The rise of illiberal democracy by Fareed Zakaria is an essay on the rise of democratically elected governments which deprive citizens of their natural rights. Through the years, we have witnessed many free and fair elections which have lead to the power of the majority. The essence of power given to the majority is not a liberal thought. These majorities or regimes tend to ignore the constitution set in place by the people. In the past, democracy has meant “liberal democracy” meaning the people were given certain rights no matter which majority was in power. Simply put, “… a political system marked not only by free and fair elections but also by the rule of law, a separation of powers, and the protection of basic liberties, religion and property”(Zakaria 22). Separation of powers are there to keep one branch or party from gaining too much power. Keeping the basic liberties is the main goal of a democracy. Essentially, many assumed that since the people had a choice, they wouldn’t be neglected of these rights.

Zakaria goes into detail to explain that the idea of liberalism comes from the times in England when the rights were limited to a certain privileged people. Like Zakaria says, “To secure these rights, it emphasized checks on the power of each branch of government, equality under the law, impartial courts and tribunals and the separation of church and state”(zakaria 26). These unalienable rights define a true constitutional liberal democracy. A majority of today’s countries are democratic. Zakaria weaves an argument stating that most of the democracies aren’t liberal anymore; they have taken the trodden path of an illiberal democracy. They forget to give full respect to the rights all citizens deserve.

Most of the current illiberal democracies are not in a transitory stage because they are under-developed third world countries. The more developed west encourages these countries to have a more centralized state. Zakaria points out the leaders of those countries always claim they need power to modernize them from there feudal ways. This policy or idea makes a mockery of the constitutional policies that have been seen in America and many first world countries. In these same countries, a survey showed that fifty percent of the dictatorships have more political liberties than those same democratic countries. Having adapted to the point of a stand still in most countries, illiberal democracy is not a temporary state, “western liberal democracy might prove to be a final destination on the democratic road but just one many possible exits. (24)” For example, he uses the example of capitalism; there are many countries that are feeling comfortable with a certain state of capitalism. Other disadvantages of illiberal democracies are the lack of unity, for instance Muslims in America still retain their rights as American citizens while many Iraqis fail to receive the same rights. An illiberal democracy, fails to accommodate the differences for many citizens and races. Many times this leads to war and more conflict. Simply one has to take into consideration; those countries like Iraq are countries that are built from a breakup of some sort. These countries have many ethnic and religious divisions. When given a free election these countries, have one group rise to power, leading exclusion and discrimination of the minority. This is being seen in the free election of Iraq.

Politically speaking America has constitutional republic democracy because it empowers three branches so there is not a tyrannical situation. Zakaria clearly says that most countries don’t tend to follow this belief because the founding fathers always felt that there should be limited power in all aspects of government. Instead, most countries follow the French model of democracy because they have a government in which the people are believed to be “great people” not affected by the prospects of power. This model he says is adopted because it empowers the leaders instead of the state. The “American way” as put by Zakaria, is a democracy that emphasizes both aspects of the term liberal democracy.

The United States has tried to impose democracy in countries such as Iraq and other countries by holding free and fair elections. Before imposing these elections, a constitution and other liberal items have to be in place. Then finally, the free and fair election is meaningful. Zakaria believes that a fair governance structure is more important for the people to enjoy the rights of citizens. As he says, “Economic, civil, and religious liberties are at the core human autonomy and dignity. (41)” Over the years, the elections have been the emphasis of a democracy, but having a constitution in place is more essential for a liberal democracy. By consolidating constitutionalism for developing countries one can progress with a government without the status quo or the minority having tyrannical initiatives. Through a solid constitution a government will have a list of guidelines in which one cannot violate. These guidelines provide the perfect bases for a liberal democracy like Zakaria envisions.

In my opinion Zakaria’s article provides a perfect insight on the flaws of the current democracies in the world. Being related to an uncle who is a senator in Pakistan, can attest to the fact that a constitution is necessary for a country to function democratically. In Pakistan, currently Pervaiz Musharraf was able to change the constitution to allow him to become the president and general. His party currently holds the most seats in parliament so they can control the Supreme Court and all other branches. This is a model illiberal democracy, because the upper class controls the government. In essence like Zakaria said they feel they need authority to change the feudal ways. Instead the wealthy find more ways to take advantage of the system that is in place. In my opinion, I abhor such actions. Currently Pakistan had 2.1 out of 10 on the 2004 transparency index. On scale in which zero means extremely corrupt and ten is “squeaky” clean. Those ratings show the lack of progress of this democracy which was founded in the nineteen forties. The Pakistan case shows how many young nations have a hard time transitioning into a liberal democracy.

I found it impressive, the way Zakaria showed the history of many illiberal democracies. The essay gave a perfect, analysis of the current state of politics in the under developed countries. His argument is that we are putting emphasis on having a democracy but having a straight out democracy does not guarantee the rights of the citizens. I agree that a lot of the societies like Pakistan are holding free and fair elections without having the necessary structure to provide the rights of many citizens. The acceptance of this trend world wide is unhealthy. One should focus having a legitimate government which follows a constitution that gives the citizens there liberal rights.

In the future, hopefully we will see the progress of these Illiberal Democracies. Democracy needs liberalism to make it viable for the next century. Times will change going into the next century. To make the world a better place, liberalism will have to go hand in hand with democracy. Simply put by Zakaria, “As we approach the next century our task is to make democracy a safe world” (zakaria 43).