Rawls's Fragile Liberal State

 Rawls’s Fragile Liberal State

 

John Rawls modelled his idea of a liberal state as a Venn diagram. Whilst the communities existing in the same state might have political, cultural or religious commitments at variance with, or even hostile to, one another, the business of the unitary state is conducted by all communities within institutions (political, legal and administrative) that all can uphold. Further, political debate is conducted according to “public reasons”- reasons that can be accepted as reasons by all communities, even where there is vehement disagreement over policy.

 

Thus, for example, a devout religionist should not invoke the Will of God in support of a policy, in a society where many do not follow any religion or follow a different version of God. (In the US- up to recently- and the UK ,Catholic politicians have acquiesced in, or even supported some degree of abortion rights in the public square.)

 

The overlapping consensus is envisaged by Rawls as the key characteristic of the pluralist liberal state, in which all can be participating citizens, sharing the public square, even if not their private spaces.

 

By and large this Venn-diagrammatic description rings true. But, if broadly true, it describes a liberal polity which is increasingly under attack.

 

Current examples are many: Israel, India, Hungary and, pre-eminently the US. To change the spatial metaphor, opponents of the liberal sate are rubbing out Venn overlaps, and instead are busy creating and extending Overton Windows ( the parameters of acceptable political discourse, which can be moved in either direction to include what was once unacceptable). Faction is invading the public square and assaulting its institutions.

 

Ironically, those populist politicians leading the assaults claim, almost without exception, that the public square and its institutions have already been infiltrated and captured by socialists, liberals, lefties, wokeists (take your pick) and that they (the populists) are setting things to rights. That in practice appears to mean dismantling the liberal state and replacing it with a conservative authoritarian one.

 

Rawls designated communities that stayed outside the norms of his liberal state as “unreasonable”. Historically such communities have been largely introverted minorities, often following ultra orthodox versions of various religions , which have existed in uneasy truce with the liberal state.

 

But when a faction, or coalition of factions, challenges the very existence of the liberal state, there are precious few defences if the faction(s) are strong enough. We can see that the Rawls paradigm is not a blueprint for creating and securing the liberal state. It is a description of the compromises and consensus that are necessary to sustain it.

 

If sufficiently powerful forces retreat from the shared public square, and turn their political, indeed democratic power against the square and its institutions, the liberal state’s fragility is exposed.

 

Rawls, behind whatever Veil he is now, must wring his spectral hands.

 

August 2023