Liberalism vs. Democracy

It's hard for me to not make my question tl;dr but bear with me as i try to do my best.

You know the struggle between democratic action and liberal protections, group/collective rights bumping up against individual freedoms. This political dynamic and struggle is something that has been a huge part of American politics. States' rights, minority rights, economic freedom vs. federal jurisdiction, majority rule, and taxation toward state projects like roads and schools. It's a big thing in American politics. But Amurrica isnt the only liberal democracy out there.


I'm looking for leads on and insights about how others operate and how (or if) their dynamic works. For instance, in France the fight has almost been settled, with more socialistic, state centered controls over economics. Japan is a strange one, with its own struggles with minority rights (look up the Ainu tribe) and its strange economic congealment of state and private sector to create a strong, sort of socialistic-cororporatist state.

Then there's Taiwan... where the legislative body likes to enjoy the occasional brawl in the capitol...


This isn't just relegated to simply legal/ideological attitude as well. There's also cultural considerations id like to look at too. Japan is a liberal democracy with a constitution drafted with the backing of Britain and the US, yet how could such an individual-protecting constitution really serve a country with a very group-oriented community mindset?




fuck. TL;DR Amurrican democracy has individual rights vs. democratic will as key point of its politics. What about other nations' democracies?

I don't understand what OP intends to discuss. Liberalism and 'democracy' (as most understand it) are mostly compatible. If a country does not have a liberal judiciary and (liberally elected) legislative, it is improbable it will develop 'good' 'democratic' practices.

As for the monarchy point: Constitutional monarchy is quite flexible (eg UK, denmark, some others). Absolute monarchy is often crappy (eg Saudi Arabia, Swaziland, etc). Although WW2 Japan was a constitutional monarchy, it was not a liberally-elected legislative and the judiciary was probably not liberal, at least not in the western sense. A parallel situation of monarchy in that regard might be Russia 1905-17 where it was technically constitutional with an elected Duma, but very illiberally. Usually an illiberal system has to be overthrown or somehow rendered powerless in order to bring in a liberal system capable of transforming into some kind of democracy.

My main distate for democracy comes from the incredible apathy universal suffrage tends to lead to. If only 15% of the population (eg. 30% richest guys) can vote, you will never, ever see them not vote. Sure, it is corporate interests, but that's exactly what happens now, only people have to be spoon-fed opinions through the media machine to swing elections in the direction the wealthy/elite want so they can have their interests backed. Actually 'democracy' in many ways is little different to 19th century Britain. Only it's appearance of being liberal and 'democratic' has improved. Ultimately in politics we have to trust someone. Choosing good leadership (eg illiberally elected or determined monarchy with powerful and capable council) is fine, polity is generally fine but democracy is a pipe-dream, IMO.