Can Democracy Work?: A Short History of a Radical Idea from Ancient Athens to Our World

by James Miller

A new history of the world’s most embattled idea

Today, democracy is the world’s only broadly accepted political system, and yet it has become synonymous with disappointment and crisis. How did it come to this? In Can Democracy Work? James Miller, the author of the classic history of 1960s protest Democracy Is in the Streets, offers a lively, surprising, and urgent history of the democratic idea from its first stirrings to the present. As he shows, democracy has always been rife with inner tensions. The ancient Greeks preferred to choose leaders by lottery and regarded elections as inherently corrupt and undemocratic. The French revolutionaries sought to incarnate the popular will, but many of them came to see the people as the enemy. And in the United States, the franchise would be extended to some even as it was taken from others. Amid the wars and revolutions of the twentieth century, communists, liberals, and nationalists all sought to claim the ideals of democracy for themselves—even as they manifestly failed to realize them.

Ranging from the theaters of Athens to the tents of Occupy Wall Street, Can Democracy Work? is an entertaining and insightful guide to our most cherished—and vexed—ideal.

Genres: Politics, History, Nonfiction, Philosophy, World History, Social Issues, Government

320 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2018

About the author

Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name. See this thread for more information.

James Miller is a professor of politics and the chair of liberal studies at the New School for Social Research. He is the author of Examined Lives, The Passion of Michel Foucault, and Flowers in the Dustbin: The Rise of Rock & Roll, 1947–1977, among other books. He lives in New York City.

http://us.macmillan.com/author/jamesm...

Reviews

[Andrew · Rating 5 out of 5]

Can Democracy Work?: A Short History of a Radical Idea, from Ancient Athens to Our World by James Miller, is an interesting book chronicling the history of Democracy as an idea, and an examination of why some of the issues with democracy that exist today are present, and where they came from. Miller begins with the Athenian democracy, looking at the conflict between popular democracy that Athens championed for many years, with aristocracy/ rule by elite. Many famous Greek philosophers, such as Socrates and Plato, renounced popular democracy as unwieldy and foolish, and indeed the history of popular mobilization in Athens certainly does not discredit this theory. However, rule by elite was not always the way either - elites are corrupted, self interested and often autocratic.

Miller continues this analysis into the future, looking at budding democratic theories and movements from scholars like Rousseau, Paine, Marx, Robespierre, Woodrow Wilson, Huntington, and so on - up to the relatively present day. Topics such as populism, representative vs. popular democracy, and socialism are all present as well. Miller has basically taken the conflictions that make up our modern societies, and broken them down into there historical context and into basic definitions. He also has a knack for finding obscure scholars who have, at some level, made accurate predictions about current scenarios.

Miller's book offers no conclusions, save for the idea that democracy is not a fully developed concept, and the ideological dimensions of democracy are not fully formed either, and often in conflict. Ideas such as individualism and common do not always square away, for example. Miller's analysis of representative democracy (what most democratic states in the modern world possess) vs. popular democracy (rule by the mob, basically, where decisions are made by mass voting) is interesting. Miller posits that modern democracies are barely democracies at all. The only democratic decisions we really make as individuals are the elections of our leaders to represent us at the federal, and more local levels. All the decisions made in our name are done behind closed doors, and the public is often unaware of the deliberations or processes that go into developing policies until after the policy is implemented. Miller does nod at the press in many Western societies as a way to place checks and balances on closed doors policy formulation, but also shows that the press, and polling and other forms of public engagement are often unsuccessful and sometimes exploited.

This is a book, in many ways, that examines conflicting ideals, and offers little solutions, save for bringing them into a greater light and detailing and defining them (as my rating will attest, that is important). Miller has brought together a number of sources throughout history, from Ancient Athens, to the French and American revolutions, to the modern world, and from ideologically varied sources, both conservative and socialist, with everything in between. He has also critically examined these sources, and examined overlapping ideas and concepts that are present throughout democracies long history, culminating in a interesting final chapter relating to democratic societies, cultures, and the modern political phenomena we are experiencing today, often called populism. Miller shows that popular demand is not a new concept, and that disruptions of established practices may be frightening to the elite of a nation, but often represent the true feelings and desires of a large percentage of a population (whether misguided or not).

