Table of content
2. The paradox of liberal democracy
2.1 Democracy without liberalism
2.2 Liberalism without democracy
2.3 Liberal democracy and its paradox
3. The problem of the democratization of the fourth estate within liberal democracy
3.1 The fourth estate within liberal democracy
3.1.2 Freedom of the press
3.2 The democratization of the fourth estate
3.3 The problem
3.3.1 The lack of liberal rules
3.3.2 The risk of censorship
4. The dangers to liberal democracy imposed by the democratization of the fourth estate
4.1 The internal threat
4.2 The external threat
Abstract in German
Die vorliegende Arbeit thematisiert die Gefahren an eine liberale Demokratie, die aus dem Prozess der Demokratisierung der vierten Gewalt resultieren. Dies impli-ziert, dass die Demokratisierung der vierten Gewalt ein Problem mit sich bringt, welches allerdings im modernen liberalen Demokratieverständnis verwurzelt ist. Die Vierte Gewalt muss als eine Institution der liberalen Demokratie verstanden werden, weshalb zu Beginn der Arbeit, die Konzepte des Liberalismus und der Demokratie weitreichend erläutert werden.
Demokratie bedeutet, hergeleitet aus ihrer Wortherkunft, ´das ermächtigte Volk´. Dieser politischen Ideologie liegt das Verständnis für politische Herrschaft zu Grunde, in dem sich das Volk kollektiv und legitim selbst regieren kann. Somit bil-det die ultimative Legitimationsquelle aller Herrschaft, das Volk. Allerdings ergibt sich für Demokratie ein konzeptuelles Defizit, da es selbst keine Mechanismen oder gar Rechte vorsieht, die ihre Funktionsweise sichert. Während also das Volk die Legitimation jeglicher Gewalt im politischen System bestimmen soll, ist gleich-zeitig nicht gesichert, dass das Volk, das kann. Ein weiterer Gedanke der Demo-kratie ist es, die pluralistischen Meinungen und Ansichten ihrer Bürger in politische Entscheidungen übersetzen zu können. Historisch betrachtet, wurde aber die gleichberechtigte Beteiligung an politischen Prozessen, nie vollkommen gewähr-leistet.
Im Kontrast hierzu steht das Konzept des Liberalismus. Seine grundlegende Idee ist, dass die Regierungsgewalt durch Verträge legitimiert wird, die für die konstitu-ierenden Parteien gleichermaßen gelten, indem ihre Freiheiten gleichermaßen ein-geschränkt werden. Diese Verträge dienen jedoch der Legitimation einer politi-schen Ordnung, die die allgemeine Freiheit zu erhalten sucht. Damit wird begrün-det, dass die Verschriftlichung von allgemeingültigen Gesetzen legitim ist. Das Problem innerhalb des Konzepts des Liberalismus resultiert aus seinem Grundge-danken, dass durch die Ausweitung von Freiheiten auch limitierende Gesetze ausgebaut werden müssen. In diesem Fall würden die freiheitssichernden Ge-setze, ihrem eigenen Grundgedanken widersprechen.
Beide Konzeptionen weisen Defizite auf, die aber durch die Kerngedanken der je-weils anderen Konzeption ausgeglichen werden. So verstehen sich moderne De-mokratien als liberal und vereinen in ihrer Ausgestaltung liberale Rechte, die das Demokratieprinzip der Volksherrschaft sichern.
Der zweite Teil der Arbeit beschäftigt sich mit der vierten Gewalt innerhalb liberaler Demokratien. Sie umfasst alle Zweige der Medien und nimmt eine bedeutende Rolle für liberale Demokratien. Die vierte Gewalt übernimmt die Aufgabe, das Volk zu informieren und gewährleistet dadurch ihre Handlungsfähigkeit als Bürger einer Demokratie. Zudem fungieren die Medien als Intermediatoren zwischen der Re-gierung und dem Volk. Neben der Funktion, das Volk über politische Themen zu informieren, stellen sie auch eine kritische Opposition zur Regierung dar, um sie zur Verantwortung zwingen zu können. Zusätzlich ordnen Medien ihre Berichte im Voraus nach Relevanz der Informationen für die Öffentlichkeit. Allerdings könnte sie ihre Machtstellung im politischen System ausnutzen und durch ihre Berichter-stattung das Meinungsbild des Volkes beeinflussen. Das liberale Recht auf Mei-nungs- und Pressefreiheit legt deutlich fest, dass die Medien einer öffentlichen Ver-antwortung unterliegen und somit den allgemeinen Werten von liberalen Demokra-tien folgen müssen.
