Is Liberalism Still a Coherent Ideology in the 21st Century - Literature review Example

IS LIBЕRАLISM STILL А СОHЕRЕNT IDЕОLОGY IN THЕ 21ST СЕNTURY Since the 1990s much has shaken liberal self-belief as well-attested in war-making and torture, liberal values injury purported by espionage, external shocks from violent Islamism, enduring economic harm and global banking collapse. More troubling is the adverse trends such threatening of social peace by economic inequality in Western countries. Governments are strapped in debt as they try to patch up welfare systems that are costly and struggling to fulfill what they promised. Revolutionary powers such as India, Iran, Turkey and China are rapidly growing as they are appealed to illiberal politics. Newly sanitised extremes appeal to disappointed voters who are abandoning the centre-left and centre-right (Helleiner, 2002). This leaves many questions on whether liberalism still coherent as an ideology in the 21st century.  The times in this Century is alarming and more to the liberals. Judgement was passed on the future of liberal democracy by Eric Hobsbawn a British historian in 2012 before his death. He said that major problems that are faced by humanity in the 21st century cannot be solved by principles that govern Western countries, including electoral democracy, freedom of choice, the ideal of individual autonomy, technical progress and unlimited economic growth. The prophetic voice of Eric Hosbawn seems to have echoed the fears of liberals that may be indeed their time had come to an end (Rabow-Edling, 2012).  Liberals have regularly deviated from delight to despair, since early 19th century when liberalism was strongly established as a political practice. This is manifested when they compromise or defeat with a series of historic rivals. Liberalism designated socialism and conservatism its competitors, which saw off the failure of communism and fascism, and reconfigured itself as liberal democracy in 1945 after compromising with democratic populism.  Liberal thinkers ensured that liberalism was more durable, stronger, beneficial, rational and fairer than its rivals (Sagar, 2014). Karl Popper a philosopher of science attested that there was never a time like this when human dignity and human rights were respected, sacrifices made for other people especially the society's less fortunate. Though the challenges lied ahead liberals could still overcome them if they still stuck to open-minded arguments, intellectual ideals of experiment, and refuse to prophesy. Opposite poles of attraction are offered by Popper and Hobsbawn for shaken liberals: one side being a robust mentally for facing dangers in future and proud achievements, and historic incapacities and false idols on the other side. This creates a debate on which view is correct for liberals in the 21st century (Gray, 1976).  It helps to  to understand what liberalism is all about, to understand liberalism features  that are important, where it is going right or wrong, what aspects of liberal democracy ought to be conserved in 21st century, and what to repair or replace. Historically, liberalism made room for free-marketeers, radicals and traditionalists, social democrats and for left and right. Before specialization came in, the liberals in 21st century such as Guizot, Mill, Cobden, Constant and Tocqueville were commonly officials or thinkers and politians. Liberalism is about how to control power, how to improve life of humans and how respected by people. It limits the exercise of power. Throughout history liberals seem to have been guided by four ideas (Nussbaum, 2011). The first is that the clash of beliefs and interests in society cannot be escaped. The socialists' brotherly hope and conservatives’ social harmony are undesirable and unachievable, because harmony blocks initiative and restrains creativity.  On the other hand, when conflict is well tamed and used as competition in a political order that is stable, can bring forth good results as experiment, argument and exchange. Second, power of a human need to be trusted, neither cannot be termed well behaved. This includes power of ethical authorities, social majorities, market, and state, among others unless they are resisted and checked.  It is a cardinal liberal aim to prevent domination of society by any one class, faith or interest. Third, Liberals also assert that human life can improve through education, especially moral education (Nussbaum, 2011).  Finally, public life framework has to show civic respect to everyone, regardless of whoever they are, and whatever they believe in.  The requirement of this respect is not obstructing people's enterprises and chosen aims, not intruding people's privacy or property and not excluding anyone from such permissions and protection, because they are socially despised or useless to society. To stand strong on these four ideas liberals need to insist on them all without trying to put one in absolute command or sacrificing some to others. These four key ideas distinguished liberals from conservatives and socialists in 19th century, and fascists and communist in 20th century. Today they distinguish liberals: China's competitive authoritarians, Egypt's military populism, Iran’s theocratic Islamism, Turkey's nationalist Islamism and Indian's ethnic nationalism (Nussbaum, 2011).  