How Democracies Die by Stephen Levitsky
and Danile Ziblatt
THIS IS A HIGHLY ENGAGING, READABLE AND CHILLING analysis of the potential for American democracy (and by implication
our own and others) to falter and fail. Levitsky and Ziblatt give a variety of
examples on how countries have fallen into authoritarian regimes
throughout the past century and a half. They cite the obvious examples of
Italy, Germany and Russia during the first half of the 20th Century,
but a number of lessff well-known cases are examined —Ecuador, Peru, Hungary and
Argentina, as well as the recent examples of Turkey, Venezuela, Poland to some
extent, and Russia under Putin.
What makes Levitsky’s and Ziblatt’s study so compelling is their examination of
modern, autocratically-inclined politicians, and how their unorthodox
use of constitutionally-mandated laws and procedures undermines the structures
that support democracies in the first place. These political operators no
longer resort to murder, misrule, and revolution, as was done in the past, to
eliminate their fellow contenders and clear their paths to power. Instead, they
use the very laws, practices, rules and regulations that are in place against
the state for their own purposes—purposes that can only can be described as
Machiavellian.
Their book focuses primarily on the American project, and one clear ‘take-away’
I have is: how important things like attitudes, past-practices,
conventions, norms, or ‘that’s-how-we’ve-always-done-it’ thinking is for a
functioning democracy. As the authors point out—you can’t write down ALL the laws
and rules and practices that citizens and politicians are expected to follow in
a functioning democracy. There is much that is both UNWRITTEN and traditional
that is a vital part of every country’s foundation, and this is one area that
budding autocrats seek to weaken—what they deem as unnecessary "red
tape" (that 'ties up' their ability to acquire more and more power) or
'old ways' of doing things.
In their opening chapter, Levitsky and Ziblatt give a handy guide
of “key indictors” of what an autocrat-in-the-making might look like: They cite
four examples of un- or even anti-democratic practices they might
follow:
1. Rejection of (or weak commitment to) democratic
rules of the game.
2. Denial of the legitimacy of political opponents
3. Toleration or encouragement of violence
4. Readiness to curtail civil liberties of
opponents, including the media.
They use a number of historical examples: Argentina’s Juan Peron, Peru’s
Fujimori, Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, and several others to measure how these
politicians rate on the ‘authoritarian scale’. Often, the authors found,
would-be authoritarians come into office with moderate, pro-democratic
policies, only to later evolve the anti-democratic practices listed above. One
recent example is Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega, a former revolutionary who led his
country out from under the repressive Samosa dictatorship in the 1980s. Today,
as I write this, Ortega is being increasing vilified by the Nicaraguan people
as the “new Samosa”, a shocking turn-about, which I believe is leading to
increased violence and government repression, all on his watch.
Of course, for Levitsky and Ziblatt, the $64,000 question (sorry for the
‘old-school’ reference; these days, with inflation, you might want to add a few
more zeroes*) is: could it happen in America, the world’s
longest-functioning democracy? The answer is yes. Not yet, perhaps, but it
is possible. A sobering and shocking conclusion.
They suggest a number of ways that American democracy can break down into
authoritarianism:
By changes to what they call “gatekeeping”—e.g.
political party structures, party conventions; the rise of the Primary system
in Presidential elections—thus allowing ‘outriders’ or extreme individuals to
more readily gain office. In the past, these structures (including the
much-derided “smoke-filled back rooms”) kept most authoritarians-to-be at bay.
That is less so today. And when those with an authoritarian bent to their
personalities do gain power, they can subvert democratic practices and
principles by co-opting what the authors call the “referees”—judges, agency leaders, department heads, directors of
regulatory bodies and so on—and ‘stack’ those bodies with like-minded
compatriots. “All we want to do is cut the red tape” is a common mantra—though
the tape, in some cases, may be all that’s holding things in place!
Another interesting tactic Levitsky and Ziblatt suggest that
proto-authoritarians use on their way to power is thwarting the unwritten norms
of convention and behaviour. Donald Trump’s often divisive and confusing tweets
are an example of this. His outrageous, intemperate and bullying behaviour and
his expressions of contempt for those who disagree with him (“Lock Her
Up!", for example), in turn—and this is important—give license to
others to behave in like manner. We see this daily on the American news. And,
worryingly, we get used to it, something Democratic senator Patrick Moynihan
once observed: that societies tend “…to ‘define deviancy down’—to shift the standard.
What was once seen as abnormal becomes normal.’” [That sounds like something out of Orwell’s 1984, to me!]
