Again over at OTB Steven Taylor has published the third installment of his series on institutional design. In it he lays out 10 aspects of a liberal democracy, presumably to lay the groundwork for future entries.
I would like to focus on just four of those elements:
2. Executive power is constrained.
3. Electoral outcomes are uncertain, with a presumption that some alteration of the party in power will take place over time.
7. Individuals have substantive democratic freedoms (speech, press, association, assembly, etc.)
9. Liberties are protected by an independent, nondiscriminatory judiciary, whose decisions are respected by other institutions within the state.
With respect to #3 it is all but certain that Chicago does not meet that standard. The last time a Republican was elected mayor of Chicago was more than 80 years ago. I am quite confident that a Democrat will be elected the next time around. Indeed, the outcomes of nearly all citywide general elections in Chicago are actually quite certain. The Democrats on the ballot will win. Many of the offices will actually be uncontested.
With respect to numbers 2 and 9 does the United States actually meet those standards? I’m not being snarky. It’s a legitimate question.
Consider, for example, the Affordable Care Act. Does the level of executive discretion it calls for constitute a constraining of executive power? If it does, under what circumstances would executive power be deemed constrained? If it does not we don’t satisfy the requirements of that element.
With respect to #9 you don’t need to search very hard to find the claim that we do not, in fact, have an “independent, nondiscriminatory judiciary” but that the Supreme Court merely follows the marching orders given by the political parties. If we do have such a judiciary, then the last several weeks have largely been contrived kabuki. If we do not, we don’t satisfy the requirements of that element, either.
With respect to #7 my question is a bit tougher. Does it actually mean anything? What are “substantive democratic freedoms”? Freedom of speech, press, etc. differ pretty dramatically from the United Kingdom to the United States to France to Germany. I think they’re all liberal democracies. Are some more liberal and democratic than others? Or do you have “substantive democratic freedoms” if you think you do? And isn’t that sophistry?
Note that in this post I’m not criticizing what Steven has written. I’m just riffing on it.
#1 There’s nothing wrong with criticizing Steven Taylor’s thinking, so you shouldn’t feel that you need take care to specify you aren’t.
#2 There are no authentically democratic institutions left in the United States, even by Dr. Taylor’s exceedingly tepid definitions.
#3 Liberal is not a synonym for democracy. It is entirely possible to live in what amounts to a liberal tyranny.
#4 Dr. Taylor’a definitions are flawed, and his criteria confuse rather than illuminate because he arbitrarily limits not only the nature of liberty, but the scope of acceptable inquiry.