Benhabib (2002) concludes that liberalism in the 21st century is not gender neutral. Avoiding the conflict between conservativeness and liberalism is imperative. Most contemporary ideologies exist on the topic of liberalism. Talking about multiculturalism means trying to adapt to the cultural diversity that a liberty society provides.  Most political parties in the developed world are now liberal. Rawls (1971) argues that liberals more often become contented without self-responsibility and they often show hatred to those who criticize them. To avoid tension between non-liberals and liberals there should be a balance in liberalism. In today’s societies which are too liberal there rises tension between minority and majority groups which demand protection from type of liberalism from each other. Rawls (1971) argues that people had a great suspicion of government in the era of absolutism when classical liberalism was born. But today's liberalism was challenged by problems arising after industrialization.  Many developed countries today have accepted the concept of socio-economic and socio welfare intervention. There are two major concepts recommended by John Raw's 'Theory of Justice'. The first concept is equal principle which says that having equal rights to basic liberty is everyone's right. The second concept says that inequality is good, as long as it improves the well-being of those downtrodden (Rawls, 1971). Modern liberals believe that there should be no seclusion in freedom, because it makes individual's weaker making them prone to be sick and defenseless, hungry and poorer. It is therefore the government's due to provide such liberals with welfare. Neo-liberals believe that it is bad for the government to intervene and it is better if individuals went for entrepreneurialism and self-help.  This would enable non-liberals to be safeguarded from liberals' argument that everyone need to be liberal (Cohen, 1997). Liberalism practices and de-regulation nearly broke down the financial system of United States after the great recession of the 2008. This forced President Obama to re-regulate the banks. Liberalism has dominated in all ideals and sphere of concepts, the socioeconomic and political superiority, thus making other ideologies fade. In United States Modern American liberalism combines liberal ideas of equality and civil liberty with support for mixed economy and social justice. It endorses government spending on programs such as welfare, education, welfare and health care. Important social issues today include immigration reform, same-sex marriage support, reproductive rights, voting rights for minorities, and inequality (Ballam, 1994). MacEwan (1999) argues that liberalism of 20th century stills lives taking the form of social contract that is old-fashioned for the globalized and technological world of the 21st century. Today liberalism is purely reactive, fending off conservatism efforts to wear down the social contract as it has been in operation in the Western democracies since the World War II ended. Conservatives as well as liberals do not have a true vision for the future, though since conservatives have an agenda that they are pursuing they give an impression that they are more visionary compared to liberals. There’s a threat for neofascists movements to enter, in this vacuum of ideology. It is not possible to stand still in a globalized world where there is rapid changes in economies and wide spread of information (Christie, 2012). There is the question of who the parties to the liberal social contract that are inexistence, and if it makes sense to have the same relationship in a future where the individual has greater potential to be empowered. Western democracies social policy accepts the business cycle flow as inventable, and corporations as powerful entities. There is an imagination of individuals having working lives that are limited, from their early twenties and sixties, after which they are expected to retire on a combination of state social security, corporate pensions, and personal savings. This means the state reluctantly mediates on financial risks and uncertainties between private enterprises and individuals. This simple role is under attack in Western democracies as it is difficult for old social contract to sustain demographics alone. There is a growing trade imbalances, difficulties in competing lower wage economies by old manufacturing industries and decline in population (Alexander, 2014). According to Rabow-Edling (2012), the private enterprise, the state, and the individual as the tripartite arrangement is unbearably straining, yet there is continuous hope in liberalism that it can maintain is Cold War era, and the perpetual growth illusion which includes high employment and low inflation will save the day for its social contract.But the world today and in the future is full of technological diffusion, flattened information psychologies and interconnected economies, and there is no safe borders for individual countries. Wilkinson (2015) asserts that, the emergence of this globalized world has left many in Western Europe and U.S in denial that changes and events in one country will not spread to other countries. This vision is secluded where privileges that prosperous middle class obtained in 1950s to 1970s are sought to be preserved by liberal states. But that was unsustainable and artificial