Liberal Democracy

Over in John Quiggins land of Social Democrats, resident commenter Ikonoclast takes a jab at Liberal Democracy.

Ikonoclast:-

To simultaneously support democratic government and minimalist government is a patent nonsense. I can only assume therefore that anyone espousing such a position either does not truly support democratic government or is blind to the inherent contradiction of their position.

In response I offer the following:-

There is no contradiction in believing that government should be minimal and democractic. None at all. There are two ways to look at this.

Firstly one may believe that a minimal government is the best type of government and then espouse this view to voters. If the majority then voted for libertarian minimalism would you reject their decision as undemocratic? This is the approach most advocates of minimalist government operate on. They accept democracy as the political reality and work within that framework. The LDP took a platform of minimalist governement to the voters in 2007 and intends to do so again and again. There is no reason in my view for minimalist government to be removed from the democratic menu. Comparable parties such as ACT or Liberarianz do the same in New Zealand (all be it with slightly more success) and the Libertarian party does it in the USA. The major parties also run in Australia on a platform of minimalism in some areas of policy.

Secondly one should consider the form and nature of democracies. No democracy operates purely on majority will. All modern democracies expect popular elected governments to submit at a minimum to the rule of law. Various democracies constrain their governments constitutionally in a variety of other ways. The Australian constitution insists on just compensation for property confiscated. The EU constitution (or treaty set) has a veto clause for each state when it comes to tax centralisation. The US bill of rights is intended to limit democratically elected governments.

Democracy is at the end of the day a way to resolve power conflicts. It is not a fount of pure wisdom on how best to govern but a means to achieve an approximate form of government that considers the public good rather than merely championing sectional interests. The point of democracy should be to ensure everbody has a voice not to ensure that the majority may freely plunder the minority. If we actually ever achieved a state where the government cared only about the collective public good (ie perfect democracy) and was wise and intelligent then it stands to reason that we would have minimalist government. The government that governs least governs best.

46 thoughts on “Liberal Democracy

  1. I would add that a government that is wise and intelligent but cares for and represents a narrow sectional interest (plutocracy) rather than the collective public good would most likely be quite interventionist.

  2. It’s hard to draw a lot from such a small comment with confidence, but I personally think this statement is typical of socialist confusion (or possible dishonesty/laziness).

    Like a George Bush speech on the Iraq war, he seems to think the more democracy the better.

    Democracy refers to the process of elections, not to the powers of government. Therefore the two issues (democratic process, government size) are largely separate.

    It should also be pointed out that while the smallest of small governments (anarchy) would not involve democratic process – so too the largest of large governments (totalitarian) also don’t involve democratic process. So therefore Quiggan’s argument would be just as plausible if he said, “To simultaneously support democratic government and maximist government is a patent nonsense”.
    – Unfortunately this argument wouldn’t satisfy his ideology.

    What he’s effectively saying is that he wants as much as possible decided by popular vote and he is therefore declaring his collectivist and anti-individual rights philosophy.

    I wonder if he has ever made any attempt to define a proper realm for government function?
    Because in the context of our current modern democracies, someone who simply thinks the more voting the better obviously doesn’t place a large importance on property rights etc – and therefore on freedom.
    Or if he claims to, then it is he who holds the contradictory ideas.

    Socialists have been deliberately blurring the issue for ages. Trying to pretend that government initiated force which violates human rights is a good thing simply because they’ve attached a vote to it.

  3. Wait,

    “It should also be pointed out that while the smallest of small governments (anarchy) would not involve democratic process”

    Why?

  4. Perry has a good point. Traditional anarchy was socialist, and believed in communes, and total democracy- everyone had to agree to a course of action before anything got done! We have such anarchists here in Sydney. I once visited the Jura bookshop, just out of curiosity. I wasn’t impressed. AnarchoCapitalism doesn’t have democracy, if that is what you meant.

  5. Its well worth reproducing the rest of the original comment:

    If you have a democratically elected government and then constrain it to a minimalist governance position you are essentially saying that the voice of the democratic majority matters less then the rights of corporate capital. This can easily shown to be so because in a minimalist situation there would be no protection against monopoly or other abuses of financial power. Hence corporate capital would have effective rule of society.

    Now this is the reasoning, and it seems very flimsy indeed.

    We all know that monopoly can only exist through the hand of government.

