Crises of Democracy

by Adam Przeworski

Is democracy in crisis?

The current threats to democracy are not just political: they are deeply embedded in the democracies of today, in current economic, social, and cultural conditions.

In Crises of Democracy, Adam Przeworski presents a panorama of the political situation throughout the world of established democracies, places it in the context of misadventures of democratic regimes, and speculates on the prospects.

Our present state of knowledge does not support facile conclusions. We should not believe the flood of writings that have all the answers.

Avoiding technical aspects, this book is addressed not only to professional social scientists, but to everyone concerned about the prospects of democracy.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Political Science, The United States Of America, Social Science

250 pages, Hardcover

Published September 30, 2019

About the author

Adam Przeworski is the Carroll and Milton Professor of Politics and (by courtesy) Economics at New York University. Previously he taught at the University of Chicago, where he was the Martin A. Ryerson Distinguished Service Professor, and held visiting appointments in India, Chile, France, Germany, Spain, and Switzerland. A member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences since 1991, he is the recipient of the 1985 Socialist Review Book Award, the 1998 Gregory M. Luebbert Article Award, the 2001 Woodrow Wilson Prize, the 2010 Lawrence Longley Award, the 2010 Johan Skytte Prize, the 2018 Sakip Sabanci Award, and the 2018 Juan Linz Prize.. He recently published Why Bother with Elections? (London: Polity Press 2018).

Reviews

[Matt · Rating 3 out of 5]

First and foremost, a large thank you to NetGalley, Adam Przeworski, and Cambridge University Press for providing me with a copy of this publication, which allows me to provide you with an unbiased review.

At a time when some fear the erosion of democratic ideals, Adam Przeworski expands on some of his past arguments to show that there certainly is some foundation to a democratic crisis taking place. Before diving in, Przeworski seeks to have the reader understand some of the central tenets of ‘democracy’ and ‘crisis’, allowing for a better understanding of the argument. Hashing out a relatively transparent definition of both terms, Przeworski moves forward to explore some historical examples of democratic erosion, from its cause through to the outcomes. This discussion looks both at cases when outside sources influenced non-democratic behaviour (refusal of substantial elections), as well as those instances that fall within the machine of democratic happenings (electoral victories for a rival party). Przeworski argues effectively that erosion of democratic means are not always the result of nefarious goings-on, though the aftermath can sometimes lend itself to that form of rule. After looking at the past, Przeworski explore some modern examples and reasons for a democratic crisis in the world, including the rise of parties that seek the far-right sentiments of the political spectrum. Be it those who espouse xenophobia or a suspension of any support mechanisms to help the greater society, Przeworski is detailed in his discussion about how such a drastic pendulum swing can gain momentum by seeking to ‘find democracy again’ for a select group, while completely bastardising it for the larger whole. What is to be done in these cases? Przeworski and some others that he cites seem to feel a need to use the ballot as the greatest weapon to evoke change. While history has shown that the coup is, at times, the only way to overturn a government that strays away from active democracy, it is also not ideal if trying to foster democratic stability. While the tome did present itself as academic in nature, the arguments and layout did lean themselves to layman comprehension. A good piece for those who are in touch with democratic systems and enjoy political history.

While I am aware I get my ‘geek on’ when it comes to books like these, I can see the worthiness of the topic and the importance of the discussion. Przeworski uses not only social science studies, but some events grounded in history to make his points. He does so in a rational manner and does not fly off the handle when it comes to pushing his points to the reader. There is not only written substantiation, but also a number of tables to show how the arguments tie together, permitting Przeworski to make his point to the patient reader. While the book does come across as an academic study, it is not written in such a high-brow style so as to isolate the layperson with a general interest. While this is the case—and I am aware that reading an ARC, I should not be talking about the book’s layout—there was a troublesome presentation to the book in its pre-published electronic form. Tables were not presented clearly for a strong exposition of the valid points being made and that did lessen the impact for me. I love seeing something in black and white, where numbers tell the story. Przeworski and the publisher are surely not to blame for this, but I would be remiss if I did not bring it up. With easy to follow chapters and a style of writing that educates without drowning in minutiae, Przeworski delivers a strong tome and one that will be of interest to many. That being said, as soon as something of this nature is written, its facts are skewed by an ever-active world. Przeworski does admit the 2016 Presidential Election in the United States fuelled his interest in this topic, but effectively argues that this was not a harbinger to a generation of democratic crises. The world is surely in a transformative place politically, though I am not yet worried about the complete erosion of all I hold dear. Check in with me after 2020 and we’ll reevaluate.

Kudos, Mr. Przeworski, for this intriguing look into democracy and political goings-on when it comes to world affairs. I may have to come back to this piece again in the future.

Love/hate the review? An ever-growing collection of others appears at:
http://pecheyponderings.wordpress.com/

A Book for All Seasons, a different sort of Book Challenge: https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/...

[Matthias]

Crises of Democracy is a failure, but an interesting and instructive one. The author, accomplished neo-Bernsteinian Adam Przeworski, has a crisply logical style, appropriate humility in making predictions ("especially about the future," as they say,) and mastery of the literature. Instead, its failure points to that of the discipline (his of political science, mine of historical sociology) itself.

