Jaroslav Kaczynski and other Polish politicians

The Problem With “Illiberal Democracy”

Jan 21, 2016 Jan-Werner Mueller

After just three months in power, Poland's new government appears committed to establishing what critics are calling an “illiberal democracy.” But the description is deeply misleading – and in a way that undermines efforts to rein in would-be autocrats.

PRINCETON – Poland’s turn toward authoritarian rule has set off alarm bells across the European Union and within NATO. Since coming to power in October, Jarosław Kaczyński’s Law and Justice party (PiS) has attacked the country’s Constitutional Court, politicized the judiciary and the civil service, and launched an assault on media pluralism.

Critics of the PiS government, which is led by Prime Minister Beata Szydło (with Kaczyński, ruling from behind the scenes as he holds no official post), have described its actions as a blitz to install “illiberal democracy,” similar to what Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has done in his country over the past six years. But to call what is being constructed in Poland illiberal democracy is deeply misleading – and in a way that undermines efforts to rein in would-be autocrats like Kaczyński and Orbán. After all, it is not just liberalism that is under attack, but democracy itself.

The concept of “illiberal democracy,” attributable to a 1997 essay by the American foreign-policy thinker Fareed Zakaria, was an effort to describe regimes that held elections, but did not observe the rule of law and regularly overrode their political systems’ constitutional checks and balances. It was an idea born of disillusion. In the heady days after the fall of communism, a kind of democratic ecstasy prevailed (at least in the West). The “end of history” had been achieved, and elections, representative institutions, and the rule of law would, it seemed, always go neatly together.

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Already have an account? Log in

Support High-Quality Commentary

For more than 25 years, Project Syndicate has been guided by a simple credo: All people deserve access to a broad range of views by the world's foremost leaders and thinkers on the issues, events, and forces shaping their lives. At a time of unprecedented uncertainty, that mission is more important than ever – and we remain committed to fulfilling it.

But there is no doubt that we, like so many other media organizations nowadays, are under growing strain. If you are in a position to support us, please subscribe now.

As a subscriber, you will enjoy unlimited access to our On Point suite of long reads and book reviews, Say More contributor interviews, The Year Ahead magazine, the full PS archive, and much more. You will also directly support our mission of delivering the highest-quality commentary on the world's most pressing issues to as wide an audience as possible.

By helping us to build a truly open world of ideas, every PS subscriber makes a real difference. Thank you.

Subscribe Now

The Polish Threat to Europe
Wiktor Dabkowski via ZUMA Wire

The Polish Threat to Europe

Sławomir Sierakowski argues that the EU must draw a line in the sand in defense of open-society values.

19

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 23 in all 23 Comments on this article

Peter Schaeffer Jan 26, 2016

Like it or not liberalism has been tried and liberalism has failed. Liberalism can not defend Europe’s borders from the tidal wave of economic migrants washing over them. Liberalism can not stop imported sexual predators from attacking Europe’s women. Liberalism can not stop terrorism, homegrown and imported from washing Europe’s streets in blood. Liberalism can not liberate Europe from the economic disaster of the Euro.

Liberalism is the defining ideology of the failed cosmopolitan elite of Europe. It is an ideology of failure for everyone who doesn’t live in a gated community. It has brought misery and ruin in its wake. The people of Europe have repeatedly voted against the designs of the cosmopolitan elite (the Netherlands 2005, France 2005). The response has always been to impose the elite consensus on the people of Europe no matter what.

