Despite the fact that book is researched well, and his ideas are outlined clearly, it is apparent that there is a certain bias inherent in his worldview. For example, he states that "democracy is not inherently good". What does he mean by this? He seems to be trying to start with a premise, and then support it through his conclusions. However, the premise is weak. I do agree that a "democracy" in and of itself does not mean that the result of that "democracy" will be inherently good. Democracy is not a result, but rather a process. A process that can result in positive or negative consequences depending upon how it is used, and by whom participates. Another reviewer here nailed it when he said that a democracy needs "good people" to function properly. This is truly the heart of the matter, and is usually so obvious as to be "self evident". However, Zakaria misses this point entirely.

Another weak point being made is that "in numerous new democratic processes, the elections serve not as a guarantee of liberty, but a legitimization of tyranny". I believe he is at best over simplifying and at worst completely wrong. In the first sense, an election which "legitimizes tyranny" is in effect a self-refuting concept. Either the elections are not truly a democratic process at all by not allowing for free and open decision making by the people (thus the tyranny), or the result of the election is the chosen path by the people. In one case, democracy exists in name only and simply does not really exist at all, and in the other case it has worked as it should. Since democracy is a process by which people determine the outcome, the blame for a negative result of the true use of a democratic process lies with the morality of the people participating, not the process itself. In the examples he uses throughout the book, he seems to miss this point.

He also argues that "liberty depends less on the will of the majority than it does on the institutional safeguards for the rights of minorities." This is a common tactic, but one that isn't the neutral worldview he would have you believe it is. It implies that the "minority" in opinion "should" be treated with the same level of weight as the majority. Why? He seems unaware that this view is in itself a philosophical worldview that has no foundation. Falling into the illogical spiral that is moral relativism, he equates "minority" opinion as being more valid than majority opinion, to the point of saying the failure to safeguard the minority opinion threatens liberty. Strong words indeed, but what does he truly mean by them? Are all minority opinions valid inherently simply because they are in the minority? One hopes not. In this country there are many minority opinions, such as neo-nazi's, and other racist hategroups. Is he implying that because these views are not popular, and not held to the same standard as the majority view of freedom for all that liberty is threatened?

I will agree with him on one thing, democracy in and of itself is not inherently good. Without a moral compass to guide, and standards of morality on which to base judgements of good vs. evil, a democracy can a failure. The majority can be tragically wrong, as he points out as one example of democracy gone badly: 1930's Germany. He is right in implying that the majority view is not always good, but what he in the end fails to do is to provide any solution. One could walk away from his work thinking that there is some formula of the right mix of democracy and dictatorship that will result in a moral and "good" society. Sadly though, democracy is but a process, and with any process, the true determination of whether it is good or bad is the hearts of the people participating. In the end, his views are not new; they are scattered throughout the New Testament of the Bible, where the ultimate consideration for governing and decision making is a reliance on the "law written on our hearts". All other processes, including his idea of liberalizing international politics, will only be as successful as those who participate. Another reviewer quoted Winston Churchill: "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." Nothing in this book suggests otherwise.


A fascinating, easy-to-read and highly educational book.   October 23, 2003
 40 out of 43 found this review helpful

This is a fantastic book. If you like international affairs, you will love it. I cannot recommend this highly enough, especially for anyone interested in geopolitical affairs and foreign policy. The book is written with the touch of a fine journalist. It is at once a breeze to read and highly informative.

Zakaria fills the book with interesting research that makes the reader feel as if he or she were participating in an advanced course on globalization, except this class is all fun. There is none of the boring homework or dreary academic reading often associated with political science courses. With a Ph.D. from Harvard, Zakaria is a scholar, but he does not write like your typical academic. His style is easy going and clear, which makes his exceptionally interesting content easier to digest.

The content varies from theories about democratic development to the history of the Catholic Church and its role in the formation of individual liberties. You will learn about why oil-rich nations like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia face difficult paths on the road to democracy. You will also learn about how popular referendums in California may have created more problems than they have solved in that state.

Is it possible to give too much power to the people? Can an autocratic leader be good for a nation? Why do political liberties differ so much from Sinapore to Egypt to the UK?Zakaria explores these and other questions in this fascinating book. Read it and you will be wiser because of it.


A must-read for all after-dinner politicians   April 13, 2003
 38 out of 45 found this review helpful

Anyone who is a frequent reader of Newsweek or Foreign Affairs will have already recognized the name of Fareed Zakaria, and has already worked their mind through his somewhat different views. That too was my first reaction when I read the New York Times Book Review of this book; and for the most part, I wasn't suprised.

Zakaria is an intelligent political analyst with a gift at subtely seducing you into believing (or accepting) his sometimes extreme opinions. In his latest book he topples probably his most extreme view- that democracy is not the 'golden shrine' of governmental order.

The American Dream since the end of the 20th century has now transformed itself into globalization, and the belief that democracy is the fundamental pillar to a successful society. Zakaria challenges this idea through a series of theories, each of which include one or two examples. He has a bland way of expressing these ideas, but the very fact that he is proposing them is gutsy, and for that the book is enjoyable to read (whether in the end you believe him or not.)

