How Democracies Die

“A comparative approach also reveals how elected autocrats in different parts of the world employ remarkably similar strategies to subvert democratic institutions. As these patterns become visible, the steps toward breakdown grow less ambiguous—and easier to combat. Knowing how citizens in other democracies have successfully resisted elected autocrats, or why they tragically failed to do so, is essential to those seeking to defend American democracy today.” 

The authors draw on examples of authoritarian turns throughout the 20th and 21st centuries to illustrate how democracies fall apart and to present a cautionary tale for vulnerable systems, such as that of the United States. This provides the background for the diagnostic tool the authors propose, a litmus test for identifying autocrats. Since these kinds of leaders adopt similar strategies, their behavior can usefully be analyzed to identify patterns. As this quote shows, positive examples are also useful. By highlighting instances such as the bipartisan cooperation in the 2016 Austrian presidential election that kept an extremist candidate from winning the presidency, the authors offer a sense of hope that the slide to authoritarianism can be resisted and reversed.

“In each instance, elites believed the invitation to power would contain the outsider, leading to a restoration of control by mainstream politicians. But their plans backfired. A lethal mix of ambition, fear and miscalculation conspired to lead them to the same fateful mistake: willingly handing over the keys of power to an autocrat-in-the-making.” 

This quote illustrates an element of the theme of gradual democratic collapse, which the authors develop throughout the book. Here the authors highlight how incumbents underestimate the threat posed by extremist candidates and seek to leverage the popularity of charismatic outsiders to secure their own grip on power, as happened in Italy and Germany in the 1920s. But rather than neutralizing the threat of potential autocrats, inviting them to form government legitimizes them, thereby eliminating control over their actions. The authors note that democracy depends on politicians resisting the allure of extremist candidates, even if partnering with them would help them win elections in the short term.

“Potential demagogues exist in all democracies, and occasionally, one or more of them strike a public chord. But in some democracies, political leaders heed the warning signs and take steps to ensure that authoritarians remain on the fringes, far from the centers of power. When faced with the rise of extremists or demagogues, they make a concerted effort to isolate and defeat them.”

While there are many instances of politicians failing to avoid the kind of dangerous alliances that lead to democratic collapse, there are also instances where politicians resisted the temptation. This quote hints at how they do so—not by preventing autocrats from running, since doing so would be antidemocratic, but by maintaining boundaries around them and consigning them to the margins of political debate, where their ideas cannot become normalized. With this quote the authors are also implying that such resistance must be active. Since would-be autocrats often undermine democracies in imperceptible ways, it cannot be assumed that voters will identify the threat and reject a candidate on that basis.

“What kinds of candidates tend to test positive on a litmus test for authoritarianism? Very often, populist outsiders do. Populists are antiestablishment politicians—figures who, claiming to represent the voice of ‘the people,’ wage war on what they depict as a corrupt and conspiratorial elite.” 

This quote points to Levitsky and Ziblatt’s four-part litmus test for autocratic leaders. Politicians who test positive for these criteria tend to be populists who, in claiming to offer the opportunity for more direct government by “the people,” deride the institutions that allow democracy to function. In discussing the “conspiratorial elite,” this quote also hints at a threat to democracy that the authors discuss later in the book—the way President Trump consistently uses falsehoods to sow mistrust in institutions and in government itself.

“This stance took considerable political courage. According to one Catholic Party mayor of a small city outside Vienna, Stefan Schmuckenschlager, who endorsed the Green Party candidate, it was a decision that split families. His twin brother, another party leader, had support Hofer. As Schmuckenschlager explained it, power politics sometimes has to be put aside to do the right thing.” 

This quote illustrates the authors’ use of real-world examples to show how democracies can be destroyed—or saved—by politicians’ actions. In this case Levitsky and Ziblatt use the 2016 Austrian presidential election to show how politicians can build bipartisan coalitions to keep antidemocratic candidates out of power—even if it means sacrificing their own political advantage. This example serves as a contrast when, later in the book, the authors discuss how core Republican politicians failed to build a coalition with Democrats to keep Donald Trump out of the presidency, even when his authoritarian tendencies were clear.

“Gatekeeping institutions go back to the founding of the American republic. The 1787 Constitution created the world’s first presidential system. Presidentialism poses distinctive challenges for gatekeeping. In parliamentary democracies, the prime minister is a member of parliament and is selected by the leading parties in parliament which virtually ensures that he or she will be acceptable to political insiders. The very process of government formation serves as a filter. Presidents, by contrast, are not sitting members of Congress, nor are they elected by Congress. At least in theory, they are elected by the people, and anyone can run for president and—if he or she earns enough support—win.”

