One problem of liberal democracy is that the rhetoric of liberalism and freedom it invokes legitimizes even very questionable practices.
Was slavery legitimate because it was approved by a "liberal democracy"? Or was pre-Civil War (or even pre-Civil Rights) US not a liberal democracy? If it wasn't a liberal democracy back then, were the then-government's actions still legitimate? These questions get at many thorny issues (like reparations, etc).
Also, is it legitimate for liberal democratic states to mandate the teaching of intelligent design, prohibit same-sex marriages, etc? Would a constitutional amendment (duly passing the democratic process) banning interracial marriages (or gay marriages) be legitimate?
I guess my point is: Do legitimate (i.e., democratic) means justify any ends? The rhetoric of "liberal democracy" is so powerful that it can be (and sometimes is) used to justify very questionable practices.
Was slavery legitimate because it was approved by a "liberal democracy"? Or was pre-Civil War (or even pre-Civil Rights) US not a liberal democracy? If it wasn't a liberal democracy back then, were the then-government's actions still legitimate? These questions get at many thorny issues (like reparations, etc).
Also, is it legitimate for liberal democratic states to mandate the teaching of intelligent design, prohibit same-sex marriages, etc? Would a constitutional amendment (duly passing the democratic process) banning interracial marriages (or gay marriages) be legitimate?
I guess my point is: Do legitimate (i.e., democratic) means justify any ends? The rhetoric of "liberal democracy" is so powerful that it can be (and sometimes is) used to justify very questionable practices.