bucketoffish's review against another edition
4.0
Before going into this book's arguments, let's clarify some definitions. By democracy the authors refer to not just the act of voting, but to a society where people are free to share viewpoints, co-exist, and potentially transfer power. Under this definition, a society where people can't discuss ideas freely, or one where power is unlikely to shift with public opinion, is not democratic. Similarly, they define authoritarianism not as a measure of government size, power, or policies, but rather by the suppression of opposing opinions and political leadership. I think democracy and authoritarianism are sometimes used slightly differently in the public sphere, so it's worth clarifying.
Anyway, the authors look at some instances in history where democracies have become autocracies, and try to find commonalities. They also apply these findings to recent politics in the United States. An interesting point they made is that a democracy relies on checks and balances, but can only function if those checks are rarely used. That is, different parts of government need to be strong enough to stop other branches from doing whatever they want, but these powers need to be used sparingly, so that government can actually operate. This leads to an interesting situation where the law grants powers which lawmakers have to habitually choose not to use. Thus the entire system relies on social norms and precedence more than the text of the law. I think this is demonstrated well by the fact that several other countries have had constitutions essentially copy-pasted from the United States, but nonetheless quickly became autocracies.
In the authors' opinion, democracies die when politicians start disregarding political norms, treating their opponents as enemies who must be defeated by any legal means. This starts with ignoring etiquette and framing the opposition as not only differing in opinion, but also as wrong, dangerous, corrupt, bigoted, and unfit to rule. This is further followed by using legal but dirty techniques such as obstructionism, gerrymandering, refusal to confirm political appointees, court packing, etc. It usually ends with one branch going so far off norm that they rewrite the rules of the game, making it very difficult for opponents to ever regain power. They go through a brief history of US politics, showing the increase of this behavior over the past few decades, culminating with the Trump presidency.
I think a lot of readers will probably be put off by some of the authors' suggestions, especially where they call for the major US political parties to act more as gatekeepers. It seems they pin part of the problem on the opening of party primaries to direct democracy, thus removing some of the candidate selection process of the elites. They state that since Democrats retained a superdelegate system, they were able to maintain more control over their party than Republicans, who went with a full democratic approach. They seem to pin much of the spiraling populism of the Republican party on this decision. The authors argue that to preserve democracy, political control has to be put back in the hands of elites, and not trusted fully to the people. In fact, they argue that the formation of political parties with elite gatekeepers is the only reason that US democracy has been able to survive for as long as it has.
The idea definitely has some merit in my opinion. After all, there's basically no system outside of politics where people are allowed into positions of leadership without any experience or vetting by people inside the organization. Also, direct political appeal to non-experts leads to a trend of simpler and simpler messaging, with the entire conversation devolving into insults, straw men, and conspiracy theories. But nonetheless, this suggestion is bound to be unpopular.
At this point, I don't really see political discourse in the US getting better anytime soon. The rise of social media has exacerbated the problems of hyper-partisanship, with people getting better and better at twisting or inventing facts to make their opposition look bad. There's also increasing demand for aggressive political leaders who refuse to cooperate with the other party. Democrats are talking about packing the Supreme Court and removing the filibuster if they get into power, and Republicans are floating the idea of straight-up succession. Next few years are gonna be wild, buckle up.
Anyway, the authors look at some instances in history where democracies have become autocracies, and try to find commonalities. They also apply these findings to recent politics in the United States. An interesting point they made is that a democracy relies on checks and balances, but can only function if those checks are rarely used. That is, different parts of government need to be strong enough to stop other branches from doing whatever they want, but these powers need to be used sparingly, so that government can actually operate. This leads to an interesting situation where the law grants powers which lawmakers have to habitually choose not to use. Thus the entire system relies on social norms and precedence more than the text of the law. I think this is demonstrated well by the fact that several other countries have had constitutions essentially copy-pasted from the United States, but nonetheless quickly became autocracies.
In the authors' opinion, democracies die when politicians start disregarding political norms, treating their opponents as enemies who must be defeated by any legal means. This starts with ignoring etiquette and framing the opposition as not only differing in opinion, but also as wrong, dangerous, corrupt, bigoted, and unfit to rule. This is further followed by using legal but dirty techniques such as obstructionism, gerrymandering, refusal to confirm political appointees, court packing, etc. It usually ends with one branch going so far off norm that they rewrite the rules of the game, making it very difficult for opponents to ever regain power. They go through a brief history of US politics, showing the increase of this behavior over the past few decades, culminating with the Trump presidency.
I think a lot of readers will probably be put off by some of the authors' suggestions, especially where they call for the major US political parties to act more as gatekeepers. It seems they pin part of the problem on the opening of party primaries to direct democracy, thus removing some of the candidate selection process of the elites. They state that since Democrats retained a superdelegate system, they were able to maintain more control over their party than Republicans, who went with a full democratic approach. They seem to pin much of the spiraling populism of the Republican party on this decision. The authors argue that to preserve democracy, political control has to be put back in the hands of elites, and not trusted fully to the people. In fact, they argue that the formation of political parties with elite gatekeepers is the only reason that US democracy has been able to survive for as long as it has.