Miller has written an excellent examination of democracy, showing that many of the conflicts we are seeing today in our Western, democratic societies, and indeed in many other states deemed only nominally democratic (Russia, China etc.) are not new or unusual necessarily, but are an expression of various forms of control by competing elites, and the masses they rule over. These principles of control have existed, whether in theory or in practice, often times for centuries. They only come out through experimentation, mass disruption/revolution, or other disruptions. I could wax lyrical, suffice to say Miller has written a very compelling read on democracy, and one to be read by those looking for a more philosophical and historically grounded examination of democracy.

[Taveri · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was mostly a history of democratic endeavours, although the Swiss model was not mentioned, nor were explanations offered on what constituted a participatory or representative democracy.  The book questioned whether democracy could work and cited examples of how it didn't.  It didn't offer any suggestion to make it work such as legislation prohibiting representatives setting their own salaries.

Here are some things I got out of the book:

P27 Cleisthenes stipulated that a citizen could ony serve on the Council of 500 twice, nonconsecutively.  By combining rotation in office with a random selection process, the lottery nullified the corrupting advantages otherwise conferred in elections by wealth and family prominence.

P30 Any inspiring leader needed to court the common people and find ways to persuade them to take a concerted course... Success in this task required having ... talent as a persuasive speaker, a political tactician, or a military strategist.

P85 Condorcet's original draft .. new passage proclaiming insurrection to be "the most sacred of rights, and the most indispensible of duties.

Although the Jacobian constitution was quickly ratified by 1,784,377 votes (out of ~1.8 million) ... it was never implemented

P92 Benjamin Rush "All power is derived from the people but poritical power is not seated in the people.  They possess it only on the days of the election..."

P106 Walter Lippman "The American people came to believe that their Constitution was a democratic instrument, and treated it as such.  They owe that fiction to the victory of Thomas Jefferson ... if everyone had always regarded the Constitution as the authors did, it would have been thrown out, because loyalty to the Constitution and loyalty to democracy would have seemed incompatible."

P111 The number of eligible voters was increasing - but in 1828 only one million whithe men voted out of a population of nearly thirteen million.

P115 Tocqueville concluded democracy in America wasn't a sham; it was more like a true religion.  The system worked because people belived in it."

P123 problems could be solved if the USA made voting compulsary... consider treating the franchise as a civic duty and not a right.

P177 Wilson concluded modern democracy is government by popular opinion.

P207 regarding polls > data presented as part of a feedback loop mal in turn influence opinion (the bandwagon effect).  That is why publication of polls is outlawed in some European states...

P211 To this day, democracy as a form of government in most actually existing regimes is more a less a sham...

P218 John Adams had been right to warn that "there never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

P236 Democracy is broadly understood to mean the right to speak your mind, to be free from the arbitrary power of the state, and to insist that those who would govern must ask for your consent...

Robert Dahl proposed that a political regime must 1) all adult citizens the right to vote, 2) to stand for office, 3) to compete for votes, 4) elections to be free and fair, 5) citizens may form and join political parties or associations, 6) citizens can freely express opinions, 7) diverse sources of information are to be legally protected, and 8) government policies depend on votes and other expressions of public opinion.

It's not clear that the ISA met these basic requirements... empirical evidence shows that US elections do not produce a responsive government.

P238 In 2017, The Economist concluded that 49% of the world's popuration reside in some sort of democracy, though only 4.5% live in a full democracy.

P239 the USA tied with Italy being ranked 21st in the Economist index making it a "flawed democracy".

[Steve Erickson · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book manages something very hard - every example of democracy it gives, including present-day America, is partial, hypocritical and essentially aspirational, yet Miller defends the concept as something worth preserving, even if he points out that illiberal democracy seems to be the current vogue around the world.