    Corporate capital has no such thing as “effective rule of society”, it would take the most unhinged socialist to believe that free trade and minimal government is going to violate individual property rights and liberty.

    But of course, the socialist is only concerned with the elusive and ambiguous concept of “society” and not with actual individuals. I suppose rule of society, like other socialist ideas, is something deliberately vague and loosely defined so as to actually mean:
    “Whatever the hell the socialists want our society to look like and whatever powers they need”

    So the criticism is valid, if you think every society needs to be lorded over and directed by one strongman. Of course there is nothing to fear from the alternative.

    The bogeyman of “corporate capital” is nothing more than the raising of living standards through free market mechanisms, the formation of capital and entrepeneurism. I don’t fear iPods, plasma tvs, cheap cars and an abundance of food and entertainment. Why should I ?

    Just who exactly is this “society” anyway ?

  6. nicholas — the original anarchist were not socialists, but communists. But more to the point — their philosophy doesn’t make any sense. They only way to stop capitalist acts been consenting adults is through coercion, and anarchists opposed coercion.

    Anarchy involves no government, which implies a tolerance for capitalism. Under such a system there is no government and therefore no democracy. In such a world, it is possible that some people will voluntarily get together and help the poor (the hope of the anarcho-communist). But this doesn’t make it socialist.

  7. Tim – after noting your mistake I have placed some more emphasis in the formating of the article to help make it clearer.

  8. The phrase “liberal democracy” has generally had a specific meaning quite separate from “unlimited democracy”. The idea in a liberal democracy is that the government is contrained by a constitution which limits what it can do.

    Some people may complain that this limits democratic choice. Perhaps. But it is cearly in the liberal democratic tradition.

  9. Go to an anarchist web site and see, John! An-Archy means no-chief, an-ocracy would mean no-state.

  10. I’ve spent more time than I choose to remember debating anarchists of all stripes nicholas. I can assure you that I understand their political philosophy better than they do.

  11. If individuals wish to voluntarily take part in such a minarchist democratic government, then what is the problem?

    The problem with a closed system is that property rights cannot be perfectly defined and there will always be political disagreements.

  12. I like Jono’s comment, “Just who exactly is society anyway”.

    Society is an abstract concept, not a real entity like an individual. Society doesn’t actually exist as a real living thing that has human characteristics. Individuals are real and they are what constitutes a society. This fact is a good argument for basing political and ethical theories on individuals.

  13. The commenter over at John Quiggin’s is, of course, correct. There is no such thing as minimalist democracy. If you accept the validity of universal franchise, which is based on the egalitarian lie that every man and woman’s opinion on the conduct of government is equally valuable (hence we equally value them by giving everyone, including ex-murderers, rapists, lunatics, and people with an IQ of 80, an equal say in elections), on what grounds are you to oppose the forcible incursion of egalitarianism into every nook and cranny of society?

    Practically every “liberal democracy” ends in the same way – pandering to the lowest common denominator, demagoguery, the cargo-cult, before eventually plunging into a tyranny in all but name. The only difference is by degree (Western Europe is clearly the most tyrannical, but the US of A isn’t actually far behind). This is all made possible through the acceptance of the first principles of the false religion of egalitarianism (which include massive equality, and “non-discrimination”) by liberal democrats. The only way, so far, that the complete communisation of society hasn’t come about yet is through the continuing existance of unprincipled exceptions to liberalism (we believe in total equality for everyone, EXCEPT…) which, due to the logic of liberalism, must be repealed eventually by consistent liberals.

    Only an ideologically anti-egalitarian republic, elected and ruled only by people who have the capacity for abstract reason, will stand a chance of holding back full-blown mob rule and decivilisation, which is the invariable denouement of liberalism and egalitarianism.

  14. Steve — you’re just wrong. The word “liberal democracy” has a clear meaning, which is “constitutionally constrained minimal government”. Sure, it’s not total democracy. But that’s what the words mean.

  15. Marxism also has a very clear meaning – the abolition of specialisation and the division of labour, and the elimination of all economic and social classes.

    Liberal democracy is, what the Marxists would call, a “contradiction”. It’s endless yielding to it’s egalitarian foundations guarantees eventual collapse.

  16. There is no contradiction. What is the contradiction in the idea of a constitutionally-limited democratic government? Are you saying it’s impossible for a government to have a constitution? Are you saying it’s impossible to have a constitution and also for people to vote? Are you saying it’s impossible for people to vote and also to have a government? Which bit contradicts?

