In a recent interview with the Financial Times, Russian President Vladimir Putin hailed the growth of populist movements and claimed that the liberal idea had outlived its purpose.

He cited the public dislike and distrust of immigration, open borders and multiculturalism. 

He chided Chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision to admit more than one million refugees and praised US President Donald Trump’s border policies. 

He reportedly said: “The liberal idea has become obsolete. It has come into conflict with the interests of the overwhelming majority of the population.”

In a reaction to this interview, Donald Tusk, the president of the European Council, said he strongly disagreed with Putin. In a parting shot, he added: “What I find really obsolete is authoritarianism, personality cults and the rule of oligarchs.” 

Putin’s comments were provocative and, undoubtedly, broke several diplomatic conventions. However, Tusk’s comments were no less helpful. A knee-jerk reaction does very little to foster debate. 

He is right in his assessment of Putin. But rather than dismiss Putin’s comments offhand, it would have been beneficial to try and engage with what he is saying even if one is to, ultimately, reject his assessment.

He is not the first person to put forward such ideas. Marine Le Pen, Matteo Salvini, Viktor Orban and other leaders have expressed similar views in the recent past. 

Such views resonate with the concerns of a vast segment of the electorate. Those who are unwilling to have an open dialogue on various issues strengthen the populists’ hand. 

The kind of ‘liberalism’ which rejects having meaningful debates is alive and kicking. Alas, it is an unhelpful caricature of what real liberalism is. As it stands, this caricature of liberalism is one of the greatest threats to liberalism itself. In this respect, Putin is wrong – liberalism is not obsolete. However, it needs reform.

Only a few days before Putin’s remarks, Professor Michael Pakaluk published an excellent essay titled ‘Three Liberalisms: The Good, the Bad, the Disastrous’. Pakaluk, a philosopher and a professor at the Catholic University of America, identifies three types of liberalism.

Firstly, he defines liberalism as a “personal style and a way of life” which favours “strong-mindedness and independence of thought” based on sound education and good culture. It favours frankness and magnanimity.

Secondly, he defines liberalism as “an approach to institutions”. This is an idea rooted in political philosophy which opposes centralisation and absolutism and favours “pluralism of power, shared governance, and persuasion and cooperation as modes of social order”. It champions the devolution of power, competition and personal responsibility. 

Pakaluk argues that many across political divides have no issue with either one of the aforementioned types of liberalism. 

He also notes that these two forms of liberalism go hand in hand and that they never really failed. However, for them to succeed, they depend on the third type of liberalism.

By shutting out all other opinions and not engaging with such concerns, liberalism detaches itself from the broader political conversation

This implies a firm belief in human freedom rooted in natural law – in other words, a law which is not a product of artificial and misconstrued legal concepts but reflects the natural order of things. Institutions and individual behaviour should “honour and express” this law rather than attempt to “negate” it.  

Pakaluk argues that “if this third kind fails, or more precisely is abandoned, or not cultivated, then all three will eventually go down... in the manner of a communal collapse”. His observations are interesting and pertinent.

What I take away from Pakaluk’s essay is that, primarily, liberalism is threatened not by political actions and political decisions but, instead, by its rejection of any roots which allow it to thrive and grow. 

Firstly, its rejection of natural law implies that every man is a law unto himself and, thus, free to construct an independent morality with little or no responsibility towards society and the consequences of his choices. 

Much as we try to deny this, no independent judgement takes place in a vacuum, and no decision is without consequence. 

When individuals set themselves as the measure of all things, decisions tend to be made without any reference to their community.

Secondly, its rejection of any form of healthy patriotism – of a homeland – denies it of communal roots. A kind of liberalism which doesn’t acknowledge this aspect cannot work towards the common good which ultimately benefits every individual living in a society. 

It also denies the primordial desires of ‘home’ and ‘roots’, and it drives those who hold such feelings into the clutches of more extreme forms of nationalism. 

Thirdly, liberalism seems sometimes to embrace individualism at the expense of personalism. The concept of personhood is often underrated in politics. This idea implies that a person is open to others rather than being closed in on himself. A person can only grow in relation to the community through interpersonal relationships. 

Thus, rather than fostering a political ideal based on satisfying individual needs, a new re-orientation of liberalism should encourage personal responsibility towards the person and their society. 

Populism fails to address the issues above. Its understanding of society is often based on a narrow definition; its nationalism thrives on myth and exclusion, and its humanitarian track record is very dubious. 

It fills a political vacuum in a flawed and warped manner. In this respect, by shutting out all other opinions and not engaging with such concerns, liberalism detaches itself from the broader political conversation.

Putin’s assessment is fundamentally off the mark in that it seeks to place the blame solely on political decisions and the popular reaction to them. 

Tusk’s response is flawed since it rejects any form of debate. It doesn’t begin to entertain the notion that there might be a problem with the way we interpret liberalism. 

Perhaps, we should take the cue from both to truly engage with what we understand by the term ‘liberalism’ and how this can enrich our political culture.