[Cary Giese · Rating 4 out of 5]

Though he presents nothing really new about the experiment in “democracy”, however defined, since the Greeks initiated their version of direct democracy. The author reaffirmed his belief, based on his own experiment with Occupy Wall Street, that there is a size limit to the number of people that can participate in consensus governing, direct democracy.

Representative government, where elected representatives govern, is the only practical version of democracy that has worked, usually in a republican form, lead by an elected executive and separated powers.

The author documents some serious problems; primarily the fact that citizen’s faith in the elected leaders, especially legislators, has fallen significantly!

In his coda, his final theme, he extensively quotes Vaclav Havel, the Czech leader of the 1989 Velvet Revolution (And whom I met, being introduced by Senator Gary Hart) as follows: “the very difficulties facing modern democracies will episodically lead to this temptation: people will conclude that public life, viewed realistically, is chiefly the manipulation of power and public opinion, and that morality has no place in it.”

Another of Havel’s quotes: “we will never build a democratic state that is based on the rule of law if at the same time we do not build a state that is humane, moral, intellectual, spiritual and cultural.”

Another: “people need to hear that it makes sense to behave decently to help others, to place common interest above their own, and respect the elementary rules of human coexistence.”

Havel, the father of his country in many ways, saw the problem clearly in 1989!

Compare that to Hayek in his 1960 book “The Constitution of Liberty,” where he states “that the entrepreneurs who grow rich by not being subject to coercion by government have no responsibility for others in the society.” (See my review)

Therein lies the core debate; how does a society continue to progress, while at the same time also placing the interest of all of society as the primary responsibility of all of us?

Can it be done?

My comment, the answer lies in establishing trust (trust being the most valuable capital of all), by listening to each other, by being truthful, by finding solutions, by working together, and by managing those solutions effectively!

These are the things we are not doing! The author remains hopeful, mainly out of blind trust in our country’s ability to overcome our current circumstance because we have overcome before, but he is worried!

So am I!

I recommend the book for all readers interested in democracy’s future.

[Carl · Rating 5 out of 5]

I recommend this title highly to anyone interested in politics. Covers the history of democracy from classical Athens, thru the American & French Revolutions, to the communist world & beyond. Explores the shifting meanings of the term democracy & the inherent contradictions therein. Very well written & informative. However, as you might guess, if you didn't know the answer to the question "Can Democracy Work?" when you began the book at page one, you'll find that you still don't have the answer at the finish.

[Michael Dean Edwards · Rating 5 out of 5]

Parallel Lives and My Review

“Can Democracy Work? A short history of a radical idea from ancient Athens to our world”, by James Miller, gains top honors for thoroughness and reliability. The author’s deep knowledge, like my own, comes from personal experience dating back to the 1960s and more recently with Occupy Wall Street.

In my review, I will trace those parallels. So, let’s begin with a summary of my own work and experience in democracy and the media.

My interests in democracy and self-governance began at the age of 12 when I started to attend Sunnyvale city council and city-board meetings. I also authored a report for the city, “Youth in Government,” 1968. Between the ages of 14 and 25, I worked on two dozen political campaigns as a precinct walker, youth leader, and as campaign headquarters staff and office manager.

So democratic processes form a core part of who Dean Edwards is. Along the way I also began training as a journalist at my community college.

As an activist, I worked as a media representative for the anti-Vietnam War Movement at both my community college and in the University of California system, excluding UC-Berkeley. At that time my activism centered on local events while attending the University of California at Davis. As noted earlier, I also performed some system-wide media-coordination work.

From an early age I began accumulating experience in government service at the local. and state levels, including volunteer work in the California State Assembly, 1967-1970. I continued on as a media intern for State Senator George Mosconein in his Calif .State Senate, majority-floor leader’s office. Later, as a media representative during the early to mid 1990s for the Green Party of California, I continued to follow a parallel tract to Miller’s.

