Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt’s book, ‘How Democracies Die’, evaluates different phases of American democracy and the threats it faces from within. The book highlights the degradation of the democratic institutions and norms in the United States since the Cold War. It begins by exploring the grounds for rise of authoritarianism around the world. Based on this observations, the authors suggest that Trump election in 2016 was an outcome of many decades of declining political values and degradation of norms within American political system. While the United States remains one of the leaders of the democratic world, recent events in her politics such as disrespect of political institutions and Trump’s autocratic tendencies undermined this standing.
How Democracies Die
Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt’s book, ‘How Democracies Die’, evaluates different phases of American democracy and the threats it faces from within. The book highlights the degradation of the democratic institutions and norms in the United States since the Cold War. It begins by exploring the grounds for rise of authoritarianism around the world. Based on this observations, the authors suggest that Trump election in 2016 was an outcome of many decades of declining political values and degradation of norms within American political system. While the United States remains one of the leaders of the democratic world, recent events in her politics such as disrespect of political institutions and Trump’s autocratic tendencies undermined this standing.
Critical Review and Discussion of Chapters 1 to 5
American democracy has endured a long journey bridled by several instances of attempts to undermine it. In Chapter 1, the authors indicated that the past attempts at undermining the American democracy were largely attributed to popular outsider pressure. For instance, during the early stages of American democracy, the country’s leadership attempted to align themselves with various international players. These alignments were intended to contain the overall influence of these foreigners. During these periods, it was easy for an insurgent candidate to emerge and build a strong base against mainstream politicians. By gaining legitimacy from the masses, the insurgent’s message could be easily validated without proper scrutiny.1 In this chapter, the authors discussed how different dictators rose to power in Europe, including Mussolini in Italy and Hitler in Germany. They tried to compare these circumstances to the grounds for the increasing populism in the United States. Like in Germany and Italy, the authors2 noted that economic crises, public discontent, and the decline of mainstream political parties were accentuating factors for populism. These factors lead to fateful alliances that eventually take charge of the countries.
While American democracy has no systems of testing for the emergence of a potential autocrat, many political scholars showed admiration for the systems in countries, such as Belgium, Finland and Austria of the early 20th century.3 These countries possessed a working ‘litmus test’ used to assess politicians to determine the best leaders for the countries. In the United States, establishment politicians often work with rivals to neuter the influence of extremist politicians within the party, even if it means political losses in the short term. However, it is difficult to know the full intentions of politicians before they acquire power. Recognizing this challenge, the authors identified four warning signs for an autocrat based on Juan Linz’s book, ‘The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes’. These signs were “1) rejects, in words or action, the democratic rules of the game, 2) denies the legitimacy of opponents, 3) tolerates or encourages violence, or 4) indicates a willingness to curtail the civil liberties of opponents, including the media.4 ” By eliminating people with the identified characters from the presidential race, the parties reduced the chances of an authoritarian rising to power.
Chapters 2 and 3 presented a comprehensive discussion on how the American democracy succeeded in minimizing the influence of extremist candidates. Here, political parties played an important role in keeping these extremist candidates at bay. Whereas it is clear that American democracy has experienced the emergence of populist leaders throughout its history, they have always been successful in stopping them from assuming power. However, since the 1960s, it has become increasingly possible for extremist candidates to win presidential tickets on one of the major parties. In the 1960s, the parties reformed the nomination system, allowing more populist candidates to run for election.5 For example, the authors indicated that the failure of the Republican Party to conduct a comprehensive gatekeeping function led to the Trump candidacy.
Focusing on Trump's candidacy, the authors in Chapter 3 highlighted the weaknesses of the political parties to ensure that the appropriate candidate emerges as the winner. These arguments were consistent with earlier arguments from chapter one that highlighted the need to establish a working litmus test to assist in the elimination of unqualified candidates.6 There were already concerns about Trump’s leadership style even before he became a politician. The running of his businesses was mired in authoritarian tendencies. The authors concluded that Trump would have failed every criterion on the litmus test for autocrats. Therefore, this essay suggests that liberalization of the party’s primary system is partly to blame for the current vulnerability of American democracy to authoritarianism.
Like political parties, institutions are significant pillars of democracy preservation. With this understanding, Chapters 4 and 5 explored the many roles that socio-political norms and institutions play in democracy preservation. For example, courts help in keeping leaders in check and stopping them from exhibiting authoritarian tendencies. However, in some cases, these leaders have used measures that manipulate institutions to believe that they are improving democracy. Unlike courts, norms encompass societal values that dominate a political system. For instance, a political leader is expected to respect the court’s decision, uphold the constitution, and protect American interests. Without these norms, the American democracy becomes increasingly susceptible to autocracy.7 The authors suggested that mutual tolerance and institutional forbearance were crucial to nurturing a healthy democracy. They explained democratic breakdowns occur due to the degradation of these basic norms.