The time has come to overthrow the liberalism of the cosmopolitan elite and restore Europe’s borders, safe streets, and Democracy
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Márton Veisz Jan 26, 2016

Mr. Müller, your essay is really narrow-minded. The real problem is, that people - likely referred as liberals - never try to understand a different kind of perspective. You say that the Hungarian and Polish government is against a lot of liberal values, therefore they are bad. But you never ask the question logically should follow this statement - why are they against them? Why does not mean liberalism the same in Hungary or Poland as in other states? Until you do not try to understand this, and pay more attention to it than two rows with very general and foggy thoughts in a two page column, you wont be able to understand what is happening. Saying they are populist is just not understanding the true problem, because somehow a problem has emerged and the people elected Kaczynski and Orbán to answer the problem.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Jan 25, 2016

Jan-Werner Mueller says it can be "misleading" to assume that "illiberal democracy" had been installed in Hungary or Poland. Hungary's Viktor Orbán and Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdoğan try to make "their case for a different form of majoritarian democracy."
Orban has a narrow view of democracy, in which winner takes all. His opponents claim that he is steering Hungary back to its authoritarian past, looking eastwards to Russia. He, "in a controversial speech in 2014, declared his desire to create an 'illiberal state'.”
In Poland liberal values are under pressure, where voices of authritarianism and nationalism are getting louder, since Poland's Law and Justice (PiS) party won the election in November. Its moves to take more control of the judiciary and the media have divided the country and raised concern in the Europe Union, fearing Poland has followed Hungary towards an "illiberal democracy."
In fact democracy and liberty are two different issues, and there can be liberal and illiberal democracies. If individual liberty is not protected with constitutional liberalism, there is the risk of a majority coming to power via democratic elections and establishing a "tyranny of the majority", which does not recognise the views of those who oppose it. Therefore "democracy on its own was not enough. Liberalism – the protection of minorities and individual civil liberties – had to be strengthened."
Ancient Greek political thinkers, regarded ochlocracy - mob rule - as one of the three "bad" forms of government. The rule of government by a mass of people can be dangerous, especially if they are a "fickle crowd", spoiled by demagoguery. According to Aristotle, a bad democracy is where the demos (people) exercise the kratos (power). They vote "in majorities" and use "their power" to bully minorities and "violate fundamental righs." But then people exercise only their electoral power to enable the executive to act on their behalf. There is no political community with a clear platform through which people power is harnessed and ordered.
Turkey is another poster child for illiberal democracies, that expand their assault on a free press. Erdoğan, emphasising traditional Islamic morality, started to present himself as a “conservative democrat.”
Results have not been encouraging in the sense that while elections have been held successfully in Egypt, the systems that has emerged there, characterised by some as 'illiberal democracies', are not what western countries are particularly comfortable with. A decade ago the international community knew only Vladimir Putin as its sole autocrat of significance. It looks as though he has inspired over a dozen authoritarian leaders, who "have come to power through free and fair elections." But it "does not lend democratic legitimacy to their efforts to transform entire political systems to their own advantage." The term “illiberal” is appropriate, and it has less to do with being “undemocratic.”
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
David Kinder Jan 24, 2016

Oh yes, we are so much better in America? The Democrat authoritarians excluded the 60 vote rule to pass Obamacare and MANDATE all citizens have health insurance or pay a FINE! It's not a TAX! We are now hundreds of billions more in debt and it appears another depression is threatening our economy. The democrat authoritarians never thought for one second that sucking hundreds of billions of dollars out of the economy would cause irrepairable damage to the American economy. There socialist dream of mandating health insurance has only resulted in escalating our debt to $20 trillion dollars and it is still increasing. The president bypasses congress with authoritarian edicts which permanently damages democracy. Yes, we are so much better, NOT!
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Manfred Nitsch Jan 24, 2016

Anti-liberalism has been an important banner of the Catholic Church and its fascist followers in the last 200 years or so. What is the role of the present Pope Francis' church nowadays in these political and ideological battles in Poland and Hungary?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
M A J Jeyaseelan Jan 24, 2016

The problem of 'illiberal democracies' taking shape all around the world is the result of extreme and continued intellectual inertia and complacency in espousing the true value of democracy. The true values of democracies are enshrined in the constitutions that guarantee the equality of rights to every irrespective of whether anyone belongs to the majority or minority. Anything and everything that abrogates this fundamental equality of rights is antithetical to democracy.

Unfortunately, the system of elected representation practiced in most democracies and the powers that the elected governments are usurping day by day is indeed transforming democracies into mute and dumb instruments of majoritarianism. What people are forgetting is that majoritarionism was never the true intent for which democracies were established.

