Warning: file_put_contents(/opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/storage/proxy/cache/eb68fcd43612a76af1955d034ce63df1.html): Failed to open stream: No space left on device in /opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/app/src/Arsae/CacheManager.php on line 36

Warning: http_response_code(): Cannot set response code - headers already sent (output started at /opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/app/src/Arsae/CacheManager.php:36) in /opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/app/src/Models/Response.php on line 17

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/app/src/Arsae/CacheManager.php:36) in /opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/app/src/Models/Response.php on line 20
Liberal autocracy - Wikipedia Jump to content

Liberal autocracy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A liberal autocracy is a non-democratic government that follows the principles of liberalism.[1] Until the 20th century, most countries in Western Europe were "liberal autocracies, or at best, semi-democracies".[2] One example of a "classic liberal autocracy" was the Austro-Hungarian Empire.[3] According to Fareed Zakaria, a more recent example was British Hong Kong. He observed that until 1991, the British who had ruled Hong Kong since 1841 "had never held a meaningful election, but its government epitomized constitutional liberalism, protecting its citizens' basic rights (especially after World War II) and administering a relatively fair judiciary and bureaucracy".[4]

Overview

[edit]

The existence of real liberties in many of these autocracies is questionable. For instance, 19th-century autocracies often abolished feudal institutions like serfdom, guilds, privileges for the nobility and inequality before the law, but freedom of speech and freedom of association were at best limited. As such, liberal autocracy often preceded various forms of electoral democracy in the evolution of these nations, being much more open than feudal monarchies but less free than modern liberal democracies.

Hong Kong is often regarded as a special case, where in the later years of British colonial rule before the handover, there was considerable freedom of speech and freedom of association. However, it was widely recognised, including by the British, that China would not allow part of its territory to sustain these freedoms or to hold completely free elections even if it retained autonomy as a special administrative region (SAR). It was also suggested that since 2005 and prior to the consequences of the Arab Spring, Egypt had been leaning towards a liberal autocracy.[5]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Plattner, Marc F. (1998). "Liberalism and Democracy: Can't Have One without the Other". Foreign Affairs. 77 (2). Council on Foreign Relations: 171–180. doi:10.2307/20048858. ISSN 0015-7120. JSTOR 20048858. Retrieved 2023-06-03.
  2. ^ Zakaria, Fareed (November/December 1997). "The Rise of Illiberal Democracy". Foreign Affairs. Archived 15 October 2005 at the Wayback Machine
  3. ^ Myers, Sondra (2002). The Democracy Reader. IDEA. p. 174. ISBN 978-0-9702130-3-7.
  4. ^ Zakaria, Fareed (1997). "The Rise of Illiberal Democracy". Foreign Affairs. 76 (6). Council on Foreign Relations: 22–43. doi:10.2307/20048274. ISSN 0015-7120. JSTOR 20048274. Retrieved 2023-06-03.
  5. ^ "Liberal Autocracy in Egypt". Brookings Institution. 24 June 2008. Archived 1 February 2011 at the Wayback Machine