Die vorliegende Arbeit stellt die Hypothese auf, dass die Veränderung innerhalb der vierten Gewalt als ein Prozess der Demokratisierung bezeichnet werden kann. Der Begriff der Demokratisierung wird in Anlehnung an Huntingtons Theorie der drei Wellen der Demokratisierung verwendet, der repräsentativ für die periodisch Entwicklung verschiedener Staaten hin zu liberalen Demokratien steht. Auch wenn der Begriff im Kontext dieser Arbeit nicht verwendet wird, um die Entwicklung in-nerhalb von Ländern zu beschreiben, steht auch die Demokratisierung der vierten Gewalt in engem Zusammenhang damit. Damit wird die Entwicklung zu sozialen Medien beschrieben, die das Volk ermächtigen, nicht nur Inhalte zu konsumieren, sondern auch zu produzieren. Dies führt zudem dazu, dass Medien nichtmehr die Rolle der Intermediatoren zwischen dem Volk und der Regierung einnehmen.
Die Demokratisierung der vierten Gewalt stellt nun allerdings eine Gefahr für libe-rale Demokratien dar. Mit der Veränderung hin zu sozialen Medien, wie Facebook und Twitter, greift die Pressefreiheit nicht weiter. Sie sichert ursprünglich, dass sich Medien in ihrer Berichterstattung and die Grundwerte liberaler Demokratien halten und sie schützen müssen. Nun werden aber Facebook etc. nicht als Nachrichten-dienste verstanden, sondern nur als Plattformen. Auf Plattformen haben Nachrich-tendienste ihre Onlinepräsenz, die weiterhin den Anforderungen, resultierend aus ihrer öffentlichen Verantwortung, entsprechen müssen. Die sozialen Plattformen unterliegen diesen Anforderungen nicht.
Diese Entwicklung stellt ein fundamentales Problem für liberale Demokratien dar. Zum einen, können sie weitere Gesetze verabschieden, die die Freiheiten sozialer Medien limitieren. Da sie aber als hauptsächliches Medium für Nachrichtenkonsum genutzt werden, würde dieses Vorgehen die Zensur von Nachrichtenquellen be-deuten. Wie bereits erwähnt, stehen die Entwicklungen innerhalb der vierten Ge-walt in Zusammenhang mit der Demokratisierung autokratischer Regime. Neben den drei ursprünglichen Wellen, die die Huntingtons Theorie analysiert, implizieren gegenwärtige Debatten, dass der arabische Frühling als vierte Welle definiert wer-den kann. Diese Protestbewegung innerhalb arabischer Staaten wurde durch neue Kommunikationsformen organisiert, und somit erst ermöglicht. Dies dient als Be-stätigung für die Potentiale, die die sozialen Medien mit sich bringen. Allerdings zeigt das ausgeführte Beispiel nur, welche Auswirkungen die Demokratisierung der vierten Gewalt innerhalb von Autokratien hat und legt somit die Vermutung nahe, dass die Potentiale und Gefahren systemspezifisch sind. Dadurch schließt sich der Kreis zum Thema der vorliegenden Arbeit, dessen Schwerpunkt die Ge-fahren des Prozesses auf liberale Demokratien bilden. Die Gefahren werden an-hand des Falles von Cambridge Analytica exemplarisch dargestellt.
Democracy´s core value simultaneously challenges it.
Including the pluralist views and opinions of democracy´s diverse citizenry in political decisions is as much of a challenge as it is to consider even the views that oppose democracy. Modern democracies face this challenge more than ever as autocratic politicians all over the world gain power. With the upcoming US election, the implementation of the last still echoes. Donald Trump had gained the highest office in the country through manipulation. The manipulation continues as the President of the United States still publishes false claims unrestrictedly on social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook.
While specifically producing Fake News to threaten liberal democracy is a danger itself, this thesis focuses on the development that enables it. The development is the democratization of the fourth estate, which describes the rise of social media platforms. As they have turned out to be preeminent news providers to their users, due to their structural properties, they impose threats to liberal democracies. While it seems paradoxical that a process of democratization threatens liberal democracy, the danger is rooted in the fundamental paradox within itself.
In order to break down the complexity of this topic, the thesis is structured into three main chapters. The first chapter offers an overview of liberalism and democracy, both of which constitute the modern concept of liberal democracy. It also highlights the paradox within liberal democracy as it presents the root of the dangers. The second chapter thematizes the fourth estate and the modern development it underwent. Furthermore, it exemplifies the problem of this process based on the paradox of liberal democracy. The last chapter specifically analyzes the danger enabled through social media platforms by categorizing them into internal and external threats.