    Sadly, we don’t have a liberal democracy in Australia.

    I don’t agree with your definition of Marxism… but as it’s entirely irrelevant I’ll let it slide.

  17. You need to explain the first paragraph better. I’m sure the fundamentalists in Algeria who would have got voted in would give you the same line of reasoning, but it didn’t do much good for the other 45% that didn’t want to live like that. At the moment the paragraph reads as if the tyranny of the majority justifies democracy.

  18. Only an ideologically anti-egalitarian republic, elected and ruled only by people who have the capacity for abstract reason, will stand a chance of holding back full-blown mob rule and decivilisation, which is the invariable denouement of liberalism and egalitarianism.

    The problem with an elite ruling class is although you might manage to ensure they are the smartest and most reasonable of people they will in turn be smart enough (and human enough) to govern in a way that is best for them, not in a way that is best for the population at large. Smart and wise does not mean benevolent. The purpose of a broad franchise is to tilt government as much as possible towards benevolence. There are not many ways to remove the sectarian tendencies of governments but democracy does a reasonable job.

  19. There is no such thing as minimalist democracy. … Practically every “liberal democracy” ends in the same way – pandering to the lowest common denominator

    I thought this post was somewhat pointless but Steve has raised an important issue.

    Minimalist democracy, in my view, means democracy determines the approach taken in the minimal areas of government that remain after most of them have been abolished.

    Defence is one example, as I can’t see any alternative to reliance on government for provide national protection. Under a democratic government there would be no conscription unless it was approved democratically, no external involvement that was not approved democratically, and the conditions of service in the military would be subject to democratic control.

    I don’t pretend that democracy would always result in optimal outcomes in these areas. As is often said, Hitler was democratically elected. However, it would be a brave government that used coercion in a society in which individuals mostly made their own decisions. Overall, the outcomes would be heavily biased in favour of liberty.

    The lowest common denominator is not to be feared when the potential for government to do harm is strictly limited.

  20. Yeah all this focus on democracy is a mistake. We of course need voting going on to change management without bloodshed. And these elections ought to be free and fair and so forth.

    But if you take the American example we are talking about a place which is supposed to be a Republic of checks and balances comprising a collection of States that were conceived of as being about 95% independent. Yet instead the situation has been hijacked by theives and bludgers on the grounds of America allegedly being a democracy. Its not a democracy its a Republic. And all this talk of democracy is immensely harmful. Harmful for their imperial missions as well as at home.

    The USA ought to be seen more legitimately as a Republic with aspects of democracy attached to it.

    Changing the adminstration and taxeaters via the democratic process I think indeed ought to be considered sancrosanct. Yet the sheer level of DEMOCRACY within the overall Republican system has been way too overemphasised.

    There is nothing to say, for example, that votes for at least one branch of government might not be dollar votes of some sort. There is not much to say that suffrage for some level of government ought only be given to those not receiving public funds.

    So for my part I’d like see the next Federal election excluding public money recipients. I would like exceptions to that but right there we can see an enourmous number of people would be excluded. Very few people at first would have the vote since the government is now involved in an orgy of robbery but distributes this money to all manner of people.

    But still it would hold true that the change of government would be handled peacefully and by preordained rules. Hopefully as time went on you would have more and more voters since the people with the vote would be liberating themselves from that fantastically lustful stealing that our bureaucracies are revelling in at the moment.

    Now the exceptions would be sunsetted. That would be people of pension age, people of aboriginal descent and soldiers stationed overseas or conducting regular operations of a dangerous nature.

    I think these people ought to be exempted from the general prohibition for the next 20-50 years because they are exceptionally vulnerable, not so much to oppression but to societal torpor. We put guys in the field for good reasons but then we say ho-hum and leave them there. Hence if so many people were now excluded from voting the votes of the overseas soldiers would now be far more valuable and perhaps they would get more backup and materiel or alternatively they would get to come home. Which is usually the better two alternatives in these situations. If you are there you need massive support. If you are not getting that support you ought to come home. And you ought to be constantly on the minds of the administration.

    The point quoted in the threadstarter is in fact a very valid one. Yes we need democracy as an essential part of our system. But democracy as the guiding light of our system is wrong. Thats the wrong thinking. And libertarians ought not be shy in putting forth a more sustainable and rational alternative.