This failure is embodied in the chimeric structure of the book itself. Taking an admirably multimethodological approach, Przeworski examines several case studies of democratic failure or survival, then he looks at existing trends, then he offers some a priori rationalist analysis of when factions should find it reasonable to act within constitutional bounds, then he shrugs and says he's cautiously pessimistic and has no idea. None of these are bad, but what disturbs, and justifies Przeworski's upturned shoulders, are the degree to which past case analyses prove unhelpful for dealing with present concerns.

Each of the case analyses offered at the beginning concerns an acute crisis within the political sphere, which was either distinctly averted or distinctly not so. In the familiar case of 1930s Germany, rightists used constitutional means to declare a dictatorship; in 1970s Chile, political leaders formally willing to strike bargains and play within the constitutional system could not restrain their supporters, and constitutional dispute provided rightists in the military cover to simply impose economic and political dictatorship; in 1950s France, De Gaul resolved a political impasse by acting as a dictator in the Cincinnatus sense - coming in, imposing order, then leaving in short order to a reconstituted republic; in 1960s America, Nixon broke the law, then insisted it was metaphysically impossible for him to break the law, then resigned, in both senses, to ignominy. All of these concern vacui jurum at the top of the political system amid widespread spontaneous violence at the bottom, and which are resolved in the installation, or not, of a personal dictator. Military leaders play crucial roles, if only in not acting. This "constitutional crisis" model could be applied with as much facility to Mussolini's 1925 declaration of dictatorship, the 1975 Australian "Dismissal," and numerous - but, crucially, far from all - positive and negative cases of regime change.

As I've argued elsewhere, America's disputed election result ultimately had more in common with recurrent conspiracy theories concerning American elections (Diebold, birth certificates, Russian hackers, whatever) than a real constitutional crisis... but with a closer result and an equally immoral but more competent incumbent, it could have been otherwise. Future regime changes, or lack of them, could occur in various directions. The constitutional crisis model may still be apposite.

But what Przeworski looks at in his long-term trends is quite different. Two factors stand out: first, sluggish growth combined with increasing income inequality have combined for decades, producing, for the first time ever in the modern West, popular and reasonable perceptions that lives will not improve in generational terms. Second, intermediary institutions - most importantly unions and parties - are in decline.

Previous episodes of polarization and ideological struggle - for and against democracy, and for and against various things democracy or other regime types could achieve - happened in the context of institutionalized politics. The Catholic Church, the labor movements, the military, and various parties penetrated and organized social life in a way that our "bowling alone" society can hardly approach. People today are divided and bitter and ideological, but when they are so, they are so as part of a hobby institutionalized, to the extent that it is at all, through individual media consumption. Spectacle replaces struggle.

Przeworksi notes that elections must have something, but not too much, at stake - too little, if people feel that voting makes no difference and the system is not responsive to their concerns; too much, if the losers would understand the result as an existential threat. What he might have added is that the trends - trends which, to be sure, have been exaggerated - from economic conflict polarized along property ownership lines to cultural conflict polarized along education lines results in stakes that are simultaneously too much and too little. Too little, because living conditions are placed outside of the bounds of political discussion; too much, because every election is phrased as a threat to and struggle between not plans of action but between the legitimacy of identity. Distributional conflicts, because they are quantitative and consequentialist, lend themselves to at least the possibility of compromise, where every leaves equally dissatisfied; cultural issues almost always present themselves as a fight between non-negotiable rights. And while in an age of growth these economic compromises could be made less dissatisfying by the belief that the battle over the next pie would be bigger, no such possibility exists today. This pessimism might be even more acute were we to face up, as quickly as we need to, to the fact that the "true" price of energy needs to be much higher than the market prices it.

Przeworski accordingly places much more concern on chronic rather than acute subordinations of democracy, such as that pursued by PiS in Poland. But even this seems to me too much of a narrowly political, in the sense of focusing on the formal structure of the state - what the long-term trends reveal is increasing weakness in not just democratic government but democratic society. The old totalitarian models which so inform our imaginations of the "negation" of democracy were in fact models that presumed a highly mobilized society in which ordinary people pressured, informed, delegated, and were embedded in civic and organizational life - a mirror of democracy's ideological vision of its own ideal self. The populist radical right, when it tries to offer what Viktor Orban proudly calls "illiberal democracy," is following this model, if not the totalitarian or even traditionally authoritarian political structure. But if growth continues to be sluggish and its concentration unabated, and civil society hollowed out, what may threaten democracy may not be parodies of it but something more redolent of the premodern world, with its frank hierarchies, clientelism, and resigned acquiescence more from skepticism that things could be anything different than active ideological endorsement. Diagnosing - and, perhaps, avoiding - something like this is not something which our traditional historical analyses of democratic politics may be well suited.

[Jamie Bee · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thought-Provoking Book about the Past, Present, and Future of Democracy

If you are concerned about the state of democracy, both in the United States and in the mature democracies of this world, you will not find quick answers and immediate solutions in this book. Indeed, the title of the book shows its focus, that is, crises and disasters. This book looks at the past and current crises of democratic states to give us context for what is happening around us and give us a snapshot of the modern state of democracy. He does go into some detail describing both crises and democracy in the introduction before delving into democracy’s somewhat perilous and full-of-strife past. I found his discussion of the vulnerabilities of democracy and the two conditions that most threaten it, unbridled and inherently unequal capitalism coupled with theoretical political equality and the quest for political power, particularly enlightening and much food for thought. He then goes on to talk about current events in modern democracies that could be considered crises. Given the troubled history of democracy, it is easy to follow the thread that shows us how we got to where we are. