The modern relation

between
democracy and liberty

Profesor: Camil Parvu

Student: Serban Dumitru-Madalin
Facultatea de Stiinte Politice
Sectia: SPE III
“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not
want to hear.” — George Orwell

Liberty is the ability of an individual to pursue their own goals with minimal
interference from outside forces. Democracy is rule by the people, where there is a rule of
law that allows all people to elect accountable leaders. The relationship between the two
principles is a compound system of checks and balances, where neither can grow too large
without threatening the other. The relationship between liberty and democracy is complex
because being part of a democracy usually entails limiting certain personal liberties at the
expense of democratic principles, while people safeguard their individual liberties by
putting limitations on democracy. People frequently link the two terms because they
assume where you find one, you will necessarily find the other. However, there are
examples like Kuwait and post-Soviet Russia, where varying degrees of liberty exist
without democracy or vice versa. Likewise, there are countries where democracy exists
when individual liberties are restricted. Therefore, while liberty and democracy are
mutually compatible with one another, neither is necessary for the existence of the other.

Phillipe Schmitter and Terry Lynn Karl define democracy as “a system of

governance in which rulers are held accountable for their actions in the public realm by
citizen’s, acting indirectly through the competition and cooperation of their elected
representatives.” The competition that is necessary will allow certain ideas to move
forward, while leaving others behind. Similarly, the cooperation required will necessarily
mean that individuals will have to subordinate their personal goals to the goals of the
group. This competition and cooperation put limitations on personal liberty in order to
maintain democracy. Furthermore, the state, rule of law, and a government held
accountable are necessary institutions for a successful democracy. However, all these
institutions possess the ability to limit liberty. The nature of democratic rule will prevent
individuals from pursuing their goals and interests. One example of a democracy limiting
liberty is through the collection of taxes because the taxes are used to fund a program or
initiative that the individual taxpayer may oppose.

Despite the limitations that democracy puts on liberty, liberty does tend to correlate with
democracy. Democracies lean towards the promotion of individual liberty (albeit
limited), self-expression and free-markets in the belief they promote development. Fareed
Zakaria even supposes that liberty is a pre-condition for democracy. However, evidence
suggests that the relationship is not necessary. The rise of illiberal democracies in
Turkey, Belarus, and Venezuela where the people elect leaders, but civil liberties are
restricted demonstrates that some democracy can exist without liberty.

Interestingly, even the United States Constitution does not explicitly mention
democracy, only liberty. Robert Dahl explores this idea in great depth when he poses the
question, “How Democratic is the American Constitution?” and surmises that there are
multiple undemocratic elements to the Constitution. Furthermore, liberty and democracy
will not always coexist peaceably. When nation-state building intersects with democracy
some conflict is likely. The right of every nation to project their liberties through self-
determination makes it difficult for multinational states to practice democracy because
the will of the majority impedes the will of the minority. Therefore, even though liberty
and democracy often exist peacefully in many states, it is not always the case.

There are many reasons why the principles of democracy and liberty come into
conflict, but one of the most notable reasons put forth is by the Objectivist philosophy
proposed by Ayn Rand. Rand purports that individual liberties are paramount to all else
and that no form of government, including democracy, should challenge the individual’s
ability to pursue their own rational self-interest. This belief is counter to the fundamental
principles of democracy because it places the individual above the group and gets at the
core of why democracy and liberty conflict. Whether or not one subscribes to these
principles, it highlights that friction between liberty and democracy primarily exists
because the limitations they put on one another.
Whether the society comprises a single nation or multiple nations, if left unchecked,
individual liberties will stifle democracy. The individual who values liberty above all else
will see the majoritarian nature of democracy as a limitation to their liberty. However, if
all individuals are pursuing their own goals with no unified effort, chaos will result. The
unified effort is necessary and beneficial for the individual. On the other hand,
democracy not checked will encroach upon liberty through the mechanisms of rule of law
and majority rule. Therefore, the two principles, while compatible, exist in a perpetual
state of conflict.