THE WORLD ACCORDING TO KAPLAN AND ZAKARIA

INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS

THE WORLD ACCORDING TO KAPLAN AND ZAKARIA
Which scenario is more likely? Is there such a thing as a ‘pure’ or ‘ideal’ democracy?

In his thesis, Kaplan paints a very morbid picture of our future - a future where disease and overpopulation will be rife, where cultures will clash in a world of eroding borders and increasing racial polarity and political upheaval, all aggravated by environmental scarcity. In contrast, Zakaria’s hypothesis is that there will be increasingly more dangerous illiberal democracies throughout the world, and that western liberal democracy may not be the ultimate end point, but merely one of many possible methods of governance. Although Kaplan’s thesis appears incredibly dire, I believe that it may be more visible as it occurs, whereas Zakaria’s ideal could occur subtly with less outside intervention to delay its evolution. Thus, whilst I acknowledge that Kaplan’s dystopia could occur, at least in some regards, in the West, it would not happen in the near future. The countries of the West possess the knowledge, financial ability and democratic institutions to at least slow down the rate of environmental degradation, overcrowding and political unrest that Western Africa did not. However, as demonstrated by Kaplan, many areas of the world, including the US, suffer from problems between different racial, cultural and religious groups, which could fan the flames of discontent that Kaplan predicted.

Zakaria claims that many countries are increasingly becoming illiberal democracies. Although this concept of illiberalism is akin to ‘democracy gone wrong’, I do not believe that all illiberal democracies are necessarily paving a path towards a dysfunctional future. As demonstrated by Zakaria, countries such as England, Sweden and France can all be considered illiberal democracies. The United States could also be considered slightly illiberal, with government intervention and prohibition on trade preventing a truly open marketplace from flourishing. Thus, it is all a question of degree as to whether or not a government’s illiberal aspects will provide a problem to the concept of democracy at large. If, as Zakaria suggests, the underlying fundamental pillars of constitutional democracy, such as the rule of law, are promoted, then the spread of illiberalism in its different shapes and forms would not pose such a dire threat.