At the bottom of this crisis, is our unscientific approach towards dealing with societal problems. in science, what is right is established based on research after careful validation of proofs. However, when it is a case of social, political or even economic problems, we somehow think that majority can decide what is right. Can anything else be more unscientific?

The plain truth is that democracies are increasingly becoming victims of unscientific approaches in policy making. Right will remain right and so will be the wrong irrespective of what the majority thinks. This is exactly what people are forgetting.

What we can never afford to forget is that everyone of us driven by survival instinct and when the survival threat strikes, it is very possible that the majority turns inimical towards the minorities.

Unfortunately, there is a gross misunderstanding of the very concept of minorities under democracies. One may define a particular section of the society as a minority in a given context. But, political machinations and social coalitions can always change the very composition of minorities and majorities. This should be the primary reason why all democracies must make all out attempts to eschew majpritarianism.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Peter Schneider Jan 24, 2016

"Regimes that held elections, but did not observe the rule of law and regularly overrode their political systems’ constitutional checks and balances" - when I read this, I immediately have to think of Germany where unelected bodies like the ECB council are allowed to transfer gigantic wealth out of the country without legal basis and without parliamentary approval and where the ruling parties elect the constitutional judges who then take decades to find a judgement, where immigrants are allowed to enter without legal basis, without parliamentary resolution and even without any written decree."

"Limit freedom of speech and assembly, media pluralism, or the protection of minorities" - again, I have to think of Germany where you can forget about your career when you share the wrong opinion and where the media are now openly marked as 'cartel of silence'.

"Opposition parties have been hindered in making their case to the electorate, and journalists do not dare to report on the government’s failures" - once again I think of Germany where oppositional parties are banned from television debates, where yesterday a campaigner was sniped when he hung up an election poster and where the media took a week to report about the events at Cologne.

Therefore my questions: Who are the real authoritarians? Who is really lacking democratic legitimacy? Who is really transforming the political system to their own advantage? I see why they are shouting at Poland and Hungary - but I don't believe them any longer.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Anne Roorda Jan 24, 2016

There is currently an European Citizens' Initiative against Hungary's illiberal democracy calling for the country to be suspended from the EU which any European citizen can vote for online.
http://ec.europa.eu/citizens-initiative/public/initiatives/open
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jeffrey Barger Jan 23, 2016

I think some people in the comment section are not addressing the argument of the article, or are trying to dismiss it by acting the EU. The article isn't about how democratic or undemocratic the EU is, and there is plenty to criticize the EU about. But making those arguments here isn't relevant or have anything to do with the point of the article. A second thing some comments have suggested is that elections in themselves are enough, democracy equals elections and its ends there, it requires nothing more. This is a point the author does address, and criticize. The author is suggesting (and there is libraries of literature backing this up, Habermas just being one famous example), is that democracy doesn't work, ot it ultimately fails, without "liberal" aspects like respect of minority rights, rule of law by all, robust independent media and vicil society, professional state and judicial institutions not packed by party loyalist (ie. a independent, professional state bureaucracy that is itself subject to oversight and rule of law). This "illiberal democracy" is little more then veiled assaults by particular pareies (even if they were voted in by the majority) on those very institutions necesary for the perpetuation of not only a democracy, but a free society. The end game of this movement is something akin to Putin's Russia: government media, random oppression, no civil society, high levels of blatant corruption, decaying public institutions, decreasing standard of living, and little to no personal freedom, just a bunch of nationalistic rhetoric that makes everyone except the pure (who the pure are changes from country to country) enemies.
- MK Anon Jan 25, 2016
  