This thesis provides examples for the execution of specific laws, rights, and events in various countries and is not limited to a particular region in order to elaborate on the democratization of the fourth estate in a broader context.
2. The paradox of liberal democracy
The main focus of this thesis lies on the fourth estate and its recent development, which consequently raises the question of why this chapter offers an insight into liberal democracy and its paradox within. The fourth estate has to be understood as an institution of liberal democracy, which demands the explanation of the latter. Additionally, the thesis thematizes the problem of the democratization of the fourth estate, which is rooted in the modern liberal understanding of democracy. The following subchapters serve to show how democracy and liberalism are understood divided from each other. The third subchapter then explains liberal democracy as the fusion of both theoretical concepts and provides a modern context.
2.1 Democracy without liberalism
In order to create a common consensus on democracy, it requires the translation of the term from its Greek origin. The term democracy consists of the words demos and kratos, and “Since demos can be translated as “the people” and kratos as “power,” democracy has a root meaning of “the power of the people.” ”1 Ober goes further into depth, analyzing the meaning of the term by comparing it to the ancient Greek terms for governmental forms: monarchia and oligarchia. These directly refer to how many people hold power -one or a few-, whereas demokratia does not specify the number of people in power and, therefore, describes a collective body. In his argumentation, a collective body can not hold power in a traditional way, as in an office, so, he introduces the idea that democracy means ´the empowered demos´.2 The empowered demos that can collectively and legitimately govern it-self.3
This ancient Greek understanding of democracy builds the fundament for newer attempts to describe the meaning of this governmental form. The former president of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, for example, described democracy as a political government “[…] of the people, by the people, for the people […]” in his famous Gettysburg Address in 1863.4 This definition adds to the previously mentioned aspect of self-government, that it targets the interests of the people and that they are the ultimate source of legitimacy of power. Lincoln also establishes a semantical differentiation between the government and the people.
In contrast, Satori defines democracy as a system in which no one can elect himself, and no one can grant himself absolute and unrestricted power to govern.5 This definition highlights a different perspective on democracy that states how it should not work. By defining democracy as a system that does not allow self-authorization without the legitimation by the people, it underlines the dependency of the individual constituents of the demos.
At this point, it is worth summarizing that every previous definition captures the fundamental idea of sovereignty of the people and that democracy is a process of self-government. Salzborn takes upon this idea and depicts that it is in democ-racy´s nature to avoid implementing a compulsory definition. He argues that it is part of the democratic process to organize conflicts of interest, and the conflicts are given by the people instead of being predetermined.6 That being said, the introduced definitions imply a crucial component to the political theory of democracy that is regarded in the following: legitimacy.
Legitimacy revolves around the questions of who governs and based on whose decision. The question of who governs in a democracy seems redundant as all definitions offer a seemingly simple answer: the people. However, the question of suffrage is a different one depending on the contemporary conceptions of who is considered a member of the demos. In ancient Athens, political participation was a privilege offered to the male population that was older than 30years old.7 This shows how suffrage was bound to gender and age. Another historical example adds to the factors restricting suffrage: “[…] Adam Smith suggested establishing a quota for the colonies to resolve the conflict with them: the colonies would be represented in the British Parliament based on their contribution to general tax revenues.”8 Historically, suffrage was most often just a privilege to the few who met the requirements, which, additional to gender and age, were also bound to property ownership and taxation. Democracy categorically excluded minors, women, slaves, and the poor from political participation and, therefore, representation.
What also has to be considered when talking about legitimacy, next to who´s allowed to vote, is whose vote is going to determine the decision. Theoretical considerations by political ideologists like Alexis de Tocqueville and the Founding Fathers revive the allegation of ancient Greek critics that democracy is the tyranny of the majority. Therefore it is evident that they focus on another possible understanding of democracy opposing the intended understanding of the Greek creators -thus of the empowered people.9 In ancient Athens, a direct form of democracy was in practice where all the entitled constituents of the demos voted upon a specific conflict, and the decision fell on the option with the most votes. This concept of decision-making is called majority rule that ignores the votes of a minority and has, therefore, been described as unequal. A possibly narrow majority decision raises the general question of whether or not it is legitimate to overpower a minority that can consist of up to 49,9% simply because a majority of 50,1% represents a higher percentage of the demos. Democracy categorically excluded pluralism in decision-making despite its definition that suggests inclusivity.
