For a number of people reading Hayek comes down to a small quote taken out of context by anti-liberal books and blogs. It can be found in this form: [better] a "liberal dictatorship to a lack of liberalism in a democratic government. "A double
range is attributed to that quote.
First a general statement is better and the market dictatorship than democracy.
And then, especially because it was made to a Chilean newspaper right under the Pinochet dictatorship, it would mean that Hayek would support Pinochet.
Sometimes the whole is wrapped in a beautiful story, with Hayek and Friedman's Machiavellian advisers caudillo.
Both the general and specific interpretation is wrong.
I) No support for Pinochet
First interpret the quote as support for Pinochet collapses if one reads verbatim seriously what Hayek said.
The exact quote, with which accompanies it, is " I would say that, as institutions for the long term, I am totally against dictatorships. But a dictatorship may be a need for a transitional period. Sometimes it is necessary for a country to have, for a time, one form or another of dictatorial power. [...] Personally I prefer a liberal dictator rather than a democratic government lacking liberalism. My personal impression is that [...] in Chile, for example, we will the transition from a dictatorial government to a Liberal government. ( interview with the Chilean daily newspaper''[[El Mercurio ]]'', April 12, 1981, according to the documentation Institute Hayek)
If Hayek states that the Chilean regime will change from dictatorship to liberal, it is that Pinochet and his regime were not a liberal. qed
be added only if it is true that the Pinochet regime is a dictatorship that the general has violated the law for themselves in power, we can not equate the President Allende in paragon of democracy. One governed by short-circuiting Parliament, which held the majority and demanded his dismissal. Allende's party, he has finally shown generally respectful of the letter of the constitution except in his mind, never had an absolute majority and behaved in a more than unpleasant with his opposition in his last months.
It is therefore premature to equate the dictator Pinochet and Liberal Democrat anti-liberal in Allende.
In any case it is wrong to understand this quote as endorsing Pinochet when Hayek hopes for a liberal evolution of the dictatorial regime of the latter.
II) No undemocratic political theory
Then the general interpretation of the famous quote as a rejection of democracy in favor of the market is false because Hayek does not limit the liberalism to which it refers solely to economic liberalism.
Recall that for the anti-liberal, Hayek would oppose democracy to economic liberalism. Yet never in his quotation, whether the original or an altered version, Hayek does not limit liberalism to economic liberalism. What is
Hayek is the confusion, frequent, between notions of liberalism and democracy.
Uncertainties on the concept of democracy
Today everyone is a Democrat. The price of this unanimity is considerable uncertainty about the definition of that concept.
Is it the law of the majority, the general consensus of an egalitarian movement, the rule of law, a division mode of passion, a realistic system of peaceful transition to power ? (You can see this old article which collects quotes about democracy and shows the variety of approaches.)
Democracy is confused with related ideas, foremost among which is liberalism.
Democracy should be defined primarily as a mode of appointment of governors by the method of universal suffrage. The government of the people, by the people and for the people (quote from Lincoln found in the French Constitution). If this system is desirable, it is not sufficient because the majority may want one badly, at the expense of minorities.
Democracy can fail and elsewhere Hayek comes precisely from a country where the failure of democracy has had serious consequences. He acquired British citizenship in 1938, refusing the Anschluss.
Confusion between democracy and liberalism
liberalism itself must be understood against the powers-limiting and other mechanisms of power: the press, the market, the rule of law etc..
But liberalism is not enough to make a government, we must still popular support, legitimacy, these mechanisms. Democracy is now the regime is perceived as more legitimate when they are not alone and it is also legitimate per se in that it integrates the whole body politic in the electoral process.
is why it is necessary to combine democratic ideas and liberal.
And what we usually call democracy is precisely the liberal democracy, a combination of liberal and democratic ideas. But it is conceivable that other combinations to do.
Democracy opposes the dictatorship, liberalism is opposed to absolutism.
victim of its success, the combination has become confusing. This is such between the two concepts that defended many proponents of democracy is really the liberal democracy which has been substantially emptied.
For example, it is fashionable now to define democracy as pluralism or pluralism has precisely nothing to do with pure democracy, which is the government of the people. Pluralism is, like liberalism, a complement of democracy. To these supporters, one is tempted to ask whether they prefer a democracy without pluralism or pluralism without democracy ...
should therefore restore meaning to words and to distinguish between ideas. Hayek and show us that liberalism is not democracy, it is possible to conceive of one without the other and the order.
The same typology as Peter ... Rosanvallon
For those who are unconvinced, indicate that the typology presented here, distinguishing between democratic and liberal ideas commonly confused, of course, is not unique to Hayek. It's also found in Pierre Rosanvallon, which does not appear to be a libertarian. In his book
Democracy Still, the author presents a liberal regime without democracy and without a democratic liberalism.
These respective regimes of Louis-Philippe and Napoleon III.
And indeed better than Louis Philippe-Napoleon III.
III) The need for timely dictatorship
Hayek also said black and white that it is against the dictatorship except when necessary as a transitional measure.
But such a statement is absolutely clear. Dictatorship, as defined in the Roman institution of absolute power but characterized by its legality, legitimacy and its temporary nature (read among typology Aron) is necessary for any diet.
The 5th Republic itself provides three modes of dictatorship: the full powers of Article 16, the state of emergency and martial law.
If politics is the art of the lesser evil and calming of passions, sometimes the demagogues are ready to take the place of policy. Sometimes the social body and dissolve the civil war approach. He must then save liberal democracy and peace, and dictatorship is necessary.
This is particularly true of historical experience that marked Hayek: the overthrow of the Weimar Republic by the Nazis. It would have been better than the old elites and the Democrats maintain the regime by force rather than let the demagogues, some of their democratic legitimacy.
Everyone in their right mind will agree with this statement ... unless it is Hayek who pronounces ...
Conclusion
What is remarkable with this joke of Hayek, is that it loses its offensiveness if you appreciate a little rigor content.
Democracy is not an abstraction of the more abstract that defines it as an absolute good, is a method of appointment of governors by the people who can fail.
The dictatorship is not that illegal and illegitimate exercise of power is still the possibility that reserves any plan to increase its powers in exceptional circumstances to protect the country from civil war.
0 comments:
Post a Comment