Chapter One: The Theories of Democratic Breakdown

2021 ◽  
pp. 7-21
Keyword(s):  
2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 1092-1094 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sheri Berman

Among the many scholarly attempts to reckon with the causes and consequences of Donald Trump’s rise, few have attracted popular attention on the scale of Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt’s How Democracies Die. Seldom do books by political scientists make it onto the New York Times best sellers list, but this one has, a testament to its broad influence. Levitsky and Ziblatt situate Trumpism within a broader comparative and historical context in order to assess its similarities to and differences from democratic breakdowns elsewhere, particularly in Europe and Latin America. Their broad argument is that modern slides into authoritarianism are not the result of revolutions or military coups, but rather the consequence of a steady erosion of political norms and the assault on such fundamental democratic institutions as an independent judiciary and a free press. In short, contemporary democracies die not as a result of men with guns attacking from outside the system, but rather because elected leaders from inside that system slowly undermine them. Judged from this standpoint, the authors argue that American democracy is now in real danger, and they offer a range of suggestions for saving it. How convincing is Levitsky and Ziblatt’s analysis of democratic breakdown, and how well does it apply to the American case? How useful are the solutions that they offer for rescuing American democracy? We have asked a range of prominent scholars from across the discipline to consider these questions in the present symposium.


Author(s):  
Agnes Cornell ◽  
Jørgen Møller ◽  
Svend-Erik Skaaning

A simple cross-tabulation of experience with minimalist democracy before 1918 and interwar democratic breakdown reveals a manifest empirical pattern: All the old democracies of north-western Europe and the former British settler colonies survived the interwar crises. Moreover, in Latin America the countries with democratic legacies experienced longer spells of interwar democracy. A subsequent statistical analysis demonstrates that the strength of the associational landscape is robustly associated with interwar patterns of democratic breakdown even when we control for a number of structural and institutional factors. Finally, both democratic legacies and the vibrancy of associational landscapes were strongly associated with deeper background conditions. These findings indicate that deeper structures shaped the baseline risk of interwar democratic breakdown, but also that it was the more proximate factors of democratic experience and vibrant associational landscapes, which translated structural conditions into either democratic resilience or fragility.


Author(s):  
Tom Gerald Daly

This chapter argues that Wojciech Sadurski’s work on the deterioration of Polish democracy suggests the Polish context may present a bridge between two key conceptual frameworks: democratic breakdown and democratic decay. In his 2019 book Poland’s Constitutional Breakdown Wojciech employs the term ‘constitutional breakdown’ to describe how the ruling Law and Justice (PiS) party has seriously degraded the democratic constitutional order since 2015. The concept of ‘breakdown’, which has a long pedigree, has fallen out of favour in contemporary literature on the deterioration of democracy worldwide, which rather emphasizes the decline of total breakdown and argues that slower, subtler dismantling of democracy is the dominant threat. This chapter explores the relationship between these frameworks by reflecting on why Wojciech frames the Polish experience as ‘breakdown’ rather than ‘erosion’ or ‘decay’, whether ‘breakdown’ literature offers useful insights beyond ‘democratic decay’ literature, and why Wojciech refers to ‘constitutional’ rather than ‘democratic’ breakdown.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document