Do Democratic Citizens Demonstrate a Capacity for Self-Government when Faced with an Imminent International Terrorist Threat?

Introduction

Before starting any consideration regarding the impact of terrorism on liberal democracies, it is essential to define the term. Liberal democracy is one of the numerous definitions of democracy to add a qualifier, thus altering or increasing its meaning. The period democracy on its own has been broadly defined as 'rule of the people': that is, a scheme of government chosen by the people through the process of open, equitable elections. Juan J. Linz considers a government democratic “if it provision regular constitutional opportunities for tranquil competition for political power … to distinct assemblies without omitting any important sector of the population by force.” (Linz 254)

Discussion

Liberal democracy is defined as “a political scheme assessed not only by free and equitable elections but furthermore by the rule of law, a separation of powers, and the protection of basic liberties of speech, assembly, religion, and property.” The collection of basic inalienable liberties or freedoms is how liberalism is encompassed in the definition; these liberties are protected from a solely majority rule by the constitution. In general, a constitution aspires to ensure a balance between equality and one-by-one liberty. (Wilkinson 115)

Thus, for a liberal democracy, the rule of law by an in writing Constitution that assists to ascertain and balance distinct government parts is paramount. For this cause, I will use demonstrations of Constitutional violations to show the breakdown of the rule of law, which consequently may weaken the value and stability of a liberal democracy. The breakdown of the rule of law, and situations in which the Constitution is not exactly supported, intimidate the ability of a liberal democracy to contain free and equitable elections.

It is usually acknowledged that states should balance their reaction to terrorist acts with the preservation of civil liberties. Benjamin Barber echoes this concept of balance, asserting “a productive national security scheme should secure America against terrorism without decimating the liberty in whose title its labor is waged.” However, this notion of balancing continues equitably cloudy and rhetorical. If we consider this concept as living on a continuum, this suggests that civil liberties are granted up for expanded security.

This concept is what Michael Freeman calls “the tradeoff of utilizing emergency powers”, a tradeoff which happens when states weigh the advantages and charges associated with utilizing emergency powers to battle a terrorist threat. Emergency powers are one device utilized by states to contradict terrorist security risks, which “can boost the power of the state along numerous dimensions…[by suspending] usual due process laws, permitting the police to perform explorations without warrant, apprehend people without ascribe, [or] contain them in prison without conveying them to trial.” Freeman's definition of emergency powers furthermore encompasses legislation that restricts civil liberties (like the right to free speech or assembly), and powers that hover the separation of distinct parts of government. From Freeman's description, legislation suspending civil liberties and giving law enforcement a broader scope, such as the USA ...