This quote highlights that, rather than being inherently robust, the American political system is in fact vulnerable to erosion. Because there are few institutional measures to keep autocrats out of power, democracy depends on political parties’ commitment to maintaining a democratic system, even if they won’t necessarily win as a result. The willingness of political parties to exercise this gatekeeping function in turn depends on mutual toleration and institutional forbearance, two unwritten rules of democracy that the authors further develop later in the book. When these norms are weak, there’s little to prevent an extremist candidate from assuming power.

“An overreliance on gatekeeping is, in itself, undemocratic—it can create a world of party bosses who ignore the rank and file and fail to represent the people. But an overreliance on the ‘will of the people’ can also be dangerous, for it can lead to the election of a demagogue who threatens democracy itself. There is no escape from this tension. There are always trade-offs.” 

The authors are showing that the maintenance of democracy sometimes requires politicians to negotiate behind the scenes and to use institutions that are not directly dependent on the popular vote. This stands in contrast to the rhetoric of populist leaders, who would espouse a goal of government for “the people” while introducing authoritarian measures. This description of a core tension in democracy also hints at another inherent tension in American democracy—that the strength of the unwritten rules that made stable democracy possible for so long in the United States came at the expense of African Americans’ participation in the political process.

“As confrontations exploded on the convention floor, uniformed police officers dragged several delegates from the auditorium. Watching in shock, the NBC anchor Chet Huntley observed, ‘This surely is the first time policemen have entered the floor of a convention.’ His co-anchor, David Brinkley, wryly added, ‘In the United States.’” 

This quote describes an incident from the 1968 Democratic Convention, at which the nomination of an unpopular candidate, Hubert Humphrey, by party insiders—without having competed in primaries—sparked violent protests. This was a pivotal moment in American politics, since it led to the system of binding presidential primaries that sidelined party gatekeepers. In including this quote, the authors are also interrogating the idea of the exceptionalism of American democracy, since it hints at the fact that the United States could be vulnerable to the same political instability seen in other nations. Finally, by including quotes from the media, the authors are highlighting the central role of a free press in democratic systems—an institution that is often attacked by autocratic leaders.

“By the time Trump rolled to victory in the March 1 Super Tuesday primaries, it was clear that he had laid waste to the invisible primary, rendering it irrelevant. Undoubtedly, Trump’s celebrity status played a role. But equally important was the changed media landscape.”

The “invisible primary” is a term coined by political scientist Arthur Hadley to describe the process whereby any candidate wanting to be competitive in the primary system needed to build connections among media figures, interest groups, and party insiders who maintained the role of party gatekeepers even after binding primaries were introduced. By the time Donald Trump was competing for the Republican nomination, circumstances were different, most notably due to the rise of new media, including social media, and the 2010 Citizens United decision, which made it easier for candidates to raise money from outside sources. The authors are highlighting how the institutions that once protected American democracy are weakening, opening the door to autocracy.

“In a radical break with established norms of civility, Trump embraced—and even encouraged—supporters who physically assaulted protesters. He offered to pay the legal fees of a supporter who sucker-punched and threatened to kill a protester at a rally in Fayetteville, North Carolina. On other occasions, he responded to protesters at his rallies by inciting violence among his supporters.” 

Throughout the book Levitsky and Ziblatt draw on examples from history to demonstrate their arguments about how democracies break down. In this case they use a recent example—the use of violence at rallies during Trump’s campaign for president—to draw visceral attention to how the violation of unwritten norms erodes democratic systems. This example doesn’t just show Trump violating a norm; it’s also evidence of his willingness to incite violence, which the authors identify as one of the criteria in their litmus test for autocratic leaders.

“No other major presidential candidate in modern U.S. history, including Nixon, has demonstrated such a weak public commitment to constitutional rights and democratic norms. Trump was precisely the kind of figure that had haunted Hamilton and other founders when they created the American presidency.”

While the authors identify historical instances when American democracy was tested, they note it largely withstood the threat of authoritarianism—until Donald Trump was elected. In closely examining Trump’s behavior, Levitsky and Ziblatt highlight how his conduct marks both a radical departure from the standards of American politics and meets all the hallmarks for authoritarianism. The authors are highlighting how a candidate like Trump, who is willing to disregard the norms that maintain the American democratic system, can imperil that system—a vulnerability that dates back to the founding of the republic.

“So instead of negotiating with the leaders of congress, Fujimori lashed out at them, calling them ‘unproductive charlatans.’ He attacked uncooperative judges as ‘jackals’ and ‘scoundrels.’ More troubling still, he began to bypass congress, turning instead to executive decrees. Government officials began to complain that Peru’s constitution was ‘rigid’ and ‘confining,’ reinforcing fears that Fujimori’s commitment to democratic institutions was weak.” 

The authors are demonstrating a trait of outsider, extremist candidates, who lack experience with the slow, cooperative process of government: their impatience with the pace at which democracies function. This quote demonstrates how this impatience can erode democracy even under candidates who don’t initially have an authoritarian bent, as was the case with Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori. Once frustrated by the political process, however, they attack democratic institutions, weakening the system. This quote also shows the importance of norms, since actions like the frequency of the use of executive orders are governed by norms rather than legislation.

