Extract
[...] The Road to Serfdom, Chapter Planning and Democracy - Friedrich A. Hayek (1944) - In what way does economic planning, although it aims to promote equality and social justice, end up compromising the principles of individual liberty and democracy? Introduction The infographic on Covid 19 shows how, in just a few months, the State was able to restrict, sanction a set of individual freedoms - movement, access to public places, social life - in the name of what? Public health. [...]
[...] Yet, the author does not speak directly of the role of the state, only of the link between democracy and capitalism. Or, democracy can only survive in a system of competition and private property. Therefore, it necessarily implies implicit limits to state intervention: a state that controls too much of the economy or imposes a collectivist model would therefore oppose what the author considers to be the condition of democracy, which would be logical. Then, comes what is presented as 'the great merit of liberal doctrine: having reduced the number of subjects on which agreement is necessary to one 5». [...]
[...] The author cites the example of the 'majorities homogeneous and doctrinaire17». It is they who transform a democracy into a regime where everyone thinks the same thing, where any discordant voice is weakened, it's not a democracy, it's a tyranny. The 'homogeneous majority' can refer to a society where the divisions (political, cultural, religious) are erased and the 'doctrinaire majority' can refer to a majority that imposes a single vision of the world, without tolerance for alternatives. If we take the example of Weimar Germany (1919-1933), democracy was formal but the rise of extremes between communists and Nazis, and the homogeneous parliamentary majority represented the Nazis after 1933, who eventually established the dictatorship. [...]
[...] In other words, democracy is only viable under a precise framework. The author speaks of 'freedom of discussion3 » and not of 'freedom of expression'. To define, 'freedom of discussion' implies an exchange of ideas that leads to an agreement, whereas 'freedom of expression' alone might mean the right to speak, without guarantee that it leads to anything. Therefore, he wants to emphasize that democracy functions not only thanks to free speech, but above all thanks to the possibility of a minimal consensus. [...]
[...] To answer this question, we will first see that for Hayek, liberalism is the only viable basis for democracy If planning represents a structural political danger it remains that the limitation of power, particularly by the rule of law, becomes the fundamental issue of any democracy (III). I. Liberalism as the Exclusive Condition of Democracy according to Hayek The text begins with a statement: ' The democratic government has only been successful everywhere where the freedom of discussion allows for agreement1 ». In other words, without freedom of expression, no democracy. « Has only been able to2 » is a form of restrictive construction. It means that the author sets a sine qua non condition from the outset. [...]