In conclusion, based on the mentioned definitions and aspects, democracy claims to empower the people as the ultimate legitimacy source of decisions is the demos. However, democracy´s direct execution establishes the concept of majority rule that excludes particular views from the democratic process the same way suffrage does. So, in contrast to its ancient definition, democracy empowers a defined number of people and is not the absolute government of all people. The problem with majority rule and suffrage is that it contradicts democracy´s existential principles of legitimacy by and sovereignty of the people.
The question that arises at this point is one about equality -and therefore liberalism-in democracy. Equality is the goal of democracy when highlighting that it only truly exists when equally legitimated by its people. However, the principle of popular sovereignty -which per definition is democracy- does not intend to imply any rules, as decisions are up to the people to make. So, democracy depends on the legitimacy of the people but, based on its very definition, paradoxically can not ensure that the people have an equal opportunity to make decisions.
Nevertheless, definitions of modern democracy indicate a different understanding as Yasha Mounk, for example, describes democracy in its most minimalist form as “[…] a set of binding electoral institutions that effectively translates popular views into public policy.”10 He picks up the idea that democracy is procedural and consists of popular views while adding that the accumulation of different views translates into public policy instead of just one. Jan-Werner Müller's definition adds that democracy is „[…] a mechanism to ensure peaceful turnovers in power after a process of popular will-formation […]”.11 His definition underlines Mounk´s idea of pluralist views transforming into a popular-will through compromise so that it consists of more views than just the one of a majority. The concept of liberal democracy is elaborated further in chapter 2.3.
Democracy, in its purest and most ancient understanding, did not include any form of liberalism as it also contradicts its fundamental purpose of granting freedom. The definitions of modern democracy in the previous paragraph indicate a fusion of the concept of democracy and liberalism, which requires further explanation of liberalism itself and its compatibility with democracy.
2.2 Liberalism without democracy
In modern democracies, as stated previously, a form of democracy is preeminent that combines democracy and liberalism. Liberalism is not just a component of democracy, but even the instrument to secure the democratic principle. However, to understand its real purpose, it is necessary to divide the two ideas and look upon liberalism separately or, in a historical context, from the perspective of people opposing democracy.
Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau initiated with their theories a shift in the world of political concepts. All theorists conceptualized new orders in an institutional context that were based on a rational conception of man that questioned the god-given governance. The theories establish the idea that political power and action should be based on an agreement of the people: the contract. Initially, this concept was justified with the claim that it would lead away from the ´natural state´ and into a social and political relation between the contracting parties. Even though all theorists saw the need for a consensus, it could consist of an agreement on pure survival, or to guarantee ownership, or to collectively pursue political goals.12 For example, Hobbes sees the people in the natural state as absolutely free, which to him, ultimately means that a battle of everyone against everyone would lead to death. So, in order to secure survival, people would be willing to trade their freedom and power.13 While the idea that political power should be based on a collective agreement of the people resembles thus of the democratic principle of self-government, the idea of a binding contract does not imply the sovereignty of the people. Instead, Hobbes invents a fictive and absolute ruler that holds all power but is not legally bound to the contract. In a democracy, the ultimate source of legitimation is the people and, therefore, no one or nothing stands above them. As Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau construct a superior body that holds the ultimate power, they evidently oppose the idea of the sovereignty of the people.
The reasons for this opposition can be described by looking at liberals like Tocque-ville and Constant, who thought that the people were incapable of making complex political decisions, which would require any form of a representative body to gov-ern.14 Additionally, they saw the flaws in democracies, as stated above, where the sovereignty of the people did not mean equal access to political participation and where majority rule led to minority votes to be ignored. The idea of liberalism was inspired by democracy but was not intended to be combined with it. So, liberalism was established to secure the rights of minorities, which meant that the rule of law stood above and restricted the liberal freedom of the people. It targeted the conceptions of power and freedom of the people and how it should be controlled. Since liberalism focusses on equality in front of the law but also implements the idea of a superior body in power, it raises the question of how the government could be controlled.
While Locke, Rousseau, and Montesquieu thematized the division of powers as well, the Founding Fathers translated the idea of liberal rights into constitutional law. In the federalist papers -which are the defense of the constitution- article 10, written by James Madison, contained the crucial idea of an institutional mechanism that would prevent the violent takeover of power by one party: the checks and bal-ances.15 The power of the new federal government is divided among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, where the power of the other two controls the power of each branch.16 Therefore, this mechanism secures individual liberties by preventing the monopolization of power. It also represents the idea of equality as the rule of law applies to every political institution.
