This is a user sandbox of Siaffron. You can use it for testing or practicing edits. This is not the place where you work on your assigned article for a dashboard.wikiedu.org course. Visit your Dashboard course page and follow the links for your assigned article in the My Articles section. Get Help

- The first paragraph of the article does a decent job describing illiberal democracy and types of democracy that are closely related, though it forgets about Ober's definition of illiberal democracy, which is extremely open but illiberal.

- In the section entitled "Origin and Description," the first sentence reads as follows: "The term illiberal democracy was used by Fareed Zakaria in a regularly cited 1997 article in the journal Foreign Affairs.[4]" In fact, this is not the origin of the term, and though the sentence does not claim it does, its place under this header implies some significance to Zakaria's terminology. The section would be better lead by the first coinage of the term.

- The criticism section is insufficient.

- The sources are somewhat suspect, especially because of the lack of an authoritative source on the subject. The sourcing seems somewhat random and incoherent, especially because the "further reading" books, which are the most substantial sources on the topic, are not actually cited in the article.

-         The first paragraph of the article could benefit from some editing. It should probably be a clear definition of what illiberal democracy: Illiberal democracy is a democratic system that lacks constitutional liberalism and that produces centralized regimes…  

o   Then citation would be provided from Zakaraia’s work.

-         In the first paragraph that you added, I would delete the quotation and paraphradse what the prime minister said and how he defined. I would create a title like “Practical implementation” or something and then explain the position and the thoughts of the prime minister through paraphrasing and citing his speech.

o   Rejected instead of disdained.

-         For the third paragraph that you added, you might want to put it in contrast/or with what Zakaria described as illiberal democracy. Ober’s definition also sounds like it contrasts the definition of the Hungarian Prime Minister in that Ober assumes that illiberal democracy’s principle is rejection of liberalism while the prime minister seems to be a little indifferent towards liberal values when he says “does not make this ideology central element of state organization.”

-         I think you do a great job outlining the views of different authors. Maybe it might make sense to dedicate a paragraph or two analyzing their views and how they go against each other (But this suggestion might not be appropriate for a Wikipedia article)  

February - My favorite text from the first half of the course is Manin's "Principles of Representative Government." I'm still convinced that representative models are normatively the most attractive option if rationality is assumed, but, as the course has shown, have many practical pitfalls. Manin has convinced me of the combination of democratic and undemocratic elements that he says compose all representative institutions, and he does an excellent job of placing various conceptions of representation on a spectrum between Schumpeterian democracy at one end and open or deliberative at the other.

2/26-3/2 - I decided to choose illiberal democracy as my Wikipedia article because of the complexity it provides; it seems to be an umbrella term for a variety of different things, rather than a specific, illustrative term. Thus, the article is probably less complete. However, it also lends itself to an objective setting like Wikipedia less well; Ober's definition and Zakaria's definition, for example, seem so different that they are practically different articles.

3/5-3/9 - Muller's book "What is Populism?" will be an important part of my research on illiberal democracy because regressive, populist democracies are certainly applicable to the general category of illiberal democracies. By framing pluralism as the central tenet of liberal democracy, though, he implies that illiberal democracy is simply not plural, which seems awfully oversimplified. Plenty of the most progressive states strike me as very homogenous in the most obvious of senses, though I probably need to do more research on that front. I'm starting to create categories of illiberal demorcracies: 1) "closed" democracies, 2) "open" democracies that still choose illiberal core values as part of their social contract, 3) "open" democracies that consolidate power in a select subgroup and disenfranchise others. I'll add more as I keep reading.

3/12-3/23 - Working on editing Marwan's article helped me think about how to write mine, because the organization of the sections is so important on Wikipedia. For both his topic and my topic, the theory and the case examples will have to be presented in distinct sections, but it's hard to know what should come first. Intuitively, it seems to me that describing the theory and its variations should be under the first header, but since most uses of the phrase "illiberal democracy" are in reference to a very small list of examples, the term makes little sense without direct reference to them. I'm hoping to continue adding to my theory section by reading more descriptions of the term "illiberal democracy," but I'm a bit worried that the types of illiberal democracy are so divergent that they make little sense in the same article, even.

4/2-4/6 - Editing Justin's article made me think more about the topics I needed to touch on. His article really focuses on examples more than on theory, and perhaps I should be doing the same. I'm also starting to transfer my work to Wikipedia.

4/9-4/13 - My article keeps getting changed on Wikipedia, though one of my changes has stuck, too. I'm adding a new section about Athens, because it relates to the research I've been doing for my final paper.

4/16-4/20 - I started working on the development of my research paper this week, and have found that my research for my Wikipedia article has helped guide my research interests. I've become very interested in participation in illiberal democracy, because I can't understand why people would spend their time participating in democracy if their objectives are to strip away their rights. It seems oxymoronic. I've started reading about democratic incentives in general and comparing them to Ober's incentives in his book Demopolis, which describes "civic dignity" as a motivational factor for participation. I'll continue with my research next week.

This is not a complete view of the article, since I did not copy sections that I did not edit to my sandbox. The article on Wikipedia is fairly lengthy and complete, so some sections are not copied here. For sections which I amended, I put my work in bold. For the other sections in my sandbox, the work is all mine.

The term illiberal democracy was used by Fareed Zakaria in a regularly cited 1997 article in the journal Foreign Affairs.

