William Riker

Liberalism against Populism

In the tradition of Locke, which has dominated Anglo-American thought, liberty has been described as the natural rights inherent in human life and independent even of citizenship. Many of the great democratic declarations are tabulations of rights such as free speech, religious liberty, fair legal procedure, property ownership, and economic security. But the connection between democratic liberty and natural rights is not necessary. In the ancient world there was no notion of natural rights, yet Pericles praised freedom as one of the main features of Athenian democracy. And in the tradition of Rousseau, liberty resides in participation in government, not in rights distinct from government.

Nevertheless, however expressed, there is a close connection between liberty and democracy. How can the persistence of this association be explained? Historically, at least, the association is instrumental because liberty is necessary to organize participation in government. In the English tradition, limited government originated in claims of freedoms against the Crown. The earliest such claim was that members of Parliament not be prosecuted for speeches in Parliament. The claim protected politicians temporarily in office and not certain of staying there and thereby enabled them to form factions and organize voting against the government. Ultimately this freedom was extended to everybody, but it has never lost its association with political opposition and the nourishment of faction. Almost everything else that we think of as civil liberties (the rights of a speedy trial, habeas corpus, and security against unreasonable search and seizure, for example) originated to protect politicians who feared prosecution if and when they lost office. Thus the historic purpose of these fundamental democratic liberties has been not to provide freedom as an end in itself, but to render effective both political participation and the process of choice in voting.

Freedom, however, has also become an end in itself because, like participation, it generates self-control and facilitates self-respect. Hence it is not only an instrument for, but also a part of, justice. Civil liberties are now thought to be good for everybody, not just politicians. Religious liberty, which religious factions—uncertain of victory in the wars of religion—devised to protect themselves, is now thought to be part of self-control and the good life itself. Economic liberty—that is, the free markets and free entrepreneurship of modern capitalism—originally protected a faction, namely, merchants, in conflict with the Crown and the feudal order. Although it has been fashionable in this century to deride economic freedom, capitalism remains essential for faction: No government that has eliminated economic freedom has been able to attain or keep democracy, probably because, when all economic life is absorbed into government, there is no conceivable financial base for opposition. But economic liberty is also an end in itself because capitalism is the driving force for the increased efficiency and technological innovation that has produced in two centuries both a vast increase in the wealth of capitalist nations and a doubling of the average life span of their citizens. These practical achievements also facilitate self-control and are therefore important features of democratic justice.

Altogether, therefore, democratic liberty (whether civil, religious, or economic) originates as an instrument to organize voting and popular participation in government. Once in existence, however, it has always been found good in itself as a part of self-control and human dignity. So, like participation, democratic liberty—originally an instrument—became a part of the democratic ideal.