Modeling Inclusion in Liberal Democracies– What are the Key Pointers?
· Key Takeaways: Inclusion is central to the creation of functional democracy since it determines how individuals and groups pursue their freedom and actualize their rights to self-ownership.
· This study identifies seven key variables that can be used to measure Inclusion, viz: Political Engagement (PE), Policy Representation (PR), Civil Rights (CR), Social Engagement (SE), Economic Engagement (EE), Socioeconomic Mobility (SM) & Voluntaryism (VL).
Introduction
What are the key foundations of inclusion in a liberal democracy?
How can these pointers be operationalized to steer interest groups to lobby for their rightful place in a liberal democracy?
Democracy is a multidimensional concept that brings together intertwined elements of political and civil rights, democratic practices, values, and institutional arrangements that complement the legal system[1]. Ultimately, what sets liberal democracy apart from autocracies, illiberal democracies, and other nominal forms of democracies are the civil liberties that individual citizens and residents can invoke against authorities[2].
Thus, any group should be able to invoke their rights individually and collectively in a liberal democracy at the micro to the macro levels to navigate the complex power and policy networks[3]. This study deduces the core elements of liberal democracies that guarantee the inclusion and engagement of individual citizens. This will be done through a theoretical overview and
Theoretical Overview
Yale professor, Timothy Snyder argued that “freedom” is not a one-off event, but rather, a series of actions on an individual’s path towards exercising their personal sovereignty[4]. The process starts with "freedom from" tyranny and authoritarian rule but continues as a process of developing values, aspirations, and character that ultimately guarantee self-ownership by getting people to control their deeds and desires.
In this sense, "freedom" is encapsulated in unpredictability, mobility, factuality, and solidarity. Thus, the institutions and achievement parameters of a jurisdiction create the parameters for authentic freedom or the stifling of individual freedom in the opposite situation.
Democracy around the world is often presented as majority control, electoral competition, and citizens' choice. In reality, though, the overwhelming majority of the lives and circumstances of citizens in a society are based on how much freedom they have to pursue their own goals and aspirations and achieve their innate needs and desires. In effect, inclusion has been described by some scholars as a balance between:
1. Citizens’ self-placement, and
2. Estimations of the governments and policymaker coalitions[5]
To some scholars, the quality of liberal democracy and how it affects inclusion is predicated on:
(a) Political Liberties, and
(b) Democratic Rules in the National Political System[6]
Thus, the nominal liberties defined under the constitution, and the rules for engagement ultimately define the level of participation by all stakeholders. However, engagement and participation are influenced by other factors that affect maneuvering and consensus-development that affect:
1. The furthering of interests by citizens/groups, and
2. The power dynamics in the jurisdiction.
On the other hand, some constitutional theorists assert that Inclusion in a liberal democracy is based on several classical Lockean constraints, including:
1. Accountability & Constraint,
2. Representation,
3. Participation,
4. Civil Rights,
5. Property Rights,
6. Political Rights &
7. Minority Rights[7]
Accountability and constraints on the sovereign determine the extent to which individual and collective freedom issues are positioned in national and political affairs. Representation is about how the formal and informal needs of individuals are met in the state. Then, participation explains the different ways a person can engage and meaningfully pursue their own self-ownership goals within the polity of the state they live in.
Civil rights are guarantees and laws an individual can use to prevent infringements on their freedoms and goals in life. Property rights, political rights, and minority rights shape the way people can nurture their needs and desires to pursue their own free choices and personal sovereignty.
Some writers argue that Inclusion in its extreme form leads to populism which could affect democracy and the rule of law[8]. Extreme interpretations of exclusion, mobilization, charisma, anti-politics, social resentment, and political polarization are all tools used by extremists to hijack the discourse on Inclusion[9]. This could improve inclusion or cause the reverse effect.
Participation as a function of Inclusion comes with various ideas that could have different interactions ranging from social justice to economic freedom[10]. Extremes on the two ends could lead to different interpretations. However, an objective liberal democratic lens will measure and identify whether a particular jurisdiction is upholding essential rights and engagement practices objectively inclusive or not.
