Response #1: "The Rise of Illiberal Democracy" by Fareed Zakaria

In my response, I would like to focus specifically on the topic of democracy and constitutional liberalism because I see it as a starting point for many possible discussions regarding regime types, types of democracies, role of the government, individual rights...etc.

* Procedure for selecting the government vs. goals/qualities of the government?
Zakaria defines democracy as the “rule of the people” and according to Samuel P. Huntington, it manifests itself in the form of open, free, fair elections – regardless of the qualities of the government established as the result of those elections.
This is an interesting point since democracy is concerned with having a choice, not necessarily its content or the result. It relates back to the role of the electoral system: giving people opportunities to express preferences regardless of the actual content of that preference. Then the qualities we often associate with democracy, such as “comprehensive catalog of social, political, economic, and religious rights” are not necessarily what characterize a state as democratic.
In the realm of our “democracy” discussion, the two elements presented above are really the question of democracy vs. constitutional liberty. These are the two components of a “liberal democracy”: democracy (political liberties) and constitutional liberalism (civil liberties). Is there a causation link here? Zakaria believes that “constitutional liberalism has led to democracy, but democracy does not seem to bring constitutional liberalism.” In other words, if the government acts on behalf of its people’s individual rights and freedom, such an effort will lead to democratic elections…etc. But the reverse might be difficult since "democratic" elections often come down to choosing the lesser evil. Half of the “democratizing states” fall into this category of “illiberal democracy” and are heading toward illiberalism instead of maturing into liberal democracies. This is interesting since we, especially from the West, tend to view elections as the first step toward democratization and liberalization but yet the argument made above implies otherwise.
Then there is this quote from Zakaria’s piece to consider: “Constitutional liberalism is about the limitation of power, democracy about its accumulation and use." Is there a dichotomy here? Does this contradict his other points? Is there a way to resolve this tension?

Then I would like to raise another question briefly mentioned in Zakaria’s piece:
* Illiberal democracy or liberal autocracy?
Election may be the symbolical first step but constitutional liberalism is viewed as a stronger foundation/preparation for further democratization. Furthermore, it is more difficult to push constitutional liberalism on a society than to impose elections.
Is one more admirable than the other? Which one has higher possibility/potential to move toward liberal democracy? And more broadly, is it always beneficial to move in that direction despite the chaos and instability that seem to accompany liberalization and democratization-not to mention many failed attempts around the world?
Zakaria’s quote toward the end seems to answer this question partially: “[illiberal democracies] will discredit liberal democracy itself… democracy without constitutional liberalism is not simply inadequate, but dangerous, bringing with it the erosion of liberty, the abuse of power, ethnic divisions, and even war.” But...are we simply assuming here that liberal democracy is the most ideal form? Zakaria's piece raises numerous interesting questions.