According to Zakaria, liberalism and democracy were not considered to be inextricably connected until 1945, when franchise finally reached the modern standards of suffrage.^[1] Because of this strengthened tie, illiberal democracy is a term to describe democracies that are interested in limiting the freedoms of the people they represent, and they are increasing in popularity. Zakaria points out that in the West, electoral democracy and civil liberties (of speech, religion, etc.) go hand in hand. But around the world, the two concepts are coming apart. He argues that democracy without constitutional liberalism is producing centralized regimes, the erosion of liberty, ethnic competition, conflict, and war. Recent scholarship has addressed why elections, institutions commonly associated with liberalism and freedom, have led to such negative outcomes in illiberal democracies.

Zakaria's definition was promoted by Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orban in 2014, who made the concept central to the creation of his own party, Fidesz. He claimed that the party's goal was to create "an illiberal state, a non-liberal state [that] does not reject the fundamental principles of liberalism such as freedom, and I could list a few more, but it does not make this ideology the central element of state organisation, but instead includes a different, special, national approach."^[2] He claimed that his form of "illiberal democracy" disdained toleration of minorities, believed in strong forms of majoritarianism, rejected checks and balances, and believed in nationalism and separatism.^[3] Indeed, he rewrote the Hungarian Constitution to reflect Fidesz's illiberal values, and has a authoritarian-like hold on Hungary, according to Freedom House.^[4]

Jennifer Gandhi argues that many autocrats allow elections in their governance to stabilize and reinforce their regimes. She first argues that elections help leaders resolve threats from elites and from the masses by appeasing those capable of usurping power with money and securing the cooperation of the general public with political concessions.[5] Gandhi also claims that illiberal elections serve other useful purposes, such as providing autocrats with information about their citizens and establishing legitimacy both domestically and in the international community, and that these varied functions must be elucidated in future research.[6] One example of the regime durability provided by illiberal democracy is illustrated in Mubarak’s Egyptian regime. Lisa Blaydes shows that under Mubarak’s lengthy rule, elections provided a mechanism through which elites bought votes to support the government (through distributing needed goods and resources to the public) to acquire regime-enforced parliamentary immunity. This enabled them to accumulate illicit wealth and draw from state resources without legal consequence.[7] Such research suggests that, given the stability-providing function of illiberal elections, states governed under illiberal democracies may have low prospects for a transition to a democratic system protected by constitutional liberties.

In order to discourage this problem and promote the development of liberal democracies with "free and fair" elections, Zakaria proposes that the international community and the United States must end their obsession with balloting[clarify] and promote gradual liberalization of societies. Zakaria advances institutions like the World Trade Organization, the Federal Reserve System, and a check on power in the form of the judiciary to promote democracy and limit the power of people which can be destructive.[4] Illiberal democratic governments may believe they have a mandate to act in any way they see fit as long as they hold regular elections. Lack of liberties such as freedom of speech and freedom of assembly make opposition extremely difficult. The rulers may centralize powers between branches of the central government and local government (exhibiting no separation of powers). Media are often controlled by the state and strongly support the regime[8]. Non-governmental organizations may face onerous regulations or simply be prohibited. The regime may use red tape, economic pressure, imprisonment or violence against its critics. Zakaria believes that constitutional liberalism can bring democracy, but not vice versa.

Illiberal democracy, at least in the form that Zakaria describes, is unlikely to take hold in democracies where there is relative political equality and parties are well-entrenched. Freedom House has theorized other preconditions for illiberal takeovers, such as "a fundamental weakness in democratic institutions beyond the political sphere, including the media, civil society, anticorruption agencies, and the judiciary" and moments when "the mainstream parties suffer catastrophic electoral setbacks."^[5] Finally, the example of Orban in Hungary shows a correlation between the concentration of wealth among the politicians who support illiberalism and its success in mainstream politics.^[6]

Josiah Ober's Demopolis illustrates a alternate conception of illiberal democracy, in which citizens are provided all opportunities to take part in democracy, but collectively decide to eschew classically liberal values, such as religious toleration or equality. Because this form of illiberal democracy implicitly claims that democracy is valuable just as a method of collective self-governance, it does not matter what the citizens choose to be their guiding values, as long as they are democratically found.^[7] Ober believes that citizens will receive civic benefits from participating in such a democracy, such as a form of civic virtue, no matter what decisions they reach.^[8] Thus, open and deliberative democracy can be attractive for everyone, even those who do not desire liberalism.

Jan-Warner Muller conceives of illiberal democracy as a form of populism. Because populism is essentially a rejection of pluralism, it is also a rejection of liberal values, even if populists reach office democratically. Eventually, such populists will have authoritarian-like power and disenfranchise liberals from their government, even though they will "promise to make good on democracy's highest ideals (Let the people rule!)."^[9] The connection between populism and illiberalism is also mentioned by Larry Diamond, who notes that the nativist, nationalistic trends in European populism of the 2000s correlate with illiberal election practices and values. Because one of the four key tenets of populism is that it is majoritarian, populists appeal to the mass by "[seeking] to restrict the rights of political, racial, ethnic and other minorities, or simply [seeking] in general to erode freedom of thought, information, and expression."^[10]

Finally, It can also be theorized that "illiberal democracy" is an impossibility, as democracy can be considered inherently associated with constitutional liberalism. According to Marc Plattner, for instance, "elections would seem to require the guarantee of certain civil liberties."^[11] Indeed, the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights grants all people the right to electoral participation because it says "the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government," implying a fundamental link between liberalism and suffrage.^[12] Beyond elections, Enlightenment thinkers such as John Locke considered political consent to derive from perfect freedom and equality, which illiberal democracies may deny from their citizens.^[13] Finally, without freedom of speech, it is impossible to guarantee citizens free choice in election or free association and participation in political activities, thus undermining the democracy.^[14]