Variables of Inclusion: Discussions & Deductions
The implications of the many different theories on liberal democracy and Inclusion come down to one question – how well can the ordinary citizen engage in society? This raises questions about social engagement, doing business, working in a sector they desire, political engagement, access to public officials, influencing and demanding change, and many others.
These are all day-to-day affairs that show the difference between an Inclusive liberal democracy and one that is less Inclusive. This is more of a question of “space” for maneuvering – how well people can meet their needs and attain their desires.
From the pointers, the following variables were deduced:
1. Political Engagement
2. Policy Representation
3. Civil Rights
4. Economic Engagement
5. Social Engagement
6. Socioeconomic Mobility, and
7. Voluntaryism.
Political Engagement (PE) is about the extent to which a person or group’s voices count in the political affairs of the jurisdiction they live in.
Political Representation (PR) relates to how well a person feels represented in government and how this representation affects policies that relate to them directly.
Civil Rights (CR) is about rights and freedoms that the individual can invoke against authorities to get their legitimate needs addressed.
Economic Engagement (EE) is about the ability of an individual to start a job or business they desire in an area they desire as well as how well they can control, manage, and grow their wealth.
Social Engagement (SE) relates to the extent to which a person can maintain connections with families, friends, and close associates as they desire.
Socioeconomic Mobility (SM) refers to whether or not a person can rise economically and socially in their existing circumstances in the future or not.
Voluntaryism (VL) is about the extent to which a person or people can collaborate and cooperate with others of mutual interests to engage in free exchange and achieve their goal easily in the jurisdiction in question.
Conclusion
Inclusion in liberal democracy relates to the individual’s ability to exercise their freedoms in the context of the pursuit of their needs and desires. It has its roots in the classical Lockean views of freedom, property ownership, and limits on government. This study has operationalized several core elements of Inclusion that can be used to model various measures of freedom and self-ownership in liberal democracies around the world. The seven factors identified include Political Engagement, Policy Representation, Civil Rights, Economic Engagement, Social Engagement, Socioeconomic Mobility & Voluntaryism. These pointers are capable of being operationalized and applied to test different jurisdictions to identify absolute and comparative elements of inclusion and freedom in democratic jurisdictions around the world.
[1] Susanne Karstedt. "Democracy and the Project of Liberal Inclusion" Crime, Justice & Social Democracy (2013) pp16-33 DOI: 10.1057/9781137008695_2
[2] Gabriel L. Negretto & Mariano Sanchez-Talanquer. "Constitutional Origins and Liberal Democracy: A Global Analysis, 1900–2015" American Political Science Review 115 (2) 2021 pp522-536 DOI: 10.1017/S0003055420001069
[3] Wayne Gabardi. "Contemporary Models of Democracy" Polity 33 (4) 2001. DOI: 10.2307/3235516
[4] Timothy Snyder. On Freedom. New York: Random House, 2024
[5] John D. Huber & G. Bingham Powell Jr. "Congruence between Citizens and Policymakers in Two Visions of Liberal Democracy" World Politics: A Journal of International Relations 74 (4) 2022 pp291-326
[6] Kenneth Alan Bollen. "Liberal Democracy Series I, 1972–1988: Definition, measurement, and trajectories" Electoral Studies 28 (3) 209 pp368-374 DOI: 10.1016/j.electstud.2009.05.009
[7] Joe Foweraker & Roman Krznaric. "Measuring Liberal Democratic Performance: an Empirical and Conceptual Critique" Political Studies 49 (2000) pp759-787 DOI: 10.1111/1467-9248.00282
[8] Wendy Brown. “Neo-liberalism and the End of Liberal Democracy” Theory & Event 7 (1) 2003 DOI: 10.1353/tae.2003.0020
[9] Takis S. Pappas. Populism and Liberal Democracy: A Comparative and Theoretical Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press, 2019
[10] Dinna Prapto Raharja. "Social Inclusion in Today’s Democracies" Democracy & Inclusivity pp15-28 (Indonesia: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, 2020)