    This is not a twentieth order issue. We have been bequeathed decades of struggle. It will be a tough century where our survival and the survival of humane society is questionable. We ought not put off putting forth a powerful and strident position on this issue.

  21. In response to John, the problem with constitutions is that, although they might work for a generation or so, the people who are both restricted by AND charged with guarding the constitution are basically the same people…the State. The State appoints and funds the judiciary. The State also runs the executive. These people know each other. They often hang out together. They are drawn from basically the same background. And they have the same paymaster. To expect them to want to limit each other’s powers is, as evidenced by the evisceration of every living constitution, naive.

    I think constitutions are better than no constitutions, because at least they do work…for a while. But they will still, nevertheless, be destroyed by democracy, unleashed. Anyway, nothing beats secession, which should be allowed under all constitutions, or revolution as a disciplinary tool on government.

  22. The question for libertarians should be this:

    What is the justification for universal suffrage?

  23. However, it would be a brave government that used coercion in a society in which individuals mostly made their own decisions. Overall, the outcomes would be heavily biased in favour of liberty..

    Rubbish. Every modern country in the world was once made up of individuals who made their own decisions (if only for a brief period of time between the 17th and 20th centuries).

    They are now all welfare states with massive governments. What got them there was democracy, one step at a time.

    Most countries were much freer before democracy, and that’s a fact. The average person was freer under the rule of Genghis Khan than they were under the rule of J.F.Kennedy.

    Ikonoclast is right, you can’t support democracy and freedom at the same time. It’s more correct to say that as libertarians, we grudgingly accept democracy is here to stay and wish to work within that framework to gain back small liberties.

    But the fact is that in this world, if you want to be truly free then the only way you can do it is to escape from government completely.

  24. Yobbo, what’re yer smokin’?

    Most countries were much freer before democracy, and that’s a fact. The average person was freer under the rule of Genghis Khan than they were under the rule of J.F.Kennedy.

    Huh? How about that average woman? Was she free to do as she pleased in *any* society 900 years ago? And the man who didn’t like what his chieftan said, was he free to disagree?

    But the fact is that in this world, if you want to be truly free then the only way you can do it is to escape from government completely.

    At least this leads to the question of what we mean by “government.” Think about how things might have worked in hunter-gather societies. How free are you when your odds of existing away from the tribe are next to zero? If you “freely” decide to stay part of the group, there are then group rules to follow. Do you get to freely determine what the rules are when others disagree?

    I think it’s fair to say no government means a short, brutal, and solitary life. If you engage with other human beings in any postive way you need to have some rules of behavior in common, and in an essential way that’s government (in any meaningful sense of the term).

    Even the 19th century anarchists understood this. Only more recently has the term anarchy be used to mean no government at all. (I disagree with John, comment #7, about this.)

  25. Fine. Substitute “the state” for “government” in Yobbo’s last sentence and it holds up fine.

  26. ‘I can assure you that I understand their political philosophy better than they do.’

    LOL. John, you’ve just hit the nail on the head there. All communists, socialists and left-wing anarchists I have ever talked with simply have not turned their minds to how goods and services are actually going to be produced in their ideal societies, in such a way as to prevent mass starvation of the MANY people’s whose lives have only been made possible by a division of labour society.

    Steve Edwards at 24 and 25 has the whole issue in a nutshell. There is no example in history of a constitutional government actually staying within the limits of the constitution. Two examples. The current government of the USA is virtually unrecognisable from its constitution. It sets out numerous rights which have long since disappeared under the tide of statism and socialism. You will look in vain in the constitution for authority for the war on drugs, or for the government sending troops to immunise peasants in Indonesia, or running classes on feminist ideology in Afghanistan.

    Example 2: in my former home valley of Martinsville, a small dirt road leading up a dead end proudly bears a sign by the commonwealth government boasting about how it is funding this road. How could this result ever have been derived from the constitution without violating it?

    A constitution is no better than the general climate of ideas prevailing. If they are hostile to the ideas of liberty and property, these values will have no chance against the combined onslaught of the executive, legislature and judiciary filled with officious meddling improvers such as the last century has seen in plague proportions.

    In principle, the idea that you could have a democratic government limited by the majority sounds fine. In practice, once the masses discover that they can vote themselves benefits out of the public treasury, the game is up and it’s only a matter of time before the government degenerates into a more and more interventionist state in which all rights and benefits are thought of as coming from the state.