“To better understand how elected autocrats subtly undermine institutions, it’s helpful to imagine a soccer game. To consolidate power, would-be authoritarians must capture the referees, sideline at least some of the other side’s start players, and rewrite the rules of the game to lock in their advantage, in effect tilting the playing field against their opponents.” 

Levitsky and Ziblatt frequently use sports metaphors to elucidate the democratic process and the threat authoritarians pose to it. In this case they use the analogy of a soccer game to explain the importance of democratic referees—such as the courts and law enforcement—to safeguarding democracy. As with soccer referees, democratic referees can be captured by a set of interests, making it so that autocrats can break the law without censure and ultimately prevent rivals from assuming power.

“Khodorkovsky was believed to be untouchable. But he overplayed his hand. A liberal who disliked Putin, Khodorkovsky began to generously finance opposition parties, including the pro-Western Yabloko. At one point, as many as one hundred Duma (parliament) members were doing his bidding. There were rumors that he planned to seek the presidency. Threatened, Putin had Khodorkovsky arrested in 2003 for tax evasion, embezzlement, and fraud. He was imprisoned for nearly a decade. The message to the oligarchs was clear: stay out of politics. Nearly all of them did. Starved of resources, opposition parties weakened, many to the point of extinction.” 

This quote uses a recent example from Russia to show how autocrats in nominally democratic systems target business leaders to cut off funding to potential political rivals. In using this example the authors are showing how the captured referees of democracy—in this case, the courts—silence rivals and cement an autocrat’s hold on power, all while maintaining a veneer of legality. It also shows how autocrats exert broad control without violence; by targeting a few prominent individuals, autocrats can effectively censor any others who would potentially speak out.

“These ‘reform’ measures effectively killed democracy in the American South. Even though African Americans constituted a majority or near-majority of the population in many states, and even though black suffrage was now enshrined in the constitution, ‘legal’ or neutral-sounding measures were used to ‘insure that the Southern electorate…would be almost all white.’ Black turnout in the South fell from 61 percent in 1880 to just 2 percent in 1912.” 

That American democracy is premised on racial exclusion is a core theme of the book. In Chapter 4 Levitsky and Ziblatt offer concrete examples of how governing parties (in this case, Southern Democrats) rewrote rules to cement their own advantage, by denying African Americans the vote—all without violating the 15th Amendment, which forbids mention of race in restricting voting rights. The “reforms” that permitted this—such as poll taxes, literacy tests, and property requirements—are antidemocratic though technically legal, and they are mirrored by the contemporary Republican Party’s commitment to addressing alleged voter fraud at the expense of minority voters.

“If the constitution written in Philadelphia in 1787 is not what secured American democracy for so long, then what did? Many factors mattered, including our nation’s immense wealth, a large middle class, and a vibrant civil society. But we believe much of the answer also lies in the development of strong democratic norms.” 

Though many Americans hold the Constitution as sacrosanct, Levitsky and Ziblatt argue that it is not what has made American democracy endure for centuries, since it contains many gaps that an authoritarian leader can potentially exploit to undemocratic ends. This quote highlights how other societal and culture factors fill those gaps—chief among them the unwritten rules that guide people’s conduct within a society. In mentioning the importance of a strong middle class, this quote also portends a point that the authors make later in the book—that widening inequality makes American democracy harder to sustain.

“In a pickup basketball game, we play aggressively, but we know not to foul excessively—and to call a foul only when it is egregious. After all, you show up at the park to play a basketball game, not to fight. In politics, this often means eschewing dirty tricks or hardball tactics in the name of fair play.” 

For democracy to function, the authors argue that politicians must abide by shared codes of conduct that allow for competition while keeping conduct at bay. The authors compare this dance to a game of basketball, an analogy they return to throughout the book. As in an informal basketball game, democracies depend on participants to respect unwritten rules, and each other, enough that the game can go on. If one side violates the rules to win, then the whole game falls apart. The respect of these rules is part of the critical underpinning of American democracy.

“Washington worked hard to establish norms and practices that would complement—and strengthen—constitutional rules. He energetically defended his designated areas of authority but was careful not to encroach on areas within the domain of Congress. He limited his use of the veto to bills he regarded as constitutionally dubious, issuing only two vetoes in eight years and writing that he ‘signed many bills with which my Judgement is at variance,’ out of ‘motives of respect to the legislature.’” 