  In terms of election, you cannot only critise one side, you have to see the big picture. My points (and others) is that Poles's choice should be seen in the large context and is actually about a "liberal tyran" Vs "illiberal democracy".
  THe author wrote "and that it is the European Union that is pushing undemocratic liberalism [...] to paint the EU as the agent of rampant capitalism and libertine morality.". It is not mere "painting"!! Dismissing these fact as a fallacy is a classical intellectual crime. EU decision are so appart from what the majority of poeple want that they prefere an illiberal dictator that would do 90% of their requests, as opposed to junker who is even too busy negociatiing 0.05% tax rate for the largest corporation to even listen or care to the poeple's demands
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
MK Anon Jan 22, 2016

the author makes a clear point that Kaczynski might not be a democrat. However, stating that therefore, the PiS is wrong when describing the EU as "pushing undemocratic liberalism" is none sense. The EU is actually pushing for an undemocratic liberalism/capitalism. Just look at how the TTIP is being negociated with the US ! All the largest lobbies have access to the negociations to promote their views while civil organisations can't access it. Even EU MPs (the only elected poeple) cannot access the documents. It is negotiated by EU commissioners and bureaucrats who went a millions times through the revolving doors. The Luxleak is another huge scandale. THe EU is just as anti-democratic as the Kaczynskis. Fix the EU, make it protect poeple and the environment instead of big business and the banks, jail Junker (with charges of fiscal evasion) and the PiS will fade away.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Hurst Jan 22, 2016

Hmm. You are talking about how things get manipulated at the boundaries. Well theres plenty of boundaries

There are a number of democratic issues present in the EU. Poland is only one. It is difficult to argue it has more impact than some of the other games at play

Whichever way it is dressed the treatment of Greece by the Troika could only be marginally classed as democracy in action. It was much nearer to subjugation by debt and a choice of one outcome

There is little democratic about the Spanish government threatening Catalonia with Army action if it wishes to breakaway with a growing mandate for Catalonian independence

There is little democratic about EU central lobbying against Dutch voters legitimately voting against growing expansion towards Ukraine and complaining a No vote will not suit what they want

Where is the democratic responsibility is simply waving anybody through your country without checking identity or provence knowing that they wish to go elsewhere

There is little democratic about Germany encouraging migration with ill advised words only to then demand other countries join in sharing the exacerbated problem outcome even to the extent of proposed cost and migrant sharing being mandated

Orban of Hungary whilst being described as undemocratic is more popular then ever and is quite likely to get re-elected. an odd definition of undemocratic in some respects

There are far to many de facto unilateral decisions in democratic Europe. In fact the more you look at it the less democratic it looks. Normally in a democracy the majority that vote have the outcome they want. In the EU it appears the majority have the minoritys wishes imposed on them

The EU answer is always comply or die, onward and upward to greater integration and consolidation, which actually has nothing to do with democracy

It will be interesting to see Eastern EU - which claims it has local democratic mandate - squaring off against EU central about enforced migrant dispersal. Because at the moment they are both breaking the rules
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Petey Bee Jan 21, 2016

I want to thank the author for pointing out the tremendously destructive results of years of official speech conflating the various double meanings in the term "liberal". Whichever rhetorical strategist thought of that has poisoned the discourse of democracy quite nicely, as we can see today.

I'd say the only way forward is to stop using the term in its ambiguous form. I'd be curious to see how the text of this piece would be revised if every single instance of the word "liberal" in it was fully qualified to clarify its meaning.
- Curtis Carpenter Jan 25, 2016
  
  Good point.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Curtis Carpenter Jan 21, 2016

I see the argument here, but am left with the question of where one should draw the line between "undemocratic" and "illiberal but still democratic." It is after all possible, isn't it, that the majority of people of Poland, Hungary and Turkey have exactly the sort of government they want and voted for in a free, fair and all together democratic election? Is it so hard to imagine anymore that a democracy, however liberal or illiberal, can deliver really, really bad government?
- Petey Bee Jan 26, 2016
  
  @CC - IMO, gerrymandering is just plain undemocratic, in that it is an intentional gaming of the system and a subversion of majority rule. (for example, you can cut up a population that's 60%A and 40%B into 3 districts so that only 2 districts come out supporting B and 1 comes out supporting A). Citizens united is ... well... it's "liberal" in the sense that liberal is associated with primacy of property rights, and it's "anti-liberal" in the sense that libreral is associated with social rights.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Anne Roorda Jan 24, 2016
  
