The Case for 'Democratic Minimalism'
Liberalism may not be appropriate in Muslim-majority contexts. But I still believe that a minimalistic conception of democracy would be.
Here’s a thoughtful review by the writer and Anglican priest
of my 2022 book The Problem of Democracy, which is about how to think about democracy when it produces “bad” outcomes, as it inevitably will.
Bird kindly calls it a “fascinating book about democracy, liberalism, geo-politics, American foreign policy, how Islam is inextricably and inevitably political, and bluntly stated the possibilities and limits of liberal democracy in the Middle East.”
Although I should note that while I don’t think liberalism is likely or even necessarily appropriate in the Middle Eastern context, I very much think a minimalistic conception of democracy is more than possible. I call this approach “democratic minimalism.” In the book, I lay out in detail what this might look like in practice. I’m biased, but if you’re interested, I’d highly recommend getting your own copy (and of course would love to hear what you think if you get a chance).
Obviously, for both better and worse, my arguments are made more relevant by Trump’s victory, which is — or will become — a textbook example of the “problem” of democracy: that it doesn’t go the way we might like it to, and that it often produces outcomes that we find frightening and even personally threatening. But this is no reason to turn against democracy itself.
As
notes in an excellent essay, Nov. 5 was actually a good day for democracy:Who died? Not democracy, surely. When all the votes are counted, Trump will have won some 312 electoral votes and carried the popular vote, all while spending half a billion dollars less than his opponent. For better or worse, democracy had a good night.
There it is again, those words: for better or worse.
It seems liberals love democracy when it produces liberalism but dislike democracy when it produces anything else. If you had truly representative democracy, it would look very dissimilar to democracy in the West.
The question one has to ask is whether western liberal democratic regimes see democracy as an inherently excellent form of government, or whether they see it as a means of liberal reformation of society. If the first is true, then any democratic outcome is good in and of itself, because the process was democratic. If the second is true, then the liberal mind is in continuous conflict with reality itself and is more ideologically bound to its conceptions of liberalism than the actual form and function of human existence.
In the world today - and surely throughout history - there are many more examples of illiberal democracy than liberal ones. Democracy can not, then, be a means for liberalization of society - it only reflects, surprise surprise, the society that institutes it.
Is democracy a good in and of itself, then? Or is the next evolution of liberalism an embrace of enlightened despotism?
Matt’s got an interesting link there that chimed with some of my own thoughts. I talk about your book, Shadi, in a recent post, here:
https://metaconcepts.substack.com/p/sovereignty-games?r=4hxk8m
I talk about your book in conjunction with Chantal Mouffe’s writings, who I know has influenced your thoughts when developing democratic minimalism, and politics more broadly.
Thanks for the provocations and interesting discussions at Wisdom of Crowds, as well.