The authors agree that civility, tolerance and “forebearance” are key elements
in the functioning of government. They are part of the ‘unwritten rules’ of
conduct by which politicians engage with each other. Toleration means that political opponents accept the legitimacy of
the other to hold their viewpoints and to express them in open and fair
debates, letting the voting process decide the issues. Forbearance means that those who hold levers of power—from
heads of agencies to committee chairs, to politicians as a whole, will not
abuse their power; they will not step beyond the bounds of conventional and
traditional levels of authority. For example, we witnessed in recent years, how
the majority party in the American congress threatened to shut down the
government in a budget dispute, by refusing to increase the amount of deficit
spending. Until this last decade, such ‘threats’ were more gesture than threat,
and were used as a ploy for further negotiations. That has changed.
What also has changed is the polarization within the two-party system; with
each side more and more entrenched and ‘hunkered down’ with its core supporters
(especially the Republicans). It is too long an analysis to discuss here, but
it is fascinating—and deeply troubling—to read how the post-Civil war
Reconstruction period of the Nineteenth Century gave way to a ‘bargain with the
devil’ made at the federal level limiting the newly-acquired political power of
black Americans (through the infamous "Jim
Crow" laws), in order to gain stability in governance, and an
essentially ‘whites-only’ political club that lasted until the civil rights
movement of the 1950s and 60s, and the passing of civil rights legislation.
This ‘stability’ was made on backs of black Americans, and the tragedy of
American slavery and its aftermath is still to be played out. Levitsky and
Ziblatt state that the growing polarization and ideological rigidity of both
parties in the last half century are, in large part, a result of this ‘devil’s
bargain’ being broken.
Of course, in the American system, Presidents, too, are expected to act with
restraint in their use of power; from how they appoint chief justices, to their
use of presidential decrees and the many administrative levers of authority at
their disposal. Politicians at all levels of governance, from federal to state,
county and municipal, operate within constituted norms and rules of conduct.
But those rules are open to interpretation, and this is where tradition,
fair play, honest brokerage, and respect for opponents come in to moderate and
insure there is compromise in outstanding disputes.
ALL this is at risk when authoritarian individuals gain access to power.
It remains to be seen how far the current President will travel down this path.
(Talk about a bull in china shop!) If it's not Trump who assumes the mantle,
there will be others who will follow in his footsteps. One major crisis, one
threat perceived as too great, and democracy can be swept aside and
authoritarian rule imposed. After all, crises and wars are one of the handiest
tools in the authoritarian's toolkit!
Until I read Levitsky’s and Ziblatt’s book, I had no idea how vulnerable
democracies can be—unless there is oversight, restraint, tolerance and vigilance.
What is happening today in Argentina, Hungary, Turkey, and elsewhere can happen
in America tomorrow, or to Canada the day after.
The
authors conclude their study with some suggestions as to how to maintain
democracy in face of the current surge of authoritarianism around the globe.
One way is by once again ‘enlarging the tent’ of political parties to include
those you might once have considered only as opponents; to look for common
causes that disparate groups can unite around. They suggest “adopting policies
to address social and economic inequality” as one way, difficult as it might
be, to bring larger groups of people together. They also recommend an expanded
social safety net and such things as universal health care coverage (Go
Canada!)
They end with a quote from the American
writer E. B. White, who was asked by the federal government's Writer’s War
Board, during WWII, to write a response to the question, “What is
democracy?” White’s reply was the following:
Surely the Board knows what democracy is. It
is the line that forms on the right. It is the “don’t” in don’t shove. It is
the hole in the stuffed shirt through which the sawdust slowly trickles; it is
the dent in the high hat. Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than
half of the people are right more than half of the time. It is the feeling of
privacy in the voting booths, the feeling communion in the libraries, the feeling
of vitality everywhere. Democracy is a letter to the editor. Democracy is the
score at the beginning of the ninth. It is an idea which hasn’t been disproved
yet, a song the words of which have not gone bad. It’s the mustard on the hot
dog, and the cram in the rationed coffee. Democracy is a request for a War
Board, in the middle of a morning in the middle of a war, wanting to know what
democracy is.
“The egalitarianism, civility, sense of
freedom, and shared purpose portrayed by E.B. White were the essence of
mid-twentieth-century American democracy. Today that vision is under
assault.”
Cheers, Jake.
Cheers, Jake.
* We don’t
think we’re living in inflationary times, but have you looked at the price of a
house lately, or for that matter, how stingy confection makers are with the
size of their chocolate bars in comparison to the good old days?…hmmm.
Inflation by any other name smells just the same.
No comments:
Post a Comment