How does liberal democracy function, and what role does globalisation play in its spread and
impact on human rights?
Liberal democracy is a political system grounded in principles of rule of law, representative government,
and constitutional limitations on the exercise of power. It emphasises civil rights, regular and fair
elections, separation of powers, and protection of freedoms such as speech, association, and religion. As a
political model, liberal democracy has gained global prominence, particularly in post-Cold War era.
However, in a globalised world where economic, technological, and cultural interconnections transcend
national boundaries, the endurance and expansion of liberal democracy are increasingly subject to
pressures and contradictions of globalisation.
Globalisation, defined by Anthony Giddens (1990), is the intensification of worldwide social relations
that link distant localities. In the beginning, globalisation was viewed as a vehicle for the diffusion of
liberal democratic values. According to CATO Institute (2021), global trade and open markets have
historically promoted the rule of law, transparency, and institutional accountability, as governments
sought to create stable environments to attract foreign investment. Certainly, the “Third Wave of
Democratisation” (Huntington, 1991) that spread across Eastern Europe, Latin America, and parts of Asia
during late 20th century, coincided with increased economic integration and international influence.
Countries such as South Korea and Chile embraced liberal democratic reforms in tandem with their
incorporation into global economic networks, suggesting a positive correlation between globalisation and
democratic consolidation.
However, this correlation is increasingly contested, instead, globalisation has produced significant
socio-economic inequalities and cultural desolation, which have undermined public trust in liberal
democratic institutions. Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart (2019) argue taht liberal democracies are
experiencing a legitimacy crisis as economic globalisation disproportionately benefits elites, leaving large
segments of population economically marginalised. The first of populist movements in United States,
Hungary, and Italy illustrates this trend. For example, in 2016 U.S. presidential election, rhetoric
surrounding the failure of global trade agreements, like NAFTA, resonated with disenfranchised voters
who perceived globalisation as a threat to domestic industry and job security. These developments reflect
what Manuel Castells (2008) describes as “crisis of legitimacy”, where democratic institutions are seen as
serving global rather than national interests.
Furthermore, Colin Crouch’s (2004) theory of post-democracy highlights, although democratic
procedures may continue to exist formally, real decision-making power shifts to unaccountable corporate
and financial elites. 2015 Greek debt crisis is a pertinent example; despite a national referendum rejecting
austerity measures, the Greek government was compelled to accept harsh fiscal conditions imposed by the
European Union and International Monetary Fund. This scenario reveals a fundamental contradiction:
liberal democracy is premised on popular sovereignty, yet global economic governance constrains
national democratic choice, eroding public confidence in democratic responsiveness.
Moreover, one perspective is digital connectivity has empowered transnational civil society, enhanced
access to information, and enabled resistance to authoritarianism. The Arab Spring uprisings, particularly
in Tunisia, demonstrated how digital platforms could facilitate democratic mobilisation and challenge
autocratic regimes. The other perspective, is these same platforms have been weaponized to manipulate
electoral processes, disseminate misinformation, and entrench ideological polarisation. 2016 U.S. election
and Brexit campaign saw extensive use of targeted disinformation and data analytics to influence public
opinion. Shosana Zuboff (2019) argues in her theory of surveillance capitalism, corporations have
commodified personal data in ways that undermine individual autonomy and democratic oversight.
Additionally, authoritarian regimes, most notably China, have adopted digital tools not to liberalise, but to
entrench control. Through widespread surveillance, internet censorship, and social credit systems, China
exemplifies what Steven Feldstein (2021) terms “digital authoritarianism", a governance model
increasingly exported to other regimes seeking to maintain power without liberalism.