prosperity, thus independent countries come into their own, there would be no functioning of the old liberalism. Trying to preserve the old liberalism in the world today is pushing the world today to the past directions, when unfair technological advantages were faced by some countries over others. Each state in the world should systematically and voluntarily give up national autonomy until it becomes impossible for it to exercise formalized tyranny over its people. In some realms the state has too little power while too little in others. Too much power is depicted in surveillance tools which national security can justify. But if international security replaced the concept, then there would be less to enforce choice and mobility restrictions of citizens. On the other hand, if citizens are empowered to reach their full potential then it means the state has too little power. Since the old liberalism cannot work in the 21st century, there are various principles that need to be taken (Tate, 2013). First there should be a commitment by liberalism to free capital and labour movement as way of getting past nationalism. There should be no existence of national boarders , however, the parts of the world that are poorest will have to be elevated in order to make this possible. The most important function of nations in the near future is to invest heavily in the productivity and infrastructure to bring the poorest parts of Asian and Latin America and Africa to a point where by emigration will not be necessary. Second, there should be no existence of immigration; individuals should be able to move freely from one state to another, experience different cultures and speak different languages, but not with an intention of expatriating to a different richer country than the old one, committing to the nationalism of the new country, learning its myths and closing links with the original state. As a conventional concept, when immigration no longer matters, negative political consequences will be no more (Tate, 2013). The whole world needs to be a single human resource and economic zone. This will enhance maximized human potential without resistance. Finally, technology should be made to work for people. The government and corporations take a new technology and use them to control citizens or make profit. As soon as there is hope of an emerging new technology that is liberated, it is diverted to the direction of the corporation and the government. Technology cannot be an important aid to freedom if it restricts people. Liberalism should stop trying to protect what will eventually lost by acting defensively towards a new technology. It needs to anticipate how forms of democracies can be bred by technologies. Technology has a tendency of dominating and overbearing, thereby, becoming oppressive, though it holds freedom promises in reality it does not deliver (Tate, 2013). The ideals and aims of liberalism remain what they have always been: insistence of civic respect for people, faith in human development, and resistant to domineering power. None of those need abandoning or changing, though there is an urgent need for liberals in 21st century to rethink how those ideals and aims are to be pursued in these unique conditions that are bewildering. References Alexander, J. (2014). The Major Ideologies of Liberalism, Socialism and Conservatism. Political Studies, 63(5):980:994. Ballam, D., A. (1994). The Evolution of the Government-Business Relationship in the United States: Colonial Times to Present. American Business Law Journal, 31(4):553-640. Benhabib, S. (2002). The claims of culture: Equality and Diversity in the Global Era. Princeton University Press. Chistie, N. (2012). From Interdependence to ‘Modern’ Individualism: Families and the Emergence of Liberal Society in Canada. History Compass, 10(1):81-104 Cohen, G., A. (1997). Where the Action Is: On the Site of Distributive Justice. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 26.  Gray, J., N. (1976). The Liberalism of Karl Popper. Government and Opposition, 11(3): 337- 336. Helleiner, E. (2002). Economic Nationalism as a Challenge to Economic Liberalism? Lessons from the 19th Century. International Studies Quarterly, 46(3):307-329. MacEwan, A. (1999). Neo-liberalism Or Democracy? Economic Strategy, Markets, and Alternatives for the 21st Century. Zed books. Monique, D. (2006). Gender and Justice in Multicultural Liberal States. Oxford University Press. New York. Nussbaum, M. (2011). Perfectionist Liberalism and Political Liberalism. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 39(1):3-45. Rabow-Edling. (2012). Liberalism and nationalism in Russia. Boris Chicherin as a modernist nationalist. Nations and Nationalism, 18(4):701-718. Rawls, J. (1971). Justice as fairness in a Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press. Rizvi, A., M. (2011). Testing the Limits of Liberalism: A Reverse Conjecture. The Heythrop Journal, 53(3):382-404. Sagar, P. (2014). From Scepticism to Liberalism? Bernard Williams, the Foundations of Liberalism and Political Realism. Political Studies. Tate, J., W. (2013). ‘We Cannot Give One Millimetre'? Liberalism, Enlightenment and Diversity. Political Studies, 61(4):816-833. Wilkinson, M., A. (2015). Authoritarian Liberalism in the European Constitutional Imagination: Second Time as Farce? European Law Journal, 21(3):313-339. Read More