  @Curtis
  Yes, gerrymandering is a component of illiberal democracy. Although, in the case of the US, with two strong political parties & many levels of government (state & federal) the overall effect is neutered because both parties do it.
  In a small country like Hungary where a single party controls all the levers of government the end results are extreme and massively change the result of elections in the ratio of votes to seats won in favor of the illiberal governing party.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Curtis Carpenter Jan 23, 2016
  
  Maybe my question is too abstract, so let me try something a little more specific. Is gerrymandering -- all too common here in the U.S. -- "illiberal but still democratic" or just "undemocratic?" What about the Citizens United ruling?
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Krzysztof Worytkiewicz Jan 23, 2016
  
  No need for imagination here, just know your history.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Anne Roorda Jan 22, 2016
  
  I think the point is that although these governments originally came to power in free and fair elections, once they assumed power they vigorously worked to change the rules in such a way that any future elections are no longer free or fair -- by turning the media into party propaganda machines, changing the voting system to skew it against other parties, & filling all national institutions like the courts with loyal party stooges.
  
  These autocratic political parties are using democracy to gain power, and once gained feverishly work to undermine democracy to set themselves up as the permanent party of government. This has been the downfall of many democracies throughout history -- if a party that doesn't respect democratic ideals wins an election they can then make a move against democracy itself to entrench themselves.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Petey Bee Jan 22, 2016
  
  @CC
  
  I think the point is, that to be sustainably democratic, a government must include SOME but not ALL of the features of the dominant-western-liberal program.
  
  At the same time it is completely legit to make opposition to very prominent elements of the dominant-western-liberal program a centerpiece of one's democratic principles.
  
  For instance, the example I would like would be a pacifist socialist-democrat committed to a policy of redistribution for the greater good, rejection of hegemonic principles.
  
  Nationalist conservatives might want to reject other elements of the standard program. Perhaps they could do this without undermining the democratic system. That isn't what's happening right now, but our language is too confused to distinguish those two dimensions.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
M M Jan 21, 2016

Do you actually see Democracy in the EU? Do you actually consider the events of the last 6 years in the EU democratic? From passing arbitrary legislations, to raiding the bank accounts of Cypriot citizens, to bankrupting Greece, to rigging / influencing elections here and there. The Poles have become a breath of fresh air in this utter nightmare. No wonder you live in the US.
- Zsolt Hermann Jan 23, 2016
  
  I fully agree with you and would go even further.
  I would like to challenge anybody to show one nation in the world today which still holds onto the classical meaning of "liberal" and "democratic".
  
  How can for example one consider the US either democratic or liberal (let us just watch their "reality TV show election campaign, the steadily growing racial and social tensions for example) or any nations being part of the EU collectively bullying the smaller, weaker nations? And I guess these are the countries everybody looks at as "positive examples".
  And then we did not even question how the same "liberal and democratic" nations deal with others through their foreign policies, their repeated self-serving interventions all over the world. We haven't even started talking about economic and trade manipulations to serve their own interest, and so on exploiting everybody else.
  
  The thing is it is nobody's fault. We are all blindly driven by our inherently self-serving, self-justifying and greedy human nature. Without upgrading, adjusting this nature of ours through a very unique education program we will just continue sleepwalking down the path of total self-destruction.
  We can introduce the best looking, most enticing ideas and then watch how we immediately distort, corrupt them through our inherent inclination.
  
  Pointing out one or two loud populists will not help anybody it is just time-wasting and an obsolete, media-driven sideshow. The political, religious extremists rising everywhere all over the globe are just a reflex-reaction to the failure, significant shortcomings of the mainstream society we built.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/yqsi8yD

Cookies and Privacy

The Problem With “Illiberal Democracy”

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

The Polish Threat to Europe

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Log in/Register

Cookies and Privacy

The Problem With “Illiberal Democracy”

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification