I think you're right, at least in an academic sense. I just associate "minority rights" with "liberal" by applying the principle that people should be allowed to do whatever unless there is a (relatively) objectively justifiable reason to do otherwise. So enshrining that principle in a constitution makes for a liberal and minority-rights protecting component, while the democracy makes for the authority-of-the-majority component which counterbalances it.
Re:Tech’s Two Philosophies
by forapurpose on Friday May 11, 2018 @12:20PM
(#17048560)
> enshrining that principle in a constitution makes for a liberal and minority-rights protecting component, while the democracy makes for the authority-of-the-majority component which counterbalances it
Very interesting way to think about it. Thanks.
I see this as a matter of terminology, not meaning. Here's what I know:
I've seen "constitutional democracy" used by experts, though not often enough to say it's a term of art in that field. Certainly I've seen experts say that the basic formula = (democracy) + (constitution that protects minority rights and limits government).
And certainly "liberal democracy" also is used to describe that form of government. Those liberal principles are enshrined in the constitutions; I don't know if that defines "liberal democracy".
> Any dictator can write a constitution and derive authority from it.
That would omit an essential component of the 'formula', democracy.