Review | How Democracies Die
“One of the great ironies of how democracies die is that the very defense of democracy is often used as a pretext for its subversion.”
In 1930s, Germany was still a democracy where elections were held, newspapers continued to print news as usual, and parliament held its regular meetings. Yet, within a few years, one of the most vibrant democracies of Europe was hollowed out from within. Democracy did not die overnight, or no tanks rolled in the streets, it died slowly from within, often without the realization of the politicians.
This is the central theme of the book “How Democracies Die” by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt. The book is a masterclass—clear and sober—in its exploration of the causes of democratic decay worldwide, particularly in the United States and Latin America.
Fateful Alliances:
The central argument of the book, as presented in the first chapter, Fateful Alliances, is that democracies around the world are not toppled by violent military coups or abrupt insurrections. In fact, democracies are threatened or die because the guardrails are weakened or the gatekeepers of democracy are breached.
In the chapter, the authors discuss that all autocrats have come to power through elections or alliances with political figures—such as Mussolini, Hitler, and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. The authors argue that established politicians either invited these outsiders to power—naively believing that they could control them—or allied with them to benefit from their popularity. However, these fateful alliances, as the authors put it, have backfired. This alliance with the outsiders has provided the outsiders enough respectability to become legitimate contenders for power—thus putting a death knell on the democratic institutions and democracy.
Gatekeepers of America:
The second chapter, Gatekeepers of America, discusses the political history of America where the authors put the argument that the US has not been immune from demagogues. The chapter discusses the history of US demagogues and how American political parties—the gatekeepers of American democracy—have thwarted or filtered them out. On a personal note, I found the chapter somewhat dull and a deviation from the major topic—as the authors before building the base of their argument jumped into US political history and glorified the US Constitution and its founders—with an overwhelming number of political figures and case studies from unrelated time periods.
The Great Republican Abdication:
The third chapter, The Great Republican Abdication, analyzes how Donald Trump rose to power. The chapter starts with Trump’s announcement of the presidency, his defeating of Jeb Bush in the ‘invisible primary’, his nomination as the presidential candidate, and his victory at the polls. This chapter tests Trump in the litmus test—a set of four tests by the author to check if any politician has authoritarian tendencies. According to the authors, Trump, before his inauguration, tested positive on the litmus test for autocrats. How?
First, would-be authoritarians reject the democratic rules—as Trump questioned the legitimacy of the electoral process. Second, they deny the legitimacy of the opponents—Trump denied Hillary Clinton’s legitimacy by branding her a ‘criminal’. Third, they tolerate or encourage violence; Trump embraced the supporters who physically assaulted protestors. Lastly, they have a readiness to curtail civil liberties of opponents—Trump, during his election campaigns, vowed to investigate Clinton and unfriendly media.
In the chapter, the authors question why gatekeeping fails and how mainstream politicians must do everything to keep dangerous figures away from the center of power. They answer that “Collective Abdication”—happens when power is transferred to a leader who threatens democracy—for two main reasons. First, the naïve believe that authoritarians can be controlled or tamed. Second, when there is an ideological collision in which the authoritarian’s agenda overlaps with the mainstream politicians.
Subverting Democracy:
The fourth chapter, Subverting Democracy, brings the gist of the book. It explores all the key indicators of how democracies are slowly subverted—even without the realization of the citizens. According to the authors, subverting democracy is like manipulating a soccer game—capturing the referee and controlling the outcome. In a democracy, the ‘referees’ are the judicial bodies, tax regulation, regulatory bodies, and law enforcement agencies. If the would-be authoritarians pull these bodies at their side, they can easily undermine democracy in a country. For instance, capturing the referee can provide them more than just a shield—as it offers them the power to selectively enforce laws, push the opponent rivals, with tax authorities to target media opponents, and with police to crack down on protests. Institutions, according to the authors, that cannot be easily purged may be subtly hijacked by other means—like increasing the number of judges, who are loyal, in the Supreme Court. Moreover, the authoritarians who aim to legitimize their power seek to reform the constitution, and change the electoral system, and other institutions. Because these changes happen at a piecemeal pace and with legality cover, the drift into authoritarianism often goes unnoticed. Which, the authors, ironically, argue that democracies die because the very defense of democracy is often used as a pretext for its subversion.
The Guardrails of Democracy:
Are the constitutional safeguards enough to secure democracy? The authors believe no because sometimes well-designed constitutions fail. This chapter discusses two major themes that protect democracy: mutual toleration and institutional forbearance.
Constitutions are always incomplete as countless gaps and ambiguities can be exploited. Moreover, strong democracies in the world—according to the authors—rely on some unwritten rules—called norms—that are widely accepted and respected. And the chapter delves deep into the two mentioned norms of democracy.
Mutual toleration refers to the idea that politicians accept their rivals as legitimate—not enemies. It is the politicians’ collective willingness to agree to disagree. They mention that when norms of mutual toleration are weak, democracy is hard to sustain—as it leads to polarization and dismantling of democracy.
