4.4: Critiques

Criticisms of liberalism come from across the political spectrum.

Analyzing Democratic Peace Theory, critics observe that democracy, as understood today, is a relatively new concept. We therefore lack the case studies necessary to say definitively that democracies will not go to war with each other. Additionally, critics of liberalism observe that democracies still go to war with non-democracies; democracies are not more peaceful overall. Democracies have expansionist foreign policies and use their power to force compliance from developing states. The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan in the early 2000s, for example, resulted in the deaths or displacement of millions and fostered ongoing instability in the region.

From a Marxist or socialist perspective, critics argue that liberalism’s economic recommendations undermine government social policies. The emphasis on low taxes and regulations diminishes the power of the welfare state and gives businesses too much power in domestic policy. These critics further argue that the international consensus around economic liberalism drives environmental damage, resulting in climate change and deforestation. The emphasis on efficient specialization, moreover, leads to poor environmental and labor standards, as states rush to the bottom with lax standards to attract international businesses.

From a nationalist perspective, critics argue that trade, intergovernmental organizations, and supranational organizations undermine the sovereignty of states. Institutions, such as the UN and the EU, do not respect a given state’s culture, religion, history, or domestic industries. Rather, these institutions force a state to adopt liberal values, which may support unrestricted immigration, environmental regulations, and an undermining of religious authority.

Finally, from a perspective articulated by many within developing states, international organizations perpetuate a history of interference by more powerful states in less powerful states’ affairs. Critics highlight the activities of the World Bank, the IMF, and the WTO, in particular, as exerting influence over less powerful states through their development-focused loans and trade policies, which can perpetuate or exacerbate inequalities across states.

Image \(\PageIndex{1}\): Numerous protests against the WTO have taken place all over the world, including this one at the WTO Hong Kong Ministerial Conference in 2005. (Source: “Protest” by Simon Shek is licensed under CC BY 2.0.)

The structure of the UN, as another example, demonstrates the inequalities present in international organizations. While the UN General Assembly—the UN’s main policymaking body—provides equal representation to all members, the UN Security Council (UNSC) contains only 15 member-states. Of those 15, ten are non-permanent positions, elected by the General Assembly. Five, however, are permanent positions for the founding members. Referred to as “the P5,” China, France, Russia, the U.K., and the U.S. enjoy veto power. Any controversial topic, such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or even a potential invasion of Taiwan by China, can be unilaterally blocked by one of the P5. This is true no matter how popular the topic is among the General Assembly, again illustrating a critique against liberalism’s assertion that international organizations serve to solve major global challenges.