strengths of Liberal Democracy
This essay will deal mainly with the origins of Liberal Democracy, and will say only a little about its current prospects. I turn to the history, however, because I believe we can learn from it a great deal about the strengths and weaknesses of liberal democray and therefore its prospects. Indeed, what I wish to sress is a certain source of strength that has helped free governement survive in the long competition with ungree government in modern times. That source of strength is free speech. I want to emphasize the roleof free speech as an instrument of self-government. Free speech has other aspects- for instance, its function in promoting the private concerns or personal growth of the individal. In this present inquiry, however, I am thinking of its public function as the way in which liberal democracy enlists the intelligence of its citizens in solving common problems. I am concerned, in short, not with the moral value of liberal democracy nor with the individuals right of free expression, but rather with the utility to the modern democratic state of government by discussion.In modern political thought this public function of free speech and free discussion has been perceived and appraised with favour by men of many differen
He critisized authoritarian government for "not bringing into sufficient exercise the individual faculties, moral, intellectual and active, of the people. "Mill's hypothesis is that truth will prevail over error, when both can be freely tested by investigation and discussion. His earnest and central concern was to make the greatest possible use of the intellectual and moral resources of all citizens. In his view, however, the discussion that takes place under liberal democracy is not merely a process in which demands are made and the will of the people is asserted. On the American side the case was made by Thomas Jefferson in the confident plea for political tolerance in his first inaugural; and by Mr. " Because of this quality of mind, Mill continues, man "is capable of rectifying his mistakes by discussion and experience. Free government consists not only of an organisation of will, but also of an organisation of thought. Mill did not let his brave hypothesis stand without qualification. For that reason it has access to a source of power denied to unfree government. Yet he did not give these people a particularly honourific title, usually calling them simply "the instructed minority," and conceived their influence as proceeding not from coerciion, or manipulation, or status, but essentially from rational persuasion. He could reject this older, hierarchical view because of his belief in the capacity of the individual for rational self-correction. In order to know what we are looking for in our historical inquiry, it will be helpful to summarize what Mill had to say. This body of though includes- indeed, I should say, it starts with- John Milton's immortal rhetoric in defense of freedom of the press in Areopagitica (1644) It includes Burke's portrait of the eighteenth century Parliament as a "deliberate assembly" guided by "the general reason of the whole" and Walter Bagehot's analysis, a hundred years later, of the long-run survival value of what he first termed "government by discussion".
Common topics in this essay:
Representative Government,
Liberal Democracy,
Justice Holmes,
John Milton's,
Walter Bagehot's,
Thomas Jefferson,
,
Stuart Mill,
free speech,
liberal democracy,
public policy,
public function,
discussion experience,
government discussion,
free discussion,
representative democracy,
source strength,
intellectual moral,
|
Acceptance Essays