A decade ago, while James Miller was at Zuccotti park, with OWS, our paths finally converged. This time i served as a media coordinator for Occupy Oregon and worked closely on the international team with OWS, Los Indignados—from Spain, and the broader Occupy Wall Street Movement.

My interests and work drew on my education in political science, De Anza College, and UC-Davis, BA 1975, plus a later technical communications AA, and additional studies in journalism back at the community college a generation ago. My specialty comes from studies on democracy, democratic movements, along with a concentration on and continuing interests in African history and politics.

Miller was definitely to my left as a member of Students for a Democratic Society, SDS. His studies and life’s experience provide readers with insights about activism for and about democracy over the past two-and-a-half millennia.

The broad nature and appeal of the Occupy Movements covered the political spectrum, were distinctly process oriented, and nonpartisan.

Today my lifelong media and democracy interests continue. Beginning in July 2013, I became the international-coordinating editor for Democracy Watch News. Recently our news organization received approval as a 501c3 nonprofit global-news service.

Now, let’s return to my review of Miller’s labor of love, “Can Democracy Work?”

He begins with a thoughtful and thorough, yet concise, review of Athenian democracy, and picks up with the English colonies in North America, then the French Revolution, and onto the early days of the new American republic. I recommend careful study of his work. Readers will not be disappointed and will, no doubt, come across details previously unencountered.

When he moves into and through the nineteenth century, Miller integrates the Atlantic world of the United States of America and Europe. He includes details about France, the UK, Geneva, Italy and Germany, with some introductory observations about Russia. The Russian part is coming, but first, we hear from working-class philosophers, Marx and Engles.

Moving forward, a curious thing takes place early in the twentieth century. Despite definite friction and sharp disagreements over economics and class struggle, the century begins with both Woodrow Wilson and Vladimir Lenin as firm supporters of democracy. Then, 1905 became a pivotal year and things got interesting.

More on other European countries and the USA followed. Miller turned his focus to the Russian Revolution and the Bolsheviks with their dictatorship of the proletariat. Then readers watch as the revolution transforms into a dictatorship over the proletariat led by new elites.

Once again, Miller surprises readers, revealing new facts and perspectives. For instance, Pres Wilson included a socialist on the US team at the peace negotiations for the treaty of Versailles.

He may omit some information, but maintains a focus on facts relative to the democratic experience. Later, with Occupy Wall Street, Miller’s accounts reflect experiences of participants in the OWS general assembly and working committees.

He left out the role of Carolina with Los Indignados, who drafted “The OWS GA Declaration, but that is a small point. He also has little to say about the international movements and their global collaborations. In fairness, those fall outside of the scope and purpose for his outstanding study.

My intent in writing this comparative review has been two-fold. first, I wanted to share a story of two paths meeting in the woods, and we, we together, “took the road less traveled by, and that has made all the difference.” Second, I hoped to introduce the readers to the reasons why I, in particular, am so impressed by his work, albeit without spoilers.

Miller provides a lifetime of experience on the left, and yes, he knows what the term actually means! He does this in a voice that invites understanding and builds appreciation for the broad values and meanings of “what democracy looks like.”

Five Stars for “Can Democracy Work?” Miller’s book complements another great study by a fellow New Yorker, Prof David Stasavage, author of “The Rise and Fall of Democracy.” Taken together, readers will come away with a deeper appreciation of longstanding and world-wide struggles for democracy from the ancient world to our own.

[Jenna Spinelle · Rating 5 out of 5]

In this book, James pulls together a ton of history in a clear an compelling way. I had the opportunity to talk with James about the book and really enjoyed our conversation: https://www.democracyworkspodcast.com...

[Sholto Marti · Rating 1 out of 5]

The worst book I have ever had the displeasure of laying my eyes upon. What an insipid and cowardly work, with a defence of "democracy" about as strong as the so-called democracy it upholds. A work that is too afraid to express support to those revolutionaries who pushed the boundaries of democracy (it decries the Chartists, for crying out loud), yet seeks to reap the benefits of historic compromise in the form of liberal-"democracy". Perhaps it could be forgiven for its abject failure to detail the social and economic conditions, the material reality, which shaped democratic ideals and their place in history (it focuses purely on the way in which ideals shaped these conditions) if it weren't so damn boring and devoid of sincere political passion or interest.