The idea definitely has some merit in my opinion. After all, there's basically no system outside of politics where people are allowed into positions of leadership without any experience or vetting by people inside the organization. Also, direct political appeal to non-experts leads to a trend of simpler and simpler messaging, with the entire conversation devolving into insults, straw men, and conspiracy theories. But nonetheless, this suggestion is bound to be unpopular.
At this point, I don't really see political discourse in the US getting better anytime soon. The rise of social media has exacerbated the problems of hyper-partisanship, with people getting better and better at twisting or inventing facts to make their opposition look bad. There's also increasing demand for aggressive political leaders who refuse to cooperate with the other party. Democrats are talking about packing the Supreme Court and removing the filibuster if they get into power, and Republicans are floating the idea of straight-up succession. Next few years are gonna be wild, buckle up.
johannaerikaly's review against another edition
3.0
Intressant och lärorik, men det blev väldigt tydligt att den är skriven av amerikaner för amerikaner. Hade önskat att den inte fokuserade på USA så mycket som den gjorde.
moseslh's review against another edition
4.0
I had been thinking a lot about the future of democracy, and whether liberal democracy would survive the 2020s, when I saw this book at the store and couldn't resist buying it. The authors, Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, are political scientists who study how democracies collapse into authoritarianism. Over the past few years, they realized that the US was displaying many of the early warning signs (and, one imagines, that a book on that topic would be highly profitable).
I was already aware of much of what Levitsky and Ziblatt discuss in this book, but they articulated and framed it clearly and compellingly. They did present some useful context and insight that was new to me, particularly with their comparisons to other democratic countries that succumbed to authoritarianism or successfully resisted it.
I would definitely recommend this book to anyone thinking about the future of democracy or how to save it.
I was already aware of much of what Levitsky and Ziblatt discuss in this book, but they articulated and framed it clearly and compellingly. They did present some useful context and insight that was new to me, particularly with their comparisons to other democratic countries that succumbed to authoritarianism or successfully resisted it.
I would definitely recommend this book to anyone thinking about the future of democracy or how to save it.
oskhen's review against another edition
3.0
Reads like an approachable introduction to a larger topic, perhaps making the mistake of thinking itself more bold and prophetic than it is.
alexdpar's review against another edition
challenging
emotional
informative
reflective
medium-paced
4.25
Reading this book now, it feels like the information is all stuff I’ve read or heard before. But then when you come to think about it, this is the origin that inspires a lot of that material. In someways, it does condense and combine a lot of democratic theory from the peace studies world, but does so in a way that is communicative to a wider audience and engaging. And at the same time, much of the subject matter is a product that is new and asks questions of preexisting work.
I think the best content that emerges is the criteria table for which a lot of the examinations are based (p. 23-24). That and its conclusion are brilliant, and even shocking considering its prediction abilities as it was written before the 2020 election overthrow attempt. The use of North Carolina as an example of democracy without guardrails is both accurate and embarrassing. But we deserve the critique.
As always, I want to question further and push back in some places, and I found this to be mostly in the conclusion. While the analysis of poverty reduction programs is spot on, other aspects, like reducing polarization on the GOP side, seems a bit too simplistic. I agree with the statement that reimagining finance, grassroots organization, messaging, and candidate selection is key to preventing democratic usurpers from taking power. But it’s exactly those people, like Gaetz and Hawley, who are pushing reforms under these labels. Additionally, it appears that grassroots support is for the extremen fringe of the GOP candidates. I’d be excited to see how the authors tackle something like this, as it appears the minority extreme republicans are reforming those aspects and maintaining control. Maybe the newest book is something I need to dive into next!
leonajasmin's review against another edition
4.0
It is obvious from reading this book that the authors are both well-researched and have plenty of experience in their field. Their writing was balanced- suitable for a beginner but someone more versed in the topic could get their teeth into it too- and had a highly readable writing style.
It was also nice to read a more 'balanced' book. Most books on topics like this tend to focus on one country and then throw in a few facts about others when deemed relevant. It's obvious where Levitsky and Ziblatt's interests lie (President Trump is a key focus), but there was a lot of global coverage too.
This book focuses a lot on the authoritarian personality, so has a psychological front to it on top of the obvious political aspects. As someone who's studied authoritarianism from both perspectives, I'd say they wrote this section in an easy-to-comprehend way for those less versed in it.
I feel like this book would've been better off a little longer as they cut corners to keep the word count down in a few places, but overall, this was a pretty interesting book for those interested in the psychology of politics.
It was also nice to read a more 'balanced' book. Most books on topics like this tend to focus on one country and then throw in a few facts about others when deemed relevant. It's obvious where Levitsky and Ziblatt's interests lie (President Trump is a key focus), but there was a lot of global coverage too.
This book focuses a lot on the authoritarian personality, so has a psychological front to it on top of the obvious political aspects. As someone who's studied authoritarianism from both perspectives, I'd say they wrote this section in an easy-to-comprehend way for those less versed in it.
I feel like this book would've been better off a little longer as they cut corners to keep the word count down in a few places, but overall, this was a pretty interesting book for those interested in the psychology of politics.