The uneven effects of globalisation align with Immanuel Wallerstein’s World Systems Theory (1974),
which conceptualises global capitalism as a core-periphery system of exploitation. Many peripheral
semi-peripheral states have adopted liberal democratic frameworks under international pressure or
conditional aid, yet remain structurally dependent on global capital. Thus, these democracies lack
institutional strength and policy autonomy to address domestic inequalities, rendering their liberalism
superficial. In numerous post-colonial states, particularly in Africa and Southeast Asia, formal democratic
institutions coexist with endemic corruption, weak civil societies, and coercive state apparatuses. Levitsky
and Way’s (2010) concept of “competitive authoritarianism" describes this, regimes maintaining
democratic facades while systematically undermining electoral fairness, judicial independence, and press
freedom.
Nonetheless, it is necessary to acknowledge that liberal democracy has not been universally weakened by
globalisation. Australian serves as an example of resilient liberal democracy that has managed to balance
global integration with robust democratic governance. Its compulsory voting system ensures high civic
participation, and its judiciary operates independently of political interferences. However, pressures of
globalisation are visible: 2018 Telecommunications and other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and
Access) Act (colloquially known as Encrypting Act), compels technology companies to provide law
enforcement access to encrypted communications, raising concerns about privacy and civil liberties. This
legislation illustrates how liberal democracies are attempting to navigate tension between national
security, technological regulation, and human rights in a globalised context.
What are Human Rights?
Human rights are universal, inalienable entitlements that belong to every individual by virtue of being
human. These rights are inherent, meaning they do not need to be earned, and universal, meaning they
apply regardless of nationality, ethnicity, religion, gender, or social status. Outlined by Equality and
Human Rights commission (EHRC), human rights serve as a foundation for a fair and just society,
ensuring individuals can live free from oppression, exploitation, and discrimination.
Human rights encompass civil and political rights (freedom of expression, fair trial, and right to vote), and
economic, social, and cultural rights (access to education, healthcare, and adequate living conditions).
These rights are enshrined in international legal instruments: Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(1948) and European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and fundamental to the functioning of
liberal democracies predicated on individual freedoms, pluralism, and legal equality.
1998 Human Rights Act (UK): Key Legal Rights
Right to Life (Article 2)
The state has a duty to protect life and investigate deaths that
may involve public authorities.
Prohibition of Torture (Article 3)
Aboslute protection from torture and inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment.
Right to Liberty and Security (Article
5)
Protection against arbitrary arrest or detention, and right to
challenge the lawfulness of one’s detention.
Right to a Fair Trial (Article 6)
Entitlement to a public and impartial hearing within a
reasonable time by an independent tribunal.
Right to Respect for Private and
Family Life (Article 8)
Safeguards personal privacy, including protection of home,
correspondence, and family life.
Freedom of Thought, Conscience and
Religion (Article 9)
Protects the right to hold beliefs and manifest them in practice
and worship.
Freedom of Expression (Article 10)
Enshrines the right to hold and express opinions freely, subject
to lawful restrictions.
Freedom of Assembly and Association Protects the right to peaceful protest and to form and join
(Article 11)
associations.
Prohibition of Discrimination (Article
14)
Ensures that all rights are secured without discrimination on
any grounds.
Connection Between Human Rights and Liberal Democracy
Liberal democracy is underpinned by recognition and protection of individual rights, which act as
bulwark against state overreach and majoritarian tyranny. CATO Institute argues that human rights and
liberal democracy are mutually reinforcing: democratic systems empower citizens, while human rights
ensure dignity and freedom necessary for meaningful participation in democratic processes.
However, this relationship is not static, The Guardian (2018) advocates rising populism, authoritarianism,
and global inequality have led to democratic backsliding and growing disregard for human rights. In
countries such as Hungary and Poland, governments have used democratic mandates to curtail judicial
independence, silence opposition media, and restrict civil society, thereby undermining the very rights
that liberal democracies claim to protect.
Globalisation, while facilitated greater awareness of universal rights, has enabled authoritarian regimes to
consolidate power by adapting global technologies for surveillance and censorship. As Feldstein (2021)
and Zuboff (2019) have observed, surveillance capitalism and digital authoritarianism threaten individual
autonomy and civil freedoms, now liberal democracies face the challenge of defending rights at home and
promoting them globally.