Liberal Confusion

By Ronald Meinardus

Following my recent column, in which I discussed the basics of liberalism, I received an E-Mail from a reader who wrote: “Since, as you state, liberalism seems to have the solutions to all of our problems, why then are liberal political parties not the dominant forces in their respective countries?” This is a reasonable question if one looks at the democracies of this world: social-democratic, conservative and other political forces clearly have the lead over distinctly liberal governments. In Europe, where programmatic political parties have long been an integral part of political culture, and also in the Americas and parts of Africa and Asia, there are only a few countries governed by manifestly liberal parties.

Let me begin my argument regarding what I would term the limitations of organized political liberalism with some basic linguistic observations: Not all languages provide the term “liberal”, which originates from the Latin “liber” meaning “free”. The Greeks created their own word for liberal: In that classical language “filelevtheros” literally means “the friend of freedom”. In other languages and cultural settings, though, the term “liberal” has a completely different connotation: I remember conducting seminars on liberalism with students from Latin America, some of whom were almost embarrassed when asked for their definition of liberalism, as in their part of the world the term is associated with sexual aberration, even abnormality. Furthermore, there exists a fundamental divergence between the American English version of the term “liberal” and the continental European tradition. While we in Europe associate liberalism primarily as a set of political programs that curb the intrusion of the state in our personal lives (and consequently also in the economy), in the US liberalism has become a synonym for exactly the opposite - advocacy for government sponsored spending. Some North Americans even push liberals into one corner with leftists. Again and again, this linguistic diversity, if we may call it that, leads to political confusion: While European liberals may on the one hand praise the economic policies of conservatives in the US, they tend to abhor the latters’ fixation on law and order and support for the death penalty.

Apart from these differences of definition regarding the label “liberal”, some political parties simply misuse the term. In East Asia, I can also quote more than one example for the misleading juggling of labels. Consider the so-called United Liberal Democrats in South Korea led by right-wing politician and Ex-General Kim Jong-pil or the Liberal Democratic Party of Japan. For many who know, these organizations are neither liberal nor democratic.

To abuse a nice-sounding political label, I will add to the lack of programmatic clarity on the side of what may be termed genuine liberal organizations and parties: I have attended myriad international gatherings of political parties that are members of international liberal organisations such as “Liberal International” (LI), which is headquartered in London, or the “Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats” (CALD), which coordinates its regional activities from Manila. I am always impressed as to how colourful and pluralistic this community of politically like-minded politicians actually is. Considering the multitude of different approaches and priorities in the cross-border networks, some observers have expressed doubts whether it is actually correct to speak of one international liberal family. The variety of concepts and policies, which is typical to most international debates, is a reflection of the fundamental political, social and also cultural differences in different parts of the world.

In spite of these divergences, there exist strong unifying forces, which - seen in an historical perspective - have helped sustain politically organized liberalism on a global level. First, there is the desire of liberally minded forces to distinguish themselves from two other political main-streams of our times – socialism and conservatism. Socialists of all shades share the fundamental belief that it is up to the state to solve the problems of society. This is the exact opposite of the liberal credo. Conservatives of all shades, on the other hand, share a fundamental belief in the existence of a God-given order, a metaphysically determined status quo that needs to be protected and “conserved” therefore conservatives. Thus, throughout the world, conservative parties often have a religious dimension, with the Christian Democrat movement arguably the most powerful globally. For liberals, religion and politics should be clearly separated. Over the centuries, the demand for religious tolerance has been a corner stone of the liberal agenda. The quest for tolerance has rarely been as timely as today, as religious fundamentalists and misguided zealots are once more leading the world to the abyss of a “clash of civilizations.’’

A few days ago, I read a commentary in an international newspaper titled “Right, left and center are out of fashion”. There, the author argues in a rather general manner that the voters are no longer interested in ideological concepts, solely looking for political competence: “less incompetence, whatever ideology.’’ While, indeed, disenchantment of voters with the political class is a serious problem in many countries, I disagree with the generalization that the citizens don’t have ideologically and also sociologically determined political and partisan preferences any more. Throughout the world, the labels left, right and centre continue to dominate political discussions and decisions.

In this traditional political topography, the natural place for liberals is the centre. This location is problematic, as the big blocks to the left and the right have a tendency of moving to the centre, taking away much of the political breathing space of liberals. The occupancy of political terrain by one’s ideological opponents often goes hand in hand with the usurpation, yes, the hijacking, of liberal positions. This has led to a situation today in which many party politicians successfully use liberal rhetoric. At the same time, we encounter situations where liberal parties at times tolerate politicians in their midst who openly express illiberal views. These ideological aberrations are a major headache for all those who believe political parties should be based on a joint set of political values and principles. In East Asia, this concept of program-based parties is still in its infancy. Not political programs, but other considerations are the glue that hold political parties together. From a liberal angle, it is but a cold comfort that this applies to all political parties.

The Korea Times : December 12, 2002
© All rights reserved

Dr. Ronald Meinardus was the former Resident Representative of the Friedrich Naumann Foundation in the Philippines and will leave Manila late September for a new posting in the Middle East. He writes a blog at www.myliberaltimes.com