Truly, a work that could only be made by the type of man who wrote it - one who held in his hands a revolutionary democratic light as a young student, and let it die as he became old and complacent - retaining only the academic status it helped cultivate him.

[Steve Matthews · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting romp through the history of thought and efforts to establish direct democracy in governments and institutions. Clearly direct democracy and even more so, direct democracy based on consensus, is unworkable in all but the smallest of organizations and frustratingly inefficient even in those. The flaws and dangers of republics are also illustrated, but, are there any better alternatives?

[Petar · Rating 4 out of 5]

Disclaimer – I received an ARC of this book via Netgalley in exchange for an unbiased review.

James Miller set himself quite a task with book. A history of democracy as a concept and its practical application in the real world. It is a massive subject, and Miller himself acknowledges that this is not an exhaustive history both in the text and in the title (A Short History of a Radical Idea), but he does an admirable job covering some of the most significant events and people in the history of democracy.

Before getting into this review I will say that my Kindle experienced a brain fart when I was about half way through the book and I lost all of my electronic notes up to that point. There’s something to said for ye olde pencile and papere.

Right from the start Miller sets out some of the inherent contradictions in democratic theory and practice. He states, for example, that contrary to the theory, democracy in practice, combined with free market economics, has led to increasing inequality while those who govern have become increasingly remote from their constituents and give the impression of being controlled by a hidden political elite. In spite of this, democracy holds an almost universal appeal, even within the most extreme authoritarian states; even North Korea calls itself a ‘Democratic People’s Republic.’

The bulk of Miller’s history traces the evolution of democracy in the United States from the time of the American Revolution; and Europe from the French Revolution, though the first chapter is dedicated to the democracy of Ancient Athens.

Athens practiced a form of direct democracy where all eligible men (and only men) would be selected at random to serve on a large (some 500 people) governing council. Service on the council was uncompensated and no-one could serve for more than two, inconsecutive, terms. Miller claims that this form of direct democracy helped to make Athens the pre-eminent city-state in Ancient Greece, but also contributed to its ultimate defeat in the Peloponnesian War. Indeed the problems with Athens’ democracy, as Miller sets them out, can, to some extent, also be seen in modern representative democracy; demagoguery, excessive litigation, political grandstanding, the polarisation of the ‘demos’ (or the people). Similar forms of direct democracy have been experimented with in the more recent past such as in the Paris Commune of 1871 and the Occupy movement in the US in 2011.

Miller goes on to track the development of democracy in Europe and the US, and, what I found most interesting, some of the main players in the development of political theory such as Thomas Paine, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Nicolas de Condorcet, Karl Marx, Walter Lippmann and Samuel Huntington, among others. It was very interesting reading about how these great minds of history defined how they saw democracy and comparing it to how democratic societies have developed over the last 250 odd years.

The ultimate question at the heart of this book is, what actually constitutes democracy? Do the people need to be directly involved as they were in Ancient Athens? Is modern representational democracy a true democracy? Miller doesn’t answer these questions, but leaves them open for the reader to decide. What is certain, however, is that democracy today is markedly different to what the French and American revolutionaries of the 18th Century would call democracy.

Of course with a subject this broad there are some omissions, but I think that is largely unavoidable. The unification of Italy for example, is only briefly touched upon, as is the Roman Republic which must surely be viewed as the earliest of representational democracies in spite of the inherent class divisions in that society. The most glaring omission, however, is probably that of Magna Carta. Certainly the Magna Carta did not usher in a new democratic era in England, but it is seen as a foundation stone of constitutional and parliamentary government in Great Britain and, by extension, Commonwealth countries around the world. It has also informed the creation of many countries’ constitutions, including the USA.

Ultimately this is an excellent history of democracy both in theory and in practice. Miller’s writing is concise and engaging. His depth of knowledge and the extent of his research make him a compelling writer. Highly recommended.

