heared only government news. And when you are against the government they think you want migrants in the country. Even if you expose something like corruption, they think you want replace the government because you want migrants. Its strange in the first place but our government news seem kinda similar to russian news like RT.

[@patrickvernon1570]

Good question. It shouldn’t

[@pok1pok]

Who is "Steve" in 3:06

[@mesafintfanuel8439]

Title is misleading. Liberal democracy exists as a fact of nature or political evolution spanning countless western generations. It was never imposed on the UK and US but was an institutional, legal and philosophical development. It is strongly based from the point of rational inquiry in the form of the social contract. It is in fact hard to sustain autocracy or rationalize it. Any centralization of political power is by definition impossible to justify except through the dark word of power lust. There is just no way any large population can be ruled by the few for generations without colliding with the many. Nor would an increasingly educated population accept such blatant injustice.

[@bladdnun3016]

Unfortunately, you are deeply mistaken. First of all, throughout history, various kinds of dictatorships and aristocracies have been the norm rather than the exception. Revolts have happened from time to time, but the result was typically just another dictatorship. Second of all, we currently live in a plutocracy and most of the 'increasingly educated' population is neither aware of it, nor does it seem to be particularly upset about it.

[@jenniferlawrence2701]

"Liberal Democracy" as a term only really starts being widely used after WW2, possibly due to the Cold War. Prior to 1945 we (Western countries) didn't really define ourselves that way. We thought of ourselves as Christian countries, Republics, Democracies, Monarchies, Constitutional Monarchies, Empires, and so on. A degree of Liberalism was at times a feature (among many others) of these places, but not the whole. Countries can - and often have been - democratic without Liberalism being the dominant organizing principle or quasi state-religion that it has become in recent decades. Enlightenment Rationalism and Social Contract Theory also have only ever been one part of a debate within countries - one part of a larger story rather than the whole. Liberalism is also not to be confused with Liberty. They aren't one and the same.

[@pok1pok]

@@jenniferlawrence2701 maybe liberalism is the overarching theory encompassing all, like incl separation of powers, individual right of ownership of assets from inheritance or work (to certain extents), right to freedom of speech and protests, democratic elections. So maybe it's the final conceptualisation, encompassing all.

[@lukeduke6693]

Liberal democracies tend to be ruled by a smaller few than other iterations of government. This argument doesn't check out mathematically.

[@bullvinetheband7260]

I think that liberals fearing the vote is interesting liberal democrat's shouldn't fear the vote.

[@bladdnun3016]

Well, that was before it was tried in the modern world.