Similarly, institutional forbearance refers to the self-restraint from exploiting legal loopholes. These institutional forbearances even existed before democracy. In ancient times, the king proclaimed the divine right—sanctioned by religious institutions—no mortal constraint legally limited the king’s power. In the same vein, for American political history, the two-term limit for President was not a law but a norm of forbearance—later on, with the Twenty-Second Amendment it was enacted into law.
These norms have helped sustain democratic values and democracy in many countries. These norms act as invisible guardrails for politics and democracy. If these guardrails are breached, it is pertinent that democracy is doomed to die.
The Unwritten Rules of American Politics:
This chapter—again, somewhat dull and somewhat engaging—jumps into US political history. It explores the unwritten rules, and norms, of American politics and how these norms had upheld American democracy. The authors argue that the US Constitution has many lacunas that can be exploited, but the norms have kept it intact—with few cases of democratic supervision.
For instance, the president, legally, can impeach unfriendly Supreme Court judges and can purge the Court without violating the spirit of the law—but has not done so. Similarly, norms of forbearance operate in Congress. US Senators can prevent a vote ( or filibuster) of any legislation by prolonging the debate—this has not been greatly exercised. More pertinently, the Senate which can block presidents from appointing their preferred cabinet members or justices-an act broadly constitutional—has not happened. And, Congress having prerogative power granted by the Constitution to impeach a sitting president—can become a partisan tool to undermine electoral officials and overturn electoral results—has been governed by norms of forbearance and mutual toleration—with few case exceptions.
These unwritten guardrails, according to the authors, have held American democracy and have pushed back the violations that have threatened American democracy. My question to the authors is, why, then, do these so-called guardrails fail to prevent Trump’s rise, and what does that say about their actual strength?
The Unravelling:
This chapter is an antithesis of the thesis presented in The Unwritten Rules of American Politics. It discusses how the guardrails and unwritten rules of American Politics have started to unravel with the rise of partisan polarization to violation of institutional forbearance and mutual tolerance.
Starting with Newt Gingrich who, according to the authors, may have led the initial assault on the soft guardrails of US democracy to the Tea Party of Republicans, all these are used as case studies to prove that American democracy is becoming dangerously unmoored—with increasing number of filibusters and growing partisan animosity between Democrats and Republicans.
Trump’s First Year: An Authoritarian Report Card
President Trump’s tenure in office, as the authors put it, is somehow similar to other autocrats because he violated some unwritten rules of American democracy. Trump, in his first tenure in the Oval Office, tried to take control of the referee to change the rules of the games—these controls were nominal. For instance, he tried to purge agencies—the most prominent case study FBI—when he fired the bureau’s director—never done before by any President in its eighty-two years of history. Similarly, President Trump attacked the judges who ruled against him; considered using government agencies on unfriendly media; and openly rejected the legitimacy of his opponent.
The authors believe that Trump’s ascendancy to the Oval Office has brought a new normal in American politics—a widespread breaking of norms that challenge American democracy.
Saving Democracy:
The final chapter of the book, Saving Democracy, is the most optimistic tone of the book. The authors reject Larry Diamond’s argument that democracy is in recession globally—and claim instead that democracy has strengthened. In the chapter three post-Trump scenarios are presented. First, the swift democratic recovery when Trump fails politically either by losing public support—not being re-elected—or is impeached. Second, Trump and Republicans would win again, if so, and use constitutional hardball by bringing in more restrictions on immigration, deportation, and strict vote ID laws. Third, the post-Trump future, in any case from the above, would be marred by polarization, a departure from the unwritten rules, and increasing institutional warfare.
Critical Analysis:
I believe the title of the book is a misnomer—perhaps chosen by the authors or the publisher—to give this catchy title of How Democracies Die. As the title suggests a broader and global scope; however, the book is entirely focused on the American political landscape. Only a few chapters or case studies cover other regions, making the title of the book somewhat misleading.
The book appears to disproportionately focus on the Republican party, with comparatively less critique of Democratic actors. Many of the examples used to justify the argument are Republicans or the party—only in one chapter does the author nominally criticize Democrats.
Conclusion:
The book is a good read in order to understand the evolving democratic recession in many countries. It helps the reader to build a mind-map of how autocrats behave and how to gauge an autocrat through the four-step litmus test provided by the authors.
Despite the book’s much focus on US democracy and its occasional partisan tone on Republicans, it answers the important question of how democracies die in today’s world. Rather than sudden coups, or abrupt upheavals, the authors claim that democracies die slowly within through erosion of democratic norms and weakening of soft guardrails that protect democracies—a pattern that worryingly seems familiar to countries especially Pakistan.
About the author:
Jahanzaib Mengal
AlumniJahanzaib has done his graduation from Qauid-i-Azam Univeristy Islamabad in International Relations. His field area is International Politics, Indian Ocean, and National Security.
