Conservative Parties and the Birth of Democracy

Cambridge Studies in Comparative Politics

by Daniel Ziblatt

How do democracies form and what makes them die? Daniel Ziblatt revisits this timely and classic question in a wide-ranging historical narrative that traces the evolution of modern political democracy in Europe from its modest beginnings in 1830s Britain to Adolf Hitler's 1933 seizure of power in Weimar Germany. Based on rich historical and quantitative evidence, the book offers a major reinterpretation of European history and the question of how stable political democracy is achieved. The barriers to inclusive political rule, Ziblatt finds, were not inevitably overcome by unstoppable tides of socioeconomic change, a simple triumph of a growing middle class, or even by working class collective action. Instead, political democracy's fate surprisingly hinged on how conservative political parties – the historical defenders of power, wealth, and privilege – recast themselves and coped with the rise of their own radical right. With striking modern parallels, the book has vital implications for today's new and old democracies under siege.

Genres: History, Politics, Political Science, Nonfiction, Academic, World History

439 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 2017

About the author

Daniel Ziblatt is Professor of Government at Harvard University, and served in 2014 as Interim Director of Harvard University's Minda De Gunzburg Center for European Studies. His research and teaching interests include democratization, state-building, comparative politics, and historical political economy, with a particular interest in European political development.

Reviews

[Lorcan Neill · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a difficult, academic read but is well worth the time and effort. Ziblatt masterfully untangles why democratic governments need healthy, robust conservative parties. That’s not what we have in America right now and that’s bad. Highly recommend this book to anyone interested in conservatism, European history, or democratic backsliding.

[Conor Duffy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Intriguing concept, excellent writing, backed by rich data.

I was turned to Ziblatt's book out of a new-found concern for the quality and integrity of conservative parties in contemporary democracies. What I found was a brilliant work of comparative history that, as any good history book should, has me itching to read up further on the subject.

Ziblatt's thesis - that the organizational structure and electoral strength of conservative parties is a critical factor in determining the health and long-term survival of a new democracy - is intriguing and perhaps counter-intuitive at first. However, a very convincing argument is given, first in broad terms, then in fine details in two case studies of Britain and Germany. Ziblatt bolsters his arguments with empirical evidence throughout. Archival sources, secondary scholarship, empirical data and statistical hypothesis testing are all employed to defend key assertions. While this last element may be daunting for some, Ziblatt fully explains the models he uses and what the findings mean in accessible terms, as well as providing the raw results for those of us more studied in the area. The result is a strong and well-supported argument that also takes you through the story of democracy's rise or fall in two very different nations.

Ziblatt concludes by bolstering his arguments with brief considerations of three more cases - Sweden, Spain and France - that all support his thesis, then finally turning to more contemporary examples in Latin America and the Arab Spring that help generalize his findings and demonstrate their modern relevance.

For those interested in the history of democracy, this is a must-read. For those, like me, worried about the state of conservatism in contemporary democracies, there are important and sobering lessons within. And for those more generally curious about the historical period of the 19th and early 20th centuries in Europe, there is much in this book for you too. Top rating for a brilliant piece of scholarship.

[Peter Mabee]

I kinda like it when a book makes me reconsider my opinions. In this case, I had believed that a divided Republican Party (with some credit due to Mr Trump) would be a good thing in that it would accelerate the arrival of a more liberal America. But instead, it seems that conservatives are now more and more likely to resort to extra-constitutional means of holding on to power eg gutting the voting rights act, storming congress, extreme gerrymandering, refusing to concede their loss, etc.

This new book gave me some insights into why I might have been wrong. The question the author asks is why some countries in Europe followed a relatively steady path to universal suffrage over the last 200 years, compared to others where democratic rule was rejected at key moments. This shift in historical and geographical context is pretty enlightening.

The author argues that strong, effective, united conservative parties are of critical importance to sustaining democracy because they give powerful minorities the hope that they can win elections at least some of the time and protect some of their interests. And that healthy conservative parties act as a bulwark against right wing anti-democratic extremism.

England is the canonical case of slow and steady progress on democratization supported by an exceptionally electorally-effective conservative party. British conservatives even managed to convince (manipulate?) a lot of people into voting conservative when it seemed contrary to their interests. Similar story in Sweden and others. Germany is the poster child for the divided, squabbling conservatives who couldn’t deliver the votes and then in desperation themselves further opened the door to the extremism, which was invading the power vacuum on the right, by legitimating it.

I find it uncomfortable, but the lesson here might be that liberals are better off keeping hope alive among conservatives rather than driving them to despair.

