What constitutes Liberal Democratic Theory (LDT)

Like the Republican conception of the general will, the liberal notion of the ‘will of all’ is formed in relation to how LDT understands the notion of liberty. For LDT, liberty is centred on Hobbes’ notion of freedom as non-intervention. One is free when one has the ability to act freely away from the intentional interference of another. This is the conceptual distinction between the liberty of the ancients and the liberty of the moderns which Constance sought to explicate. In contrast to Rousseau, who sought to save freedom from the clutches of modernity, Constance argued that modern progress required a more individual conception of freedom. This conception of freedom as non-interference, what Berlin labels as ‘negative freedom’, motivates LDT to defend the instrumental value of Democratic procedures. This follows from what Pasquino calls “the Hobbesean moment”, where Hobbes, in complete disregard to the previous history of political philosophy, individualises the state. In contrast to the Aristotelian concept of the anatomy of the city where each sector is considered ontologically distinct and acquires its own function, and Rousseau’s distinction between the functions of different genders in his ideal state, Hobbes breaks down society through the individualisation of the citizen. Indeed, by contrast to RDT, all liberal democrats hold the fundamental notion of people as individuals who are naturally born holding the inalienable rights of being ‘free and equal’. Thus for LDT, democracy is the best of all systems only when it is the most successful at protecting the individual citizen’s ability to act freely whether in relation to other individuals or to the state. Very generally, we can distinguish between Hobbes’s concern for the former and Locke’s concern for the latter. Locke developed the idea that authority is bestowed to the sovereign by the people. Ultimately, a government’s purpose is to follow the aggregate will of the people and if the government fails to do so then the people have the right to revolt. The people represent the ultimate judges of the government’s power. Thus, following Locke, LDT highlights how by basing state legitimacy through the tacit consent of the people, democracy can instrumentally help protect individual citizens against the arbitrary will of a tyrant. Lastly, it should be noted that LDT in contrast to RDT places a large emphasis on the maintenance of the conditions necessary for individuals to protect their private property and to trade securely. Individuals must have the right to follow their interest without any arbitrary interference by other individuals or the state as a whole. Mill and Bentham clearly justified the liberal democratic state through its instrumental benefit to the individuals who form part of it. By ensuring that political decisions match the aggregated interests of all individuals within a community, democracy allows the state to follow the best interest of the people. Whilst RDT's conception of democracy holds more demanding notion of the democratic citizen and a strong civil society, LDT generally defends a narrower view of democracy where politics is considered a sphere of society in its own right, separate from the family, religion and economy. As Habermas describes it, the key distinction between the Republican and Liberal conception of democracy lies in a dispute over the priority of “private autonomy” over “public autonomy”.