My respect to Fareed is undoubted and steady; yet; I can see how he is seized in advocating the "End of Time".. Liberal Democracy is widely proven inadequate for progressive realities, not because it offers no upgrading, but because it enab...les awful parasites to uncontrollably grow.. This is happening across the world, and requires no permission to grow.. Hungary took the lead of "Illiberal Democracy" in Europe, while India and Brazil will follow..!
Will Putinism triumph?
Watch "Fareed Zakaria GPS," Sundays at 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. ET on CNNBy Fareed Zakaria
When he first came to power in 2000, Russian President Vladimir Putin seemed a smart, tough, competent manager, someone who was determined to bring stability to Russia, which was in free fall at the time, reeling from internal chaos, economic stagnation and a default in 1998. He sought to integrate Russia into the world and wanted good relations with the West, asking Washington for Russian membership in both the World Trade Organization and even in NATO.
Over time, however, Putin established order in the country and control over society. He also presided over a booming economy, as oil prices quadrupled under his watch. So he began creating a repressive system of political, economic and social control to maintain his power.
As he faced opposition, particularly in the parliamentary elections of 2011, Putin recognized that he needed more than just brute force to defeat his opponents – he needed an ideology of power. The crucial elements of Putinism are nationalism, religion, social conservatism, state capitalism, and government domination of the media. They work in tandem to sustain Putin's popularity…
…The success of Putinism ultimately will depend a great deal on the success of Putin and Russia under him. If he triumphs in Ukraine, turning it into a basket case that eventually comes begging to Moscow, he will look like a winner. If, on the other hand, Ukraine succeeds outside of Russia's orbit, leaders like Victor Orban might regret having cast their lot with a globally-isolated Siberian petro-state.
Liberal Democracy had overturned the epistemic code of humanity, by practicing the "Intellectual Arrogance" to replace the heritage of "Divine Commandments".. Yes; it is a question about "Evolution of Creation"; which Liberal Democracy had chosen the first, while nations of religious context battle proven the later.. Epistemic foundations are not scattered, but closely knitted.. The replacement of religion became anarchy; which many communities had paid heavy cost during the last 50 years.. USA itself suffers the backlash; while Europe is severely and silently torn..
Sadly, Freed attach the happening to a person, ignoring the fact that it is a plural engagement across continents..
This definition also accords with the commonsense view of the term. If a country holds competitive, multiparty elections, we call it democratic. When public participation in politics is increased, for example through the enfranchisement of women, it is seen as more democratic. Of course elections must be open and fair, and this requires some protections for freedom of speech and assembly. But to go beyond this minimalist definition and label a country democratic only if it guarantees a comprehensive catalog of social, political, economic, and religious rights turns the word democracy into a badge of honor rather than a descriptive category. After all, Sweden has an economic system that many argue curtails individual property rights, France until recently had a state monopoly on television, and England has an established religion. But they are all clearly and identifiably democracies. To have democracy mean, subjectively, "a good government" renders it analytically useless
Singapore, which ranked as one of top countries on Human Development Index, is not practicing Liberal Democracy.. Its political history includes not only suppression and limited liberates, but also scandals of voluntary birth barrenness for people with low IQ rates..!
Singapore acquired full independence, first from Britain and then from Malaysia in the 1960s. At that time, it was structured as a relatively liberal democracy, albeit with some internal security laws that allowed for detention without trial. Over time, as Singapore's ruling People's Action Party government consolidated power in the 1960s and 1970s, it enacted a number of laws and policies that curtailed constitutional freedoms (such as the right to assemble or form associations, bearing in mind that there were race and religious riots at this times), and extended its influence over the media, unions, NGOs and academia. Consequently, although technically free and fair multi-party elections are regularly conducted, the political realities in Singapore (including fear and self-censorship) make participation in opposition politics extremely difficult, leaving the dominant ruling party as the only credible option at the polls..