The West Can Have Burkinis or Democracy, but Not Both
Political elites in the most liberal democracies will therefore face more and more dramatic versions of the choice faced by France’s constitutional court: They can either heed the anger of their constituents — turning their countries into places where the people rule but individual rights are regularly violated. Or they can insulate the political system from the views of the people by giving more and more power to unelected institutions like constitutional courts, independent bureaucratic institutions, or international organizations — turning their countries into places where individual rights are upheld but the views of the people go ignored. One way or the other, liberal democracy is increasingly under siege. Over the next few years, it is likely to decompose into its constitutive elements, facing us with a tragic choice between illiberal democracy (or democracy without rights) and undemocratic liberalism (or rights without democracy).Nationalist government is stable. Rule by an unpopular leadership which punishes the majority in favor of a minority, is a recipe for ethnic/racial violence and removal of the leadership.
The vast security state erected post-9/11 is a case in point. Americans can have liberty or they can have Muslims, they cannot have both.
If offered a choice of deporting all Muslims and ending TSA security lines, or keeping Muslims and security lines, how would Americans vote?