Unlike parliamentary systems, where parties control who can become leader, American democracy is made vulnerable to would-be autocrats by the presidential system, both in the relatively direct way presidential candidates are chosen, opening the path to populist demagogues, and in the unilateral power given to the executive branch, making it easy for presidents to circumvent the legislature and the judiciary. In drawing attention to George Washington, the authors are highlighting how one individual could create norms of executive forbearance that would reduce the risks of this system. Mentioning Washington also serves as a point of comparison, underscoring how much these norms have eroded in recent decades, including under President Trump.

“Trump became America’s most prominent birther, appearing repeatedly on television news programs to call on the president to release his birth certificate. And when Obama’s certificate was made public in 2011, Trump suggested it was a forgery. Although Trump opted not to run against Obama in 2012, his high-profile questioning of President Obama’s nationality gained him media attention and endeared him to the Republicans’ Tea Party base. Intolerance was politically useful.” 

This quote offers an example of Donald Trump’s norm-violating behavior, by pointing to an incident whereby he joined other Republicans in questioning President Obama’s citizenship, contravening the norm of mutual toleration (which implies a respect for a rival’s right to exist). The authors situate this on a continuum of attacks on opponents’ loyalty and status that dates back decades, but they note that these attacks were different in that they were widely accepted among the American public and by Republican politicians—a distinction that underlines the authors’ central warning about the increasing vulnerability of American democracy.

“Although the Constitution does not specify the size of the Supreme Court, the nine-member Court had long ago become an established tradition. Republicans and Democrats had both defended the Court’s autonomy against President Roosevelt’s overreach in 1937. This was now unimaginable.”

This quote points to a particularly troubling moment in the devolution of American democratic norms: the Senate’s refusal to hear the confirmation of President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court in 2016. This was followed by a vow by Republicans, who assumed Hillary Clinton would win the presidency, to block Supreme Court nominations for four years, reducing the number of judges to eight. The refusal to allow a president to fill a vacancy and the possibility of changing the size of the Supreme Court were both unprecedented violations of long-established norms, but they are part of a broader pattern whereby Republicans and Democrats have come to see each other as existential threats.

“Perceiving a threat, some Republican leaders came up with a response that evoked memories of the Jim Crow South: make it harder for low-income minority citizens to vote. Because poor minority voters were overwhelmingly Democratic, measures that dampened turnout among such voters would likely tilt the playing field in favor of Republicans.” 

After the election of Barack Obama, in which high minority turnout helped tilt the result in favor of Democrats, Republicans sought to tackle alleged voter fraud, using tactics that echoed those of Southern Democrats after Reconstruction, in that they targeted African American and other minority voters. This quote also alludes to the tensions caused by demographic change taking place in the United States, which has exacerbated a sense of “status anxiety” among Republican voters. As white Protestants make up a smaller share of the electorate, they’ve coalesced in the Republican Party, fueling a more paranoid and adversarial style of politics. This in turn leads to norm-breaking behavior, including the suppression of minority voters.

“President Trump’s public insults of media outlets and even individual journalists were without precedent in modern U.S. history. He described the media as ‘among the most dishonest human beings on Earth,’ and repeatedly accused such critical news outlets as the New York Times, the Washington Post, and CNN of lying or delivering ‘fake news.’ Trump was not above personal attacks. In June 2017, he went after television host Mika Brzezinski and her cohost Joe Scarborough in a uniquely vitriolic tweetstorm:

‘I heard poorly rated @Morning_Joe speaks badly of me (don’t watch anymore). Then how come low I.Q. Crazy Mika, along with Psycho Joe, came…

‘…to Mar-a-lago 3 nights in a row around New Year’s Eve, and insisted on joining me. She was bleeding badly from a face-lift. I said no!’”

This quote elucidates an example of President Trump’s norm-breaking behavior toward the press, which the authors argue is an important element of his antidemocratic tendencies. Though Trump’s campaign threats against the media—that he would use regulatory agencies to target critical media companies, for example—did not come to fruition, his behavior nonetheless normalizes attacks on the media that could pave the way for media repression like that seen in autocratic regimes in Turkey and Venezuela. This quote also illustrates an important element of Trump’s rise to power (and a reason why the current moment differs from past threats to American democracy)—his use of new media, namely Twitter.

“The rebuilding of German conservatism, of course, followed a major catastrophe. The CDU [Christian Democratic Union] had no choice but to reinvent itself. The question before Republicans today is whether such a reinvention can occur before we plunge into a deeper crisis.” 

Following World War II, Germany’s center-right political party re-established legitimacy by expelling extremists and building a coalition of support between Catholics and Protestants, once-rival factions that encouraged to work together by the trauma of the war. This rebirth has lessons for the Republican Party, the authors suggest—which must happen to reduce polarization and address the threats currently facing American democracy. This quote also points to the United States’ once-strong democratic credentials, as the country was once a promoter of democracy throughout the world, both directly, with the CDU, and as a model. That American democracy is now in a position to take lessons from elsewhere—and its own past—shows how much the current situation is a departure from the country’s democratic past.