    Steve is right. If we take as our starting point the principle that you should be free to do what you want so long as you are not hurting others, what’s the justification for majority rule in the first place? There is nothing about it that prevents the majority from violating the principle of liberty.

    The problem as I see it is that it has in practice proved impossible to constrain government to within constitutional limits, so that the undemocratic states of China and Indonesia are today in many ways societies of greater individual freedom than are Australia or the USA.

    On the other hand, if we deny the liberal program of small and limited government in favour of even smaller government, it’s a case of ‘abandon hope all ye who enter in here’, and we might as well adopt the Taoist approach of ‘viewing the waterfall’ – which actually has quite a lot to recommend it LOL.

  27. so that the undemocratic states of China and Indonesia are today in many ways societies of greater individual freedom than are Australia or the USA.

    JJ, if it were legal in totalitarian Australia, I’d ask for some of what you’re smoking.

  28. The principle of do as you please don’t hurt others, which is a Zen idea amongst others, simply doesn’t cut in a complex society. We all benefit from the labours of others, we all enjoy lifestyles because we co-operate with each and aim towards mutual goals. The rampant individualism inherent in the above principle is fine for 100 years ago when one could go it alone(even then with limitations), but in today’s world we need to not only avoid inflicting hurt on others but also contribute to the overall good.

  29. I think it’s fair to say no government means a short, brutal, and solitary life. If you engage with other human beings in any postive way you need to have some rules of behavior in common, and in an essential way that’s government (in any meaningful sense of the term).

    Spot on Trinifar. Many years ago a study of the bushmen found that their murder rates were equiv if not worse than NY during the bad years. The Yanomamo are a very violent tribe. Complex societies are going to require complex processes. It is virtually a general rule of systems: the more complex they become the more governing they require. Technological and scientific progress is about instantiating ever increasing degrees of precision in our systems. The irony is that as society becomes more complex we become more constrained. That may just have to be the price we pay.

  30. ‘The principle of do as you please don’t hurt others, which is a Zen idea amongst others, simply doesn’t cut in a complex society.’

    The fact of increasing complexity of society is an argument against, not in favour of greater governmental intervention. The reason is that no government authority is capable of obtaining the knowledge of individual circumstances and values that is spread throughout the millions of people. The market is the expression of their peaceable collaborations with each other in seeking what they need by mutually providing for the needs of others.

    If what you were saying were correct, there would be no need for human freedom, we could just vest total power in government and end up with a better society. But we know that’s not true, don’t we?

    There is no conflict between the freedom of the individual, subject to a condition of not hurting others, and the interests of society. People arguing for the use of government are ultimately arguing for the use of force and threats, rather than agreement and non-violence, as the basis of social co-operation. The pretended moral superiority is deluded and destructive. Instead, the moral superiority is on the side of freedom, not force.

    ‘If you engage with other human beings in any postive way you need to have some rules of behavior in common…’

    This is true, but that doesn’t mean the rules have to come from government. Language and science, to be positive, need rules of behaviour in common, but government cannot and should not be the one making rules. Similar arguments apply in relation to all other consensual relationships.

    Your argument is entirely in the realm of presumption, and cannot withstand critical examination.

  31. I’m surprised that you’ve let yourselves be dragged down to Ikonoclast’s wishy washy sixth form level of debate. Democracy is the least-worst form of government, that is beyond debate. Why do people who have observed that government’s are bad at most things have to invent this label ‘libertarianism’ and then justify it with all this navel gazing waffle?

    You can argue about what the core functions of the State are (law and order, defence, protecting private property rights and public health) and what are merit goods (education, health, public transport) and whether they should be subsidised by the taxpayer, but beyond that the point is that societies with low taxes and private/competing providers of as much as possible with as few stupid regulations as possible just work better.

    There are millions of worked examples and counter-examples for this – I am thinking of the UK Labour government doubling spending on education and trebling spending on the national health service with both services having got considerably worse in the last ten years, for example.

    Surely it’s as simple as that?

  32. Justin, since you write “All communists, socialists and left-wing anarchists I have ever talked with simply have not turned their minds to how goods and services are actually going to be produced in their ideal societies, in such a way as to prevent mass starvation of the MANY people’s whose lives have only been made possible by a division of labour society”, may I suggest you look at the stuff on Ken Carson’s mutualist blog? Arguably he qualifies as a counter-example under the heading “left-wing anarchist”.

