44 pages • 1 hour read
Daniel Ziblatt, Steven LevitskyHow Democracies Die
Nonfiction | Book | Adult | Published in 2018A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Summary
Chapter Summaries & Analyses
Key Figures
Themes
Symbols & Motifs
Important Quotes
Essay Topics
Tools
BetaThemes
The Gradual Process by Which Democracy Is Eroded
Regime change and authoritarian takeover may be equated with violence and soldiers in the street in the popular imagination, but in How Democracies Die, an important theme is how this process can happen almost imperceptibly—and indeed, has happened legally in many of the democratic breakdowns of the 20th century. According to Levitsky and Ziblatt, “Democratic backsliding today begins at the ballot box” (5). This theme both structures the text and serves as a justifying principle for the text itself, since the subtle nature of contemporary authoritarianism requires citizens to educate themselves on the threat by studying the kinds of examples the authors put forward.
The theme of gradual democratic decline provides the context for the authors’ discussion of another imperceptible, but important, piece of the democratic puzzle: the unwritten norms that govern democracies. The norms of mutual toleration and institutional forbearance, in particular, are what make democracies possible, allowing for the orderly transition of power between political rivals and the independent functioning of other branches of government, such as the judiciary. Throughout the book the authors show how, as these norms are undermined, democracy itself starts to fall apart, even as institutions like elections and courts continue to function.
The theme of gradual decline is also evident in the authors’ discussion of the kind of extreme polarization and partisanship that currently characterizes American politics. Despite being currently taken for granted, this is both a radical departure from the norm-based behavior that has characterized the system for hundreds of years and a threat to the stability of democracy itself. Importantly, this discussion demonstrates that while the violation of democratic norms—and the subsequent erosion of democracy—has accelerated under President Trump, it started decades earlier and has been happening almost unbeknownst to many citizens.
The authors repeatedly return to this theme in their examination of democratic breakdown in other countries, particularly in the discussion of how it is often establishment politicians who invite would-be autocrats to form government; in places like Italy, Germany, and Venezuela, politicians did not see the threat until it was too late. In a similar way this theme provides the rationale for the litmus test for authoritarian leaders that the authors put forward, since many autocrats come in the guise of elected politicians, but by their words and deeds they weaken democratic institutions. These behaviors should be taken seriously, the authors argue, even if they don’t always seem to constitute an immediate threat to democracy.
The Importance of “Mere Words”
Throughout the book Levitsky and Ziblatt show how authoritarian speech poses as much of a risk as deeds, even as such speech is dismissed as “mere words” (60). This is true in the case of Donald Trump, as the significance of his verbal support for autocrats like Vladimir Putin, attacks on Muslims and immigrants, and other uncivil speech was downplayed by supporters, but it applies to other autocrats and would-be autocrats as well. As the authors demonstrate, what politicians say and how they say it has a significant impact on democracy.
Taking speech seriously is important because it allows for the identification of would-be autocrats in the absence of any antidemocratic action (such as attempted or successful coups). According to the litmus test proposed by the authors in Chapter 1, politicians can betray authoritarian tendencies when they (1) openly question democratic rules, such as the legitimacy of elections; (2) use speech that portrays rivals as criminals or enemies of the state; (3) praise political violence at home or abroad; and (4) threaten action to punish the media, civil society, or rivals. Such words aren’t only a threat because they suggest the possibility of antidemocratic action in the future; this kind of speech is a threat to democracy because it violates the norm of mutual toleration that the authors identify as a core element of democratic systems.
The authors highlight this risk by pointing out several politicians with authoritarian tendencies from American history who described political rivals as traitors and enemies—language that undermined the possibility of bipartisan cooperation and normalized behavior like the 1972 break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters. Under President Trump, these verbal assaults on mutual toleration—and the subsequent erosion of democracy—have increased.
This theme also comes out through the discussion of how autocratic leaders relate to the media. While supporters often downplay the threat of authoritarian speech, autocrats themselves recognize the power of the words spoken by the media, and they often use nominally legal measures—such as control of the “referees” of the democracy, including courts and tax agencies—to target unfriendly outlets. This encourages other journalists and outlets to self-censor, which ultimately silences voices that are supposed to serve as a check on government. As the authors note, this applies with other kinds of influential voices, including artists, intellectuals, and athletes. An example of this is Nobel-prize-winning Argentine author Jorge Luis Borges, who spoke out against dictator Juan Peron and was sidelined professionally as a result. In this way the authors show how important words—and the question of who gets to control them—are to democracy, in turn underscoring the threat posed by President Trump’s verbal attacks on the media, which, even if they stop short of the actions taken by other autocratic leaders, are a dangerous step in that direction.
The Antidemocratic Exclusion at the Heart of American Democracy
While the norms that bolster American democracy have been challenged at various points, Levitsky and Ziblatt note that, at least for much of the 20th century, they largely held strong. But the reasons for that strength are problematic: “the norms sustaining our political system rested, to a considerable degree, on racial exclusion” (143). This exclusion—which began after the Civil War and maintained stability until the 1980s—is American democracy’s “original sin” (143). It is also American democracy’s weak spot; as the authors explore throughout the book, the political and social changes that took place over the latter half of the 20th century have shown how politicians’ attempts to maintain racial exclusion is pushing the United States in an antidemocratic direction.
This is particularly evident in the increasing polarization of America’s political parties. Following the introduction of the civil rights movement, and a significant increase of immigration from Latin America and Asia, Democrats and Republicans moved further apart on the political and racial spectrum, with ethnic minorities supporting Democrats and Republicans becoming the party of whites. This divide undermined the norm of mutual toleration, particularly among Republicans, whose base has come to be composed of largely white, Protestant voters. In other words, the de facto exclusion of racial minorities from the Republican Party has pushed the party toward more extreme and aggressive politics, in which voters and politicians are more likely to see political rivals as an existential threat. This perception makes them more willing to use any means necessary to keep rivals out of power, even if those measures—such as voter ID laws that disproportionately affect racial minorities—are undemocratic.
This theme figures prominently in the solutions proposed in the final chapter. While American democracy was once more stable, the authors suggest a return to that kind of stability is neither possible nor desirable. For a century, due to racial exclusion, the stability of American democracy was shored up by the fact that Republicans and Democrats shared a modicum of common ground, as both parties were largely white. The fact that American democracy never reckoned with how to meaningfully include racial minorities—and their grievances—in the political process has meant that the increasing diversity of the American electorate is having a destabilizing effect on democracy. But rather than ignoring those grievances in an attempt to reduce polarization, the authors suggest that America needs to build a multiethnic democracy, both by addressing social and economic inequality, and by extending norms of mutual toleration to include all citizens. Throughout the book the authors note that the United States, as a country that is also vulnerable to authoritarianism, does not necessarily deserve its reputation as an exceptional democracy. However, by building a political system that truly reflects its multiracial citizenry, it could become so.