So, liberalism is rooted in the idea that the power of governing is legitimated through contracts, which apply equally to the constituent parties by limiting their freedom. However, contracts serve to legitimize a political order that strives to maintain general freedom. Based on the idea that liberalism needs a form of consensus, Rawls adds in his conception of ´political liberalism´ that such a consensus has to be more profound than just aimed at institutions. He embraced the idea of a democratic society that was united by a moral code.17
Hayek is a liberal who argued that “[…] democracy [is] essentially a means, an utilitarian device for safeguarding internal peace and individual freedom.”18 He highlights democracy´s usefulness for liberal rights to be ensured, while other liberals claim that liberal rights would never be denied by rational people, and if they were, then these decisions would not be legitimate.19
Finally, Patrick Deneen claims that liberalism has failed because it fulfilled its core principle that “[the individuals] ideal of liberty can be realized only through a powerful state. If the expansion of freedom is secured by law, then the opposite also holds true in practice: increasing freedom requires the expansion of law.”20 So, Deneen sees in liberalism a contradiction within itself, as seeking more freedom leads to the state gaining power over granting or withholding freedom. This adds to democracy´s paradox within itself as its core-principle of self-government depends on the legitimation of its people, without securing the equal opportunity to govern.
In conclusion, the theoretical concepts of liberalism and democracy contradict themselves. They also contradict each other as the democratic principle of self-government does not intend the restriction of it by anything but the people themselves, whereas liberalism´s core of equality before the law classifies the law as superior to the people. This paradox of the apparent incompatibility is thematized in the following subchapter as well as the execution of both principles in the collective political system of liberal democracy.
2.3 Liberal democracy and its paradox
This subchapter focuses on liberal democracy as it unexceptionally dominates the form of democratic governments established in the modern world. The prior stated paradoxes within democracy and liberalism will be mentioned, and the compatibility of the two described.
To begin, Chantal Mouffe states that “[…] what makes [modern democracy] properly ´modern´, is that, with the advent of the ´democratic revolution´, the old democratic principle that ´power should be exercised by the people´ emerges again, but this time within a symbolic framework informed by the liberal discourse, with its strong emphasis on the value of individual liberty and on human rights.”21 She offers a striking definition of modern liberal democracy that combines the fundamental idea of democracy and the purpose if liberalism -the purpose being to introduce a framework of equal rights.
The paradox for modern times seems to be that democracy is heavily dependent on liberalism and vice versa, while the two theories fundamentally oppose each other. However, the previous subchapters also reflect on the paradox within both principles isolated from each other. Democracy´s lack of rules to secure equal access to self-government -and, therefore, the representation of pluralist views- can be provided through liberal rights. On the other hand, liberalism´s problem that the rule of law could gain too much power through the extension of freedom could be counterbalanced by the democratic principle. Their very own contradictions are annulled when combined. This demonstrates that in contrast to the principles´ fundamental incompatibility, they can also complement each other. The question that results from this conflict is about the degree to which both principles should be realized in a political system.
In order to understand the ideal balance in realizing both principles, it requires to look into the components of modern liberal democracies.22 The Economist Index of democracy and the Democracy Matrix provide complementary lists of factors that define liberal democracies. In fact, many political theorists like Lipjardt, Lauth, and Merkel et al. sought to measure the quality of democracy, with each of them providing another focus and partially including economic wellbeing.23 Since the focus lies on the components derived from liberalism and democracy, the following two Index´s serve as a summary of those.
The Economist Index ranks 165 countries around the world -while micro-states are not included- and organizes the factors it ranks upon in five categories. The Democracy Matrix also organizes the components in five institutions. Both Indexes consider -exemplified for the Democracy Matrix-: Quality of Elections, Quality of Parties, Interest Groups and Civil Society, Quality of Media, Quality of the Rule of Law, and Quality of Effective Power of Government and Horizontal Accountability.
