Book Review: How Democracies Die: Five quotes that stand out.
Democracy is a means for people to choose their leaders and hold them accountable for their policies and conduct in office. And since its advent in ancient Greece almost 8000 years ago — Democracy has evolved into the most acceptable form of governance around the world — with more than 6 out of 10 countries registering as Democracies. Guided by the principles of the Rule of Law, Separation of Powers, and Freedom of Expression and choice, democracy's popularity stems from its ability to create a system of government that provides a voice for all through dialogue across different religious, ethnic, and political boundaries.
However, in light of recent activities, where a deeply polarized and divided world, has arisen democracy has taken a massive dent in its credibility. Far-right movements in much of central and Western Europe emerging. Donald Trump and his mobilization of radical elements in America. Leftist movements emerging in the developing world in places like South Africa, as well as the deeply polarized situation in Zimbabwe. All this turmoil across the globe could leave one thinking that Democracy is fast becoming a failed experiment.
Such polarization is usually the reason for the fall of any system and recently I was able to read a book entitled how democracy dies written by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt. In this poignantly written and in-depth analysis of various jurisdictions across the world, the writer does an expert job of explaining just how the system of democracy can quickly deteriorate if certain principles are not followed and safeguarded.
Map detailing some of the Far Right Movements gaining traction in Europe.
In this piece, we detail five quotes that in my opinion could greatly assist in ensuring that solutions to the problems we face politically can be found without the current political climate deteriorating into chaos much like how it did in the 1930s.
Quote One. “the most effective coalitions are those that bring together groups with dissimilar even opposing views on many issues”- Considering the fact that democracy is based upon the ideals of ensuring that the views of wider society are considered in decision-making, it does not really help when wider society cannot even speak to each other, to begin with. Compromise equates to reassurance and if people with differing opinions and beliefs cannot sit together and establish a consensus for the greater good, then the whole entire system of democracy is undermined.
This is especially true of American and British politics as well as in Zimbabwe where it is increasingly difficult for individuals on opposing lines to sit down and reach a consensus on any issues. Gridlock in Brexit negotiations, the longest government shutdown in American history, and the deeply divided political atmosphere in Zimbabwe are all testament to that.
Failure to bring groups with differing opinions together almost certainly leads to chaos, mass protests, and civil unrest that makes a state almost next to ungovernable. This can lead to implications that can have far-reaching problems for any country politically, socially, and economically. Imagine a no-deal Brexit all because the British parliament could not agree to come together and bring forward a decent solution! NO! In any situation, one should be able to put differences aside and look to seek a consensus so as to ensure that productivity is guaranteed for all.
Quote Two- “ It is difficult to ask the people to sacrifice themselves for freedom and democracy when they think that freedom and democracy are incapable of giving them food to eat or preventing the astronomical rise in the cost of subsistence”- When the economy is struggling, the people always look for radical political solutions to try and move them out of their poverty. A prime example of this would be the development of Nazi Germany in the 1930s which gained traction after the Great Depression that crippled the US and Europe in 1929. With people subject to present necessities, any sort of change no matter how irrational seems to be a much better move and this can often lead to democracy being undermined and a breeding ground for radical leaders to emerge.
It is no coincidence that extremist views are coming back ten years after we are still dealing with the Aftermath of the 2008 global financial crisis. If people lose faith in the ability of a democratic government to provide for them then, they will look for any way to be able to survive and sometimes it ends up with radical leadership present at the helm.
Quote Three-” False charges of fraud can undermine public confidence in elections”- If a candidate declares themselves the victor before election results are even announced and continues to claim to be the president of a country even after they have been defeated, it usually tends to sabotage the very democracy they claim to represent. Prime examples of this, are Venezuela, Kenya, and Zimbabwe where opposition leaders announce the results of elections before the results are released. Subsequent chaos ensues when they do not turn out the way they had announced and a curtailment of the democratic institutions and the ideals they claim to represent is enacted through their folly. It is like claiming to be a loyal husband when you are seen walking out of a brothel by your wife.No!
If an individual does not have any solid evidence and bases all of their claims on innuendo it usually ends up in anarchy. The public then develops a spirit of distrust and subsequently, it would make it next to impossible for the elected government to execute its mandate. One should ensure that there is always a fact check before anything is made public otherwise we are merely paying lip service to democracy and its core principles.
The same rule would apply to those in power, that arrest opposition leaders on baseless accusations, conduct voter intimidation, and undermine judicial processes through consistent interference in judicial affairs. The latter is usually the norm in developing democracies and would subside with time as the authors themselves illustrate through the use of an example established within the fledging United States of America. The prime example highlighted in the book is that of the Allen and sedition act which was created to legally punish mere political opposition in 1798 and the ferocious partisan conflict that existed between federalists and Jeffersonists. However, as democracy matured with time these occurrences became less and less as its rules became accepted as part and parcel of the furniture.
Quote Four-” Think of democracy as a game that we want to keep playing indefinitely to ensure future rounds of the game, players must refrain from either incapacitating the other team or antagonizing them to such a degree, that they refuse to play again tomorrow. If one rival quits, there can be no future games”- Democracy usually infers a multi-party system ―when operating in a democracy you need to have some sort of respect for the opponents ―acknowledge their legitimacy, and be gracious in victory, or in defeat. It doesn't mean one would have to like their opponents, on the contrary. However one should always maintain a certain amount of respect for the opposition because without them the democracy they claim to love would not exist. The polarizing nature of modern-day politics does not even allow for this. Opposition leaders and supporters cannot even be in the same room with each other, let alone respect each other.
A prime example is in the US whose political discourse is now dominated by venomous and disparaging verbal exchanges between opposing camps instead of constructive dialog and debate. Chants of lock her up at a rally, CNN’s seemingly overly biased negative reports against Donald Trump, and Fox’s love for all things republican and dismay of anything pertaining to the Democrats have meant that respect for rivals has become almost nonexistent. And yet people expect democracy to continue to survive, good Luck!
The more these polarizing views are shared by media networks, the more supporters of various parties become deeply divided and the more democracy dies. So it is an absolute imperative that mutual respect for opponents no matter how much we do not like them is maintained, cause like I said the democracy we all claim to love would not exist without them.
Quote Five (Main Takeaway)- “Polarization can destroy democratic norms when socio-economic, racial or religious differences give rise to extreme partisanship in which societies sort themselves into political camps whose worldviews are not just different but mutually exclusive, toleration becomes harder to sustain”- As expressed in the first part, if people within society hold mutually exclusive beliefs with regard to politics and matters of state, then democracy becomes almost next to impossible to try and maintain. Already occupying ourselves in mutually exclusive camps, infers warfare on its own, and is the reason for all the protest and division we see throughout the world, Venezuela being the biggest example of note so far. Without dialogue it makes any consensus next to impossible to reach, undermining the biggest major key for democracy. We should always remember that without tolerance, of differing political views inevitably war will ensue so openness to new ideas must be maintained and we should always look to reach a consensus, lest the world we live in descends into anarchy.