    On the one hand you overstate what would be needed by way of resourcing, arranging and organising all that production, since much of the need is generated by the artificial systems in place now – a lot of things are currently much larger scale than is in fact optimal – and on the other hand you underestimate what can be done along those lines without going down those particular paths, since there are in fact historically tested approaches for much of that. And, oh yes – Ken Carson’s links should show you that a great many people have looked into that area, so for some reason they must have escaped your attention. I’m not going into whether they have come up with answers just there, let alone correct answers, just into whether any of them have actually been asking the questions; they have. It’s up to you to decide whether any of them falls under the heading “communists, socialists and left-wing anarchists” by your definitions – the distributists certainly don’t by mine, to name but one lot.

  33. P.M.Lawrence, thanks for the pointer to Carson. I like this article of his Libertarian Self-Marginalization.

    Justin,

    The fact of increasing complexity of society is an argument against, not in favour of greater governmental intervention. The reason is that no government authority is capable of obtaining the knowledge of individual circumstances and values that is spread throughout the millions of people. The market is the expression of their peaceable collaborations with each other in seeking what they need by mutually providing for the needs of others.

    If only that were true. Why is that if you look at increasingly complex societies you find increasingly complex governments? Why did people clamor for increasing financial regulations in the wake of the Great Depression, the US savings and loan crisis of the 80’s and now with the Wall Street meltdown? Why did people ask for pollution regulations in the 1960’s (again in the US)? Why were slaves captured and traded (in free markets mind you) well into the 1800’s?

  34. Given that trade regulation caused the great depression, subsequent calls for financial regulation were misplaced (and harmful). The stock market crash of 1929 was a prediction of impending economic problems, not a cause of them.

  35. The increasing financial regulations you talk about Trinifar occured largely after the 1st World War, and not after the depression. Increasing fiscal and industrial regulation and subsidy is a trigger point for the great depression.

    The savings and loans debacle cannot be insulated against despite the number of well intentioned laws the US has as long as Cuomo inspired “anti discrimination” lending provisions and the moral hazard of the US banking and NMA/GSE system continues via loan guarnatees.

    The simple answer is they thought they’d be better off. Unfortunately, economics is anti intutitive. Coase’s accepted ideas about firm structures and externalities were rejected out of hand when he first theorised them.

  36. “Coase’s accepted ideas about firm structures and externalities were rejected out of hand when he first theorised them.”

    Milton Friedman rejected Coase’s thinking about the FCC at first too.

    As for causes of the great depression that’s a open question with a host people from varingy viewpoints weighing in. Let’s hope Ben Bernake learned something useful from his study of how to avoid another one. (Just read something about this subject being a central one of Bernake’s career.)

  37. You are seriously not going to try to pull out the “income inequality” “reason” for the great depression are you?

    The causes can be identified rather glibly but more or less correctly. Ongoing monetary disequilibria and a massive shock to world trade.

    Stop dissimulating. More regulation caused the depression.

  38. Pingback: The Rant: how Gub’ment scams us on the income tax. « The Sagamore Journal

  39. There is no conflict between the freedom of the individual, subject to a condition of not hurting others, and the interests of society.
    —–
    There is, there always has been, there always will be. You can even see the same principle at work in mammalian behavior. The individual is in part formed by this conflict.

    Your argument is devoid of insight into human behavior.

  40. Democraacy cannot do justice to the issues of good governance, that is why i so much appreciate the effort and and idea of Francis Fukuyama, that it is true that some countries are practicing democracy, but what they are practicing is not absolute democracy. A Democracy shouldbe liberal where by all the citizens can exercise their franchise. Not like some people’s franchise will be envelop and those at the herms of the affairs covers thrmselves with immunities as in the case of some countries in Africa.

  41. Democracy cannot do justice to the issues of good governance, that is why I so much appreciates the effort and and idea of Francis Fukuyama, who opines that it is true that some countries are practicing democracy, but what they are practicing is not absolute democracy. A Democracy should be liberal where by all the citizens can exercise their franchise. Not like some people’s franchise will be envelop and those at the herms of the affairs covers themselves with immunities as in the case of some countries in Africa.

Comments are closed.