The block has been heavy edited from www.fareedzakaria.com/articles/other/democracy.html

Constitutional liberalism is about the limitation of power, illiberal democracy is about accumulation and use of power. Constitutional liberalism has meant a political system marked not only by free and fair elections, but also by the rule of law, a separation of powers, and the protection of basic liberties of speech, assembly, religion, and property. Illiberal democracy is an elected regime routinely ignoring constitutional limits on their power and depriving their citizens of basic rights and freedoms.

Don’t you feel the U.S.A. has slipped into an illiberal democracy? The White House told Ashcroft to shred our Constitution and Gonzales was allowed to throw away the Geneva Convention. What could be in store for the next 4 years?

Today, 118 of the world's 193 countries are democratic, encompassing a majority of its people (54.8 percent, to be exact), a vast increase from even a decade ago. Democracy is flourishing; constitutional liberalism is not. Of the countries that lie between confirmed dictatorship and consolidated democracy, 50 percent do better on political liberties than on civil ones. In other words, half of the "democratizing" countries in the world today are illiberal democracies. And to date few illiberal democracies have matured into liberal democracies; if anything, they are moving toward heightened illiberalism.

Constitutional liberalism, on the other hand, is not about the procedures for selecting government, but rather government's goals. It refers to the tradition that seeks to protect an individual's autonomy and dignity against coercion, whatever the source -- state, church, or society. The term marries two closely connected ideas. It is liberal because it draws on the philosophical strain that emphasizes individual liberty. It is constitutional because it rests on the tradition of the rule of law. To secure these rights, it emphasized checks on the power of each branch of government, equality under the law, impartial courts and tribunals, and separation of church and state. Constitutional liberalism argues that human beings have certain natural (or "inalienable") rights and that governments must accept a basic law, limiting its own powers, that secures them. The philosophy behind the U.S. Constitution, a fear of accumulated power, is as relevant today as it was in 1789.

Constitutional liberalism has led to democracy, but democracy does not seem to bring constitutional liberalism. During the last two decades, dictatorships with little background in constitutional liberalism have given way to democracy. The results are not encouraging. In the western hemisphere, with elections having been held in every country except Cuba, 10 of the 22 principal Latin American countries have levels of human rights abuse that are incompatible with the consolidation of liberal democracy. In many parts of that world, such as Tunisia, Morocco, Egypt, and some of the Gulf States, were elections to be held tomorrow, the resulting regimes would almost certainly be more illiberal than the ones now in place. Once an ethnic group is in power, it tends to exclude other ethnic groups. When the political system is opened up, diverse groups with incompatible interests gain access to power and press their demands. Madison said "ambition must be made to counteract ambition."

Over the last 200 years democratizing states went to war significantly more often than either stable autocracies or liberal democracies. In countries not grounded in constitutional liberalism, the rise of democracy often brings with it hyper-nationalism and war-mongering. In societies without strong traditions of multiethnic groups or assimilation, it is easiest to organize support along racial, ethnic, or religious lines. Political and military leaders realize that to succeed that they must rally the masses behind a national cause. Political competition that is so divisive can rapidly degenerate into violence.

Illiberal democracies gain legitimacy, and thus strength, from the fact that they are reasonably democratic. Conversely, the greatest danger that illiberal democracy poses -- other than to its own people -- is that it will discredit liberal democracy itself, casting a shadow on democratic governance. Today, in the face of a spreading virus of illiberalism, the most useful role that the international community, and most importantly the United States, can play is -- instead of searching for new lands to democratize and new places to hold elections -- to consolidate democracy where it has taken root and to encourage the gradual development of constitutional liberalism across the globe. Democracy without constitutional liberalism is not simply inadequate, but dangerous, bringing with it the erosion of liberty, the abuse of power, ethnic divisions, and even war.

A proper appreciation of constitutional liberalism has a variety of implications for American foreign policy. First, it suggests a certain humility. While it is easy to impose elections on a country, it is more difficult to push constitutional liberalism on a society. If a country holds elections, Washington and the world will tolerate a great deal from the resulting government. In an age of images and symbols, elections are easy to capture on film. How do you televise the rule of law? But there is life after elections, especially for the people who live there.