Additionally, the Democracy Matrix includes an axis of dimensions that differentiate between freedom, equality, and control. Out of this structure emerges a matrix that, for every institution, subdivides factors among the dimensions. This structure results in 15 fields of factors that constitute a functioning liberal democracy. The Economist Index takes all the factors into account as well but due to its methodology, phrases them as questions, where the answers are assigned figures between 0 and 1 that are added for the countries that are ranked.24 25 “[…] an ´optimal´ or ´perfect´ democracy cannot, in principle, be based on the complete implementation of all three dimensions, but rather gets expressed in a suitable gradual realisation, which preserves a balance between them.”26 It is evident that in order to measure the quality of democracy, the Indexes consider the integration of both the principles of democracy and liberalism as well as their balance. The three dimensions of the Democracy Matrix summarize the main components of liberal democracies. They show the fundamental elements of freedom and equality of liberal democracy, while the third highlights the legal security of both elements. Democracies around the world, as the index shows, have (mostly) written constitutions to ensure the framework of rights that secures freedom and equality. This highlights that freedom and equality are the components that are realized, as well as limited, through law.
The analysis of the components of liberal democracies indicates that the realization of democracy varies within countries, which confirms that democracy is a measurable variable. However, the question of the quality of democracies also implies that democracies can be understood as deficient under particular circumstances. Chantal Mouffe summarizes that the democratic paradox of modern times is that the defense of liberal rights has been prioritized before the defense of the sovereignty of the people, even though the two concepts equally constitute liberal democracy.27 Generally speaking, the prioritization of either democracy or liberalism leads to the same problems that result if the concepts are understood separately -as highlighted in the previous subchapters.
It is also tempting to forget that the fundamental principles of liberal democracies depend on institutions like parliaments or courts.28 The following chapter thema-tizes a process that prioritizes the implementation of democracy and focuses on an additional institution that complements the three estates.
1 Ober, Josiah. “The Original Meaning of "Democracy": Capacity to Do Things, not Majority Rule.” Constellations, vol. 15, no. 1, 2008, pp. 3–9, 3.
2 Cf. Ibid 3-9.
3 Cf. Schuler, Karin, et al. Demopolis: Oder was ist Demokratie?, Philipp von Zabern Verlag, 2017, 47.
4 Cf. Haney, John L. “Of the People, by the People, for the People.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, vol. 88, no. 5, 1944, pp. 359–367, 360.
5 Cf. Sartori, Giovanni, et al. Demokratietheorie, Wiss. Buchges, 1992, 37.
6 Cf. Salzborn, Samuel. Demokratie: Theorien, Formen, Entwicklungen, Nomos-Verl.-Ges; UTB, 2012, 7.
7 Cf. Schuler et al. 36.
8 Yanovskiy, Konstantin, and Sergei Zhavoronkov. “Universal Suffrage: The Century of Corrupting Incentives?” SSRN Electronic Journal, 2018, 2.
9 Cf. Schuler et al. 40.
10 Mounk, Yascha. The people vs. democracy: Why our freedom is in danger and how to save it, Harvard University Press, 2018, 27.
11 Müller, Jan-Werner. What is poopulism?, Penguin Books Ltd, 2017, 55.
12 Cf. Salzborn 30.
13 Cf. Ibid. 31.
14 Cf. Massing, Peter et al. Demokratietheorien. Von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart, BpB, 2011, 169.
15 Cf. Ibid. 150.
16 Cf. Hamilton, Alexander et al. Die Federalist papers, Beck, 2007, 319.
17 Cf. Rawls, John. Political Liberalism, New York, 1993, 55.
18 Hayek, F. A. The road to serfdom, London, 1944, 52.
19 Cf. Mouffe, Chantal. The democratic paradox, Repr, Verso, 2009, 3.
20 Deneen, Patrick J. Why Liberalism Failed, Yale University Press, 2018, 49.
21 Deneen, Patrick J. Why Liberalism Failed, Yale University Press, 2018, 49.
22 Reports from Freedom House and Amnesty International offer information on freedom in the world and violations against the rule of law. Since the focus of this chapter is on liberal democracy, these organizations are not considered as they represent the individual principles separately.
23 Cf. Munck, Gerardo L. “What is Democracy? A Reconceptualization of the Quality of Democracy.” SSRN Electronic Journal, 2014.
24 Cf. Laza Kekic, Economist Intelligence Unit. “The Economist Intelligence Unit’s index of democracy: The World in 2007.” 2007, 8-11.
25 Cf. Lauth, Hans-Joachim and Oliver Schlenkrich. Conception of the Democracy Matrix. 2019, 1-15. URL: https://www.democracymatrix.com/conception. Accessed on 29/01/2020
26 Ibid. 10.
27 Cf. Mouffe 8-9.
28 Cf. Mounk 37.
- Quote paper
- Ekaterini Poulidou (Author), 2020, The dangers to liberal democracy by democratizing the fourth estate, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/888950