If you are one who blindly quotes de Tocqueville and company without considering the potential risks inherent in democracy, this should be the first book on your reading pile. Not only will it challenge you, but, ironically enough, may (like it did to me), only make my views on democracy more credible (I now have seen the most sensible arguements against democracy, and I feel prepared to rebuke whatever comes my way). I put this book down as millions of thoughts raced through my head. Zakaria has written a wonderful nonfiction book that will make you think, and finally, have a much more well informed opinion (whatever it may be) when you are finished.


Maybe this book is a satire.   January 20, 2005
 37 out of 64 found this review helpful

The Future of Freedom, great for some laughs. Ok, Zakaria's basic premise, while hardly original, is sensible. Democracy does not necessarily equal freedom, which is to say a strong national constitution that protects the rights of individuals against the "mob" is needed if individuals wish to retain their liberty. Again, nothing new but it is nice to be reminded of this once in a while I suppose.

Sadly, Zakaria does an awful job defending this point of view.

The book starts off oddly, for some reason Zakaria tries to make the case that Constantine's decision to move the Roman Empire's capitol to Byzantium was the beginning of church-state separation. Yeah, I know what the hell is he talking about? Perhaps he's not aware that the Catholic Church had been functioning until then quite independent of the State (except of course for the occasional persecution of Christians) for hundreds of years. And the Church had become so strong, independent of the Empire, that Constantine made the politically wise decision to ally himself with the Christian bishops. Constantine and future emperors (including ones who lead the west back in Rome) rather than leaving the Church alone (i.e., separate from the State) involved themselves a great deal in the schisms of the early church. Actually, a good argument could be made that Constantine ended the church's independence from the Roman state, but not the other way around.

Well, after that illogical introduction, things got worse. Factual errors abound, Zakaria even tossed out that old myth about Caligula making his horse a Senator. But, aside from the inadvertent errors, what's worse is Zakaria' clear love of dissembling. One could write an entire book pointing them out, but here's a few I noticed, and believe me I'm not exactly an expert on any of this stuff:

1)Zakaria tries to make the point of how important political parties are to a free society, by noting A. Hamilton's writings in the federalist papers. Zakaria states that Hamilton meant Factions to mean what we now call "special interests" and that Hamilton in Federalist 51 makes the case that political parties can protect us from these Factions. Actually, it was Federalist 10 (another factual error) which discusses Factions, and as any 9th grader could tell you, Hamilton meant political parties when he used the term "Factions" NOT what we today call "special interests." Hamilton wasn't promoting political parties in his writings on Factions, he was doing the exact opposite and warning us about them.

2)Zakaria seems to blame democracy for Indonesia's loss of capital in1998. Which is odd, since most of that capital was lost before Suharto's regime fell in 1998 not after it became a democracy.

3)Nothing is better than when Zakaria waxes poetic about the good old days when the US had a noble aristocracy of men who learned to be leaders while roughing it as boys at Groton. Well, I'm not sure what they taught those kids at Groton, but even a passing knowledge of the "Gilded Age" would leave one to guess they learned more than a bit about violent strike breaking, using small children as cheap labor, keeping the poor under crushing poverty, and stealing American natural resources on the cheap. Yep, them's the days huh? But not in Zakaria's world, those days of robber barons and gross injustice were a paradise of freedom for the individual - well I suppose it was for the males educated at Groton.

I could go on and on, but I won't. Suffice it to say this is one silly book, written by an elitist who is as fearful of the working masses, as a radical leftist is of the ruling class. In fact Zakaria's logic is almost identical to certain elements of the far left, "our group needs to control power to prevent `them' from taking away our liberty." Frankly I'd rather not have either side telling me what to do.

Anyway, reasons to buy this book? Like I wrote in the beginning, for some laughs.



An absolutely fascinating book!   September 5, 2003
 35 out of 38 found this review helpful

In this fascinating book, author Fareed Zakaria looks at liberty and democracy. In the popular imagination, liberty and democracy go hand-in-hand, with more democracy meaning more freedom and vice versa. But, since the fall of the Soviet Union, the spread of democracy around the world has often resulted in "illiberal democracy," where fanatical groups vote in leaders that use the power of the state against other groups, or even the election of a radical regime that effectively does away with substantive democracy.

Following the history of the West (and particularly the Anglo-American part) from the Roman Empire to today, Dr. Zakaria shows that Western History followed a course, where enlightened despotism led to respect for the law, to transparency and balancing of power within government, to capitalism, and finally to restricted democracy (elected representatives instead of direct democracy, unelected judges, a constitution that the government could not violate in spite of overwhelming majority approval, and so forth).

But, in the modern West, unfettered democracy has become the newly enthroned ideal, and is being spread to the rest of the world, where it is producing some successes, and some dismal failures. Indeed, one has only to look at the present recall election in California to see what it is doing in the United States. As an added bonus, the author clearly focusing in on recent trends with in India, the Islamic world, and other parts of the world.

This is an absolutely fascinating book. I have always heard the Founding Fathers of the United States disparaged for their fear of unfettered democracy and a potential tyranny of the majority, but this book puts into concrete terms that which those men feared. While his solutions are somewhat nebulous, I did find Dr. Zaakaria's analysis to be highly thought provoking. If you are interested in examining what has happened to democracy in the modern world, then I highly recommend this book to you.