In class the other day we read "Civil Disobedience" by Joseph Raz and he gives an interesting description of what he calls liberal and illiberal states. A liberal state is one where the government does not restrict political participation on the part of the citizens. An illiberal state does the opposite; it violates this right to political participation.
Now, you don't need to be a democracy to be a liberal state, as Raz explains. Therefore, even though the United States does have a democratic system, it is still illiberal. I believe that de facto inhibitors to voting such as Voter ID laws and Corporate spending on campaigns does in fact inhibit the right of political participation. Even though neither, in their description, restrict people from voting, they do just that. And, because the government is the entity which promulgates these laws, that would then make the U.S. an Illiberal State.
Definitely. Under Raz's definition of liberal and illiberal states, the US would be illiberal. I would also be open (more open, actually) to accepting that Raz's definitions are unrealistic and far too cut and dry. If a liberal regime, by human error, creates an illiberal law, and that law is protested and repealed, is that state illiberal?
ReplyDeleteHowever, if one is to accept that a liberal state can sometimes created an illiberal law, then disobeying that illiberal law becomes justified in of itself, and therefore also violates Raz's ending statement, that it is never justified to simply civilly disobey, for the the sake of the action, in a liberal state. I think we either accept under Raz that the United States is an illiberal state, or reject this particular portion of his theory entirely.