To what extent do liberals agree on democracy

Paragraph 1 - Point

Liberals appear united on liberal democracy - all support free elections, government accountability and protected rights as the basis

Paragraph 1 - Evidence 1

Locke - social contract; government exists only by consent of the governed and citizens can revolt if rights are violated

Paragraph 1 - Evidence 2

Wollstonecraft - extended democratic logic to women , arguing they are rational and therefore deserve equal political participation

Paragraph 1 - Counter Point

However, liberals are divided on what democracy should deliver - classics favour meritocratic minimal democracy whilst moderns favour democracy supported by an enabling state

Paragraph 1 - Counter Evidence 1

Mill’s - democracy can risk tyranny of the majority where popular opinion undermines individual rights

Paragraph 1 - Counter Evidence 2

Rawls - theory of justice; the state must redistribute resources to ensure all citizens can meaningfully participate in democracy

Paragraph 1 - Evaluation

Agree on principle, disagree on practice (SIGNIFICANT DISAGREEMENT)

Paragraph 2 - Point

Liberals appear united on freedom - all agree individuals should be free to make their own decisions - democratic govt. exists to protect that freedom

Paragraph 2 - Evidence 1

Mill - harm principle; individuals should be free from interference unless their behaviour harms others - all liberals accept this as the foundation of freedom

Paragraph 2 - Evidence 2

Locke - natural rights to life, liberty and property precede government - the entire purpose of governance is to protect these pre-existing freedoms

Paragraph 2 - Counter point

Classic liberals support negative liberty (free from state interference if you dont harm others) - Modern liberals support positive liberty (free to achieve one’s potential)

Paragraph 2 - Counter Evidence 1

Classic liberals believe in egotistical individualism - individuals free from heavy state control; democracy must protect freedom

Paragraph 2 - Counter Evidence 2

Friedan - freedom requires state support - without an enabling state, democratic rights mean little for those constrained by social barriers

Paragraph 2 - Evaluation

Both sides want liberty - classics want negaitve, moderns want negative and positive - overall more agree

Paragraph 3 - Point

All liberals supoort foundational equality (everyone born w equal rights) and formal equality (laws protect everyone equally)

Paragraph 3 - Evidence 1

Wollstonecraft - argued for formal equality in education, work and politics - all humans are rational and must be treated equally regardless of gender

Paragraph 3 - Evidence 2

Classic liberals support meritocracy - individuals succeed based on talent and effort; formal equality is sufficient for a fair society

Paragraph 3 - Counter Point

Modern liberals argue formal equality is meaningless without social justice - state must remove barriers to ensure equality of opportunity

Paragraph 3 - Counter Evidence 1

Rawls - difference principle and - state must redistribute to ensure fair opportunity

Paragraph 3 - Counter Evidence 2

Friedans book “problem with no name” - women dissatisfaction shows formal equality is insufficient -democracy must be supported by social reform

Paragraph 3 - Evaluation

Liberals agree on formal equality but are divided on social justice - classics see redistribution as a threat - moderns see it as essential