[YvE · Rating 3 out of 5]

It is quite lenghty and I wish he would come to his point more directly. It goes for my taste (and I like history) a bit too much into it, without drawing conclusions. I wish there was less enumerations of historic events and more philosophical talk (as I bought it from a philosophy not history section). However, i also understand that its hard to keep the right balance between the both, as they go hand in hand.

[Joseph Spuckler · Rating 4 out of 5]

Can Democracy Work? A Short History of a Radical Idea, from Ancient Athens to Our World by James Miller is a history of democracy in its various forms throughout history. Miller Miller is an American writer and academic. He is known for writing about Michel Foucault, philosophy as a way of life, social movements, popular culture, intellectual history, eighteenth century to the present; radical social theory and history of political philosophy. He currently teaches at The New School.

Democracy* is a term that has been used for so long and in so many ways that it has lost its meaning. North Korea claims to be a Democratic People's Republic. Russia is an authoritarian regime with superficial democratic fringe. Greece is the so-called cradle of democracy, but how democratic was it really? What percentage of the population were allowed to participate? Positions of authority at times were chosen by lot since elections were seen as corrupt. Even today, in America, elections are about money. LBJ was successful because of people in Congress who owed him favors. Political machines tainted American democracy.

America's founding fathers were not in favor of democracy and looked to the Roman Republic as a source for stable government rather than Athens. The original federal government was small and did little compared to day's government. Democratic types of government work best in small groups. In large groups mob rule and the tyranny of the majority are likely to take place. Divided government slows the actions of mob rule somewhat. Major events can still trigger rapid action. 9/11 triggered a piece of legislation called the Patriot Act. Legislators admitted not reading it before voting for it. This would not have happened without the act of terror. It created a type of "mob rule" or general will, as Rousseau would have called it, that bucked the system of government.

Miller also includes one of the maligned Western political thinkers, Machiavelli. Machiavelli was a republican and believed in representational government and more importantly, he believed in citizen militias. If the citizens had a stake in their government they would be willing to defend it. Inclusion into governing has been debated limited and expanded and limited again. White (or native) men who held land were usually given the right to vote. Sometimes military service was also a condiction. Does expanding the number of voters help or hinder the selection of a good leader. Would a larger pool of voters or a small pool of educated land-owning voters provide better results? That question still haunts the idea of democratic rule.

Leaders in France, England, and Russia are also looked at in the historic sense along with American leaders like Andrew Jackson. Our current president is a fan of Andrew Jackson and the two do have much in common.  Miller, in a well-cited work, discusses the history of democracy and its various forms in mainly in Athens, France, and the United States.  Many misconceptions and inaccuracies are cleared up as well as detailing the French revolutions.  Well written and extremely informative.  



*Democracy used in its widest sense to include direct democracy and representational democracies. Likewise, small "r" republican is used to describe a supporter of a republic, representational democracy.

[Roger Smitter · Rating 5 out of 5]

While this book is more suited for the classroom (and advanced courses, for sure), the book is one that should be accessible to all citizens. Miller takes some time in the opening pages to explain “democracy” in terms that limit how we use the word while also explaining governance in a democracy. While the ancient Greeks maybe had the only true democracy, the author quickly shows us how few people were allowed into the arena of that time. Demoracy had its birth in European thinkers but came to full bloom in the US. He wants us to shed the idea that policitics should NOT be talked about everywhere, including the family meal. He also spends considerable time deconstructing the 18th century times in France, where democracy failed. We learn about President Andrew Jackson, the first “ordinary” leader of our country. He also explains how the study of Karl Marx gives us insights into themes of the book. There’s a (short) reference to Trump before he ends the book with a summary of the work of Vacaville Havel.

[Joe · Rating 3 out of 5]

In 2016, America elected a corrupt, elderly, serial sexual predator, who may have been cognitively impaired and may have been a Russian asset to the Presidency. Four years later, we rectified this mistake by replacing him with a corrupt, elderly, serial sexual predator, who was definitely cognitively impaired and may be a Chinese asset. That's Democracy!

