Cours de psychologie : le complexe d'Oedipe

Book review – HOW DEMOCRACIES DIE

Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt

"We feel dread".

This is the first sentiment expressed by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt in their book published in 2018 entitled "How democracies die".

After reading this book, which I will try to summarize here, you will also share this feeling.

This book gives us the keys to understanding what killed democracies around the world and the impact of Trump’s election on American democracy. Even if it is a country that has long invested itself for peace throughout the world (Fourteen points of Wilson, creation of the UN, intervention in conflicts), and that their constitution stipulates the separation of powers and promotes respect for individual rights, equality and liberty.

It is no less true that other countries whose constitution had been inspired by that of the United States have turned into authoritarian regimes. Think of Juan Peron in Argentina or Getulio Vargas in Brazil. The authors insist that "democracy may be under threat worldwide" and anything that has long been taken for granted is likely to change.

As they say "democratic backsliding today begins at the ballot box" because what we are noticing today is that it's no longer just about violent coups d'état and a man who takes power by force and arms, it's also about elected men who dismantle the democratic regime from inside. It is a series of seemingly innocuous elements that make us wake up one day in a country that has become a dictatorship. In fact, the constitution is still in force, elections continue to be held, the press and citizens express themselves. This imperceptible erosion of democracy is often accompanied by the approval of established institutions such as courts of justice, the constitutional courts or the referendum that give their formal approval to authoritarian reforms So, the written rules of the American constitution are still solid but what threatens democracy is the erosion of democracy’s informal infrastructure : unwritten rules or basic norms like mutual toleration and institutional forbearance.

Mutual toleration refers to "as long as your rival play by consitutionnal rules we accept that they have an equal right to exist, account for power and govern”.It’s the idea to consider the other as legitimate as yourself

Institutionnal forbearance means “the action of restraining from exercising a legal righ”.

In a society where the opposing camps treat each other as enemies, nurture the fear of the other and justify acts of violence and limitation of individual rights in the name of preserving democracy, then it tends to become autoritarian and repressive.

In order to identify those who could be authoritarian Ziblatt and Levitsky are inspired by the work of Linz in his book "The breakdown of democratic regimes" written in 1978 and released a litmust test. The first indicator is the rejection of democratic rules of the game (in words or action). The second is the deny of the legitimacy of political opponents. The third is the toleration or encouragement of violence and the fourth is the readiness to curtail civil liberties of opponents including media. However, these criteria remain a little vague and insufficient because other attitudes that denigrate the democratic spirit are not included. Example of the Bush administration’s control over Congress , federal jurisdictions and the Supreme Court. In fact, the President has the right to decide alone at the domestic and international level, and he practically gives orders to the other two branches, telling them what they must do (vote this law) or not to do (review the appeals of Guantanamo Bay prisoners)…

But before we ask ourselves how to prevent the authority of a man in power, we should ask ourselves how to keep them out of that power. That’s what gatekeepers do and America’s best gatekeepers are the political parties, and the idea for keeping authoritarians out of the political game is to thwart them in the ranks of their own parties. It can be realized by what we called in US political jargon “a smoke-filled room”, where a decision-making process is initiated by elite party leaders. They choose the candidate who will run to the national office without regard fort the will of the people : the majority. This ”invisible primary” kept Lindbhergd, Huey Long, Henry ford and George Wallace out of power. But the smoke-filled room are long gone and the world has changed and we do not have a system of elites making decisions for people now.

Obviously the opening of the presidential nomination process, facilitated the arrival of oustider in the competition, that is unknown personalities of the political sphere, without experience or established program. Two very effective weapons come into play when we skip "the invisible primary" (The period between when a candidate announces their bid for public office and when the actual primaries take place) : money and fame. The most recent example: it‘s about Trump who didn’t need the support of the Republican party because he had already established a name in the public sphere, multiplying controversies and scandals.

The time has come to apply the litmust test to Trump in light of everything that has been said before. As the authors show, Trump meets the four key indicators of authoritarian behavior. And for good reason: he cries fraud when it comes to the electoral process, he cries criminal when it comes to Hillary Clinton, he cries support when it comes to encouraging violence. And above all, he completely denigrates the press and threatens to undermine freedom of speech.

Elire a demagogue with anti-democratic ideas can slowly but surely lead to the dismantling of democracy by "capturing the referees" first (In politics it’s replacing judges by loyalists for example), then sideline other players such as media and opposition and finally changing the rules of the game in favour of the new regime in place (reforms, new laws).

This is also where the role of the citizen comes in when an authoritarian

...