Critical Review and Discussion of Chapters 6 to 9
In chapter 6, the authors establish that political norms are important for the success of any political system. In this regard, they tried to establish the role norms have played, particularly in American democracy. The chapter noted that these norms were not strong during the early years of American democracy. However, the 19th century saw some of the biggest leaps in the changes in political norms in the United States. These changes could be attributed to civil rights legislations and movements of the 1950s and 1960s. For instance, following these legislations, the Southern states gradually allowed civil and voting rights for African Americans. The change was crucial to strengthening the American democratic norms as it guaranteed the rights of all Americans to participate in voting and other democratic activities.8 As such, the changes secured democracy. Furthermore, courts act as an appropriate checks and balances system that protects against the democratic rights secured by the civil rights constitutional amendments.
While the norms established during the civil rights movements were important for expanding American democratic space, chapter 7 showed that recent events suggest that political parties and politicians are becoming primary impediments to the security of American democracy. For instance, both parties have considerably polarised and divided the nation along party lines. They view their opponents as traitors and anti-Americans. Political arguments have become less ideological, leading to huge divisions in society. The changing political culture is already influencing other institutions, such as the judiciary. For example, both parties attempted to obstruct judicial appointments in the recent past.9 Furthermore, presidents drawn from both parties have increased the use of executive orders as a means to bypass Congress in making important decisions affecting Americans and its strategic interests.
In chapter 8, the authors discussed the role of President Trump in the continued erosion of the American democratic norms. The authors suggest that Trump was clearly an authoritarian leader who ignored all the established political norms and institutions in promoting his agenda. His actions and strategies undermined these norms and threatened the collapse of American democracy as it is known globally. For instance, from the time he assumed office, his behavior was similar to those of other populist autocrats, such as Alberto Fujimori, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and Hugo Chavez. Trump launched rhetorical attacks on opponents, undermined media and judges, and threatened to reduce funding to major cities which had opposed him.10 The behavior shocked many people across the political divide. These were behaviors foreign to the established political norms in the country. As such, his election led to questions regarding the American position as the leader of the liberal world.
Consequently, Trump’s behavior trickled down to national and state Republican leaders. In some states in the South, they pushed for measures that would make it harder for low-income minority voters to participate in elections.11 Following on the arguments of chapters 7 and 8, chapter 9 highlighted that post-Trump America could be a period of national healing. They noted that America could enjoy a period of swift democratic recovery if Trump fails politically12. The failure of Trump energized the Democrats leading to them winning back power. As such, they could move with speed to reverse some of the anti-democratic Trump-era policies.
Chapter 9 provided recommendations on how America could reverse the democratic decline. It noted the need to shore up the values of mutual toleration and institutional forbearance. To achieve this objective, the authors called on citizens to collaborate in defending democracy. They argued that there was an urgent need for a diverse coalition of voters to lead the movement defending democracy. In addition, the political parties should reform their financing system and messaging systems. For example, the Republican Party should move away from outside donations and right-wing media.13 They should also seek to appeal to other groups in the United States other than white nationalists. The political parties should also collaborate on measures to reduce the growing socio-economic inequalities. These inequalities, according to these authors, were the primary drivers of resentment and polarisation in the United States.
Conclusion
American democracy is at a crossroads. Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt noted that whereas American democracy has come a long way to become a global leader, recent events show that it is facing a path of degradation. The degradation of American democracy is attributed to factors, such as the removal of checks against the rise of autocrats, changes in political party primary rules, and the abandonment of some important political norms. To address this issue, the authors proposed that the parties work together to address issues that cause polarisation and resentment, as well as embrace traditional political norms and respect institutions.
[...]
1 Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, How Democracies Die (New York: Viking, 2018), 13
2 Levitsky and Ziblatt, How Democracies Die, 17.
3 Levitsky and Ziblatt, 19.
4 Levitsky and Ziblatt, 23
5 Levitsky and Ziblatt, 39
6 Levitsky and Ziblatt, 43
7 Levitsky and Ziblatt, 101
8 Levitsky and Ziblatt, 113
9 Levitsky and Ziblatt, 174
10 Levitsky and Ziblatt, 176
11 Levitsky and Ziblatt, 183
12 Levitsky and Ziblatt, 203
13 Levitsky and Ziblatt, 229
- Quote paper
- Mourine Atsien (Author), 2022, "How democracies die" from Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt. Critical Review and Discussion, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1326031
-
-
-
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X.