Miller points out that every democracy eventually morphs into a Republic starting with Athens. He celebrates that the right to vote has expanded, not just in the West, but throughout the World. He takes a pro-democracy stance. It is a good overview and worth the read.

My problem with the book is the unexamined assumptions. For example, maybe democracies and democratic republics work better with a limited franchise. If someone cannot or will not pay, say a $50.00 poll tax, maybe they shouldn't vote. And look at my opening paragraph. If that's democracy, we may need to rethink the basis of our government.

[Patrick Obregón · Rating 2 out of 5]

It seems that the author tries to follow Foucault by elaborating a genealogy of democracy. The question is deeply interesting. Can democracy work? The author, however, rapidly changes it into another question, which is what is the (multiple) origin (s) of the idea of democracy? Sadly the only interesting aspects of the book are the questions. By exploring this idea the author analyses different times and places where the idea of democracy emerged but ignores several. If one is studying the idea of democracy, what about those places in which this form of government was imposed? How have these societies developed? Moreover, he brings lots of unnecessary details which do not symbolise anything relevant. While reading the book one ends up thinking, am I really reading something about the idea of democracy?

[Douglas E. Dyer · Rating 5 out of 5]

Comprehensive Analysis of Democracy in its Many Forms

I highly recommend this book to all peoples of this world who aspire to realize the full potential of democracy, as well as its limitations. Miller's research encompasses extensive sources that are cohesively incorporated throughout and documented in a uniquely styled annotated bibliography and reference list. As a student of history and current affairs, I thought I knew something about democracy. As I read Miller's work, I discovered the depth of my knowledge was uncomfortablely shallow. I think this may also be true for many others.

[Mario · Rating 3 out of 5]

This seemed more like a collection of case studies than a linear history of the idea of democracy, but chronicling the history of an abstract concept probably made writing a linear narrative difficult. Miller does a decent job of showing how democracy interacts with economies, class standing, socioeconomic status, the media, and (to some degree) race. It gave me a few things to mull over, but also seemed to contain a lot of unnecessary filler. I would have liked to see Miller focus more on some areas and less on others, but no book meets everyone's expectations completely.

[Chris · Rating 4 out of 5]

This deep look into the history of various expressions of democracy has been an eye-opener for an American who is a student of history and has faith in the “system”. The realities of the past are head-scratching and frightening, while helping to confirm some of the recent concerns I have developed while working in local / municipal government. A very interesting, encouraging and personally challenging read.

[The Inquisitive Biologist · Rating 5 out of 5]

Compulsively readable, Can Democracy Work? is primarily an enlightening history of democratic governance and the many very different shapes this has taken in different times and places. See my full review at https://inquisitivebiologist.com/2019...

[Mike Stolfi · Rating 3 out of 5]

An excellent review of history lessons past & realizing how much I'd forgotten.
As to the question, well, Democracy is a process, an ideal that may never be realized & it's currently been taking some lumps, but it's never over. . .

[Bill · Rating 2 out of 5]

Got distracted by the author inserting his personal educational experiences that formed attitudes into the narrative. Not that he might have found this valid but it was just too intrusive......

[Edward Sullivan · Rating 4 out of 5]

A concise, compelling, and convincing intellectual history.

[Valerie · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5. Interesting, short read.

[Val · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5. A nice little book.

[Geoff Walling · Rating 3 out of 5]

Does a nice job of explaining the differences between the many varied forms of democracy. Never really answers it's own question.

[Anthony Zacharzewski · Rating 4 out of 5]

A decent overview of a huge subject - but also doesn’t give a clear line on the question, or how we make it work.

[Dana · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great content. A bit of a challenge to read given the ideas, complexity, depth. Really liked the Coda: Who Are We?

[Cristie Underwood]

The author did a great job of demonstrating the strengths and weaknesses of democracy in different parts of the world and in history. I found this to be very informative.