[Raja · Rating 4 out of 5]

There's a reason that the conservative parties in democracies-that-were-not-formerly-colonies are largely royalists, so it's intriguing to ask what made them come along with the whole democracy thing to begin with. tl;dr when they (conservative and landed elements of society) have a robust political party and see themselves being able to compete in a democracy and/or preserve their privileges through countermajoritarian institutions, they go along, and when they don't, they blow the whole thing up. Chilling implications for today. I did skip the chapters on the Germans, though

[Kaan G · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ziblatt’s approach to explaining democratization evaluates the performance of a democracy by looking at its entire lifespan. He argues that the survivability of a democracy at any moment can be better predicted if the entire lifetime is considered. This distinction is essential as it highlights not only the processes through which democracies emerge, but also how they persist or falter over time, acknowledging that democratization can follow various paths in the long run. Ziblatt highlights the importance of institutions when evaluating the “cumulative” history of a democracy, and defines a settled democracy (eg, Britain, Belgium, Norway, Sweden…) as those who did not face a structural failure as democracy development expanded over time, particularly between 1848 and the 1950s. In contrast, unsettled democracies (eg. Spain, Italy) experienced turbulent pauses to democratic development.

In Britain, the development and the highly organizational nature of the Conservative Party led to a stable democratic trajectory. The Conservative party in Britain was also faster in innovating and developing its organizational logic and structure than its other competitors. It was able to attract the middle class and working class through institutions like the Primrose League.

In contrast, German conservatives could not create organizational structures in response to the rising socialist and working-class movements. Ziblatt argues that because universal male suffrage came without a mass party organization for the case of conservatives, unstable tactics such as “informal electoral manipulation and collusion” took a dominant role in such ecosystems, which resulted in a much weaker conservative party.

In Britain, the expansion of suffrage challenged the traditional conservative base of aristocrats, creating a need for a wider electoral coalition with the ability to draw support from the middle and the working classes. Expansion of the electorate in 1832, 1867, and 1884 contributed to the shift in political dynamics. There was also a growing Conservative movement, which mainly consisted of members primarily associated with the Anglican national Church, realized the need for institutions to survive in the politically changing atmosphere they found themselves in and found the solution in creating cross-class alliances, particularly with the creation of the Primrose League. PL quickly adopted a variety of professional instruments to inspire confidence within its intended audience, including the introduction of journal The Tory and a meritocratic system to govern itself, creating a mass organization that could attain mobilization from its supporter base in an attempt to counter liberal threats, which served as a factor that motivated the conservative party construction.

Zibblatt successfully conveys that in the early 20th century, party organization allowed “semi-loyal” elements to be contained. It managed to successfully counter the anti-regime threat by the Ulster Unionists by keeping them interested in choosing democratic methods. In addition, party agents, the central office, and local associations created a virtual monopoly over any potential ground that could have Nazi sympathisers.

Although there was significant socioeconomic growth in Germany, which could serve as a barrier to democratization if insufficient, the conservative party did not develop in Germany. SDP had a robust party organization that stretched across the nation. In contrast, the German Conservative Party lacked the party organization required to keep the median voter in the ideological space it hoped to achieve.

The weakness of the German Conservative Party was further enhanced by the compensation mechanism it had to make up for the weak party organization; the Agrarian League(BdL), which financed and provided logistical support to the Conservative party in exchange for endorsement by the Conservative MPs gave the BdL massive influence over the conservative party’s rural districts.

In the 1930s, the political vacuum created by weak conservatives left a spot for far-right, extremist groups to flourish, which fed on the political and economic instability. Internal divisions, such as the Empire Crusade that took place in Britain at the end of the 1920s, but the conservative party successfully eliminated insurgent movements. The efforts of the conservative party served as the “most effective obstacle to all extremist groups in interwar Britain” according to Ziblatt.

[Jake · Rating 3 out of 5]

The thesis of this book, that daniel uses a lot of statistical machinery to back up, is that democratic health is a function of tricking autocrats to play democrats. that thesis leads you to the conclusion that it was the crisis of the lanyards to prevent hilter for instance from coming to power. in some respects I find this argument obvious but I'm not sure that daniel quite understands the argument himself. throughout this book he shows that the more corrupt a conservative political party was in various countries the more long term stability it showed. His prime example was to show England vs Germany during the same time period. From looking at his analysis it would seem obvious to me that goes the other way. More stability meant the parties had the ability to pull backdoor levers, not the other way around. to me autocrats are going to exist as long as we allow them to so they might as well hold political office and battle the left to see what ideas wins out with the people.

[Todd Davidson · Rating 3 out of 5]

I feel guilty for 3 stars because it is so well researched. The research is 5 stars but the readability is low--unless you want a very rigorous read.

It is dense and I skipped a lot of the methodological explanations. Probably just read a summary article and you'd get the main points.

[Jakub Lupták · Rating 4 out of 5]

very much on the academic side so was a bit of a slow read. but interesting case for the need of well organised parties of pre-democratic elites ensusring survival of transition to universal suffrage

[Herb Neumann · Rating 4 out of 5]

It would be difficult to improve on the publisher's blurb. The extensive footnotes expand on the text without disturbing the flow. Identification of primary sources, secondary sources and various appendices, when coupled with the footnotes, are roughly equal in volume to the text. He acknowledges many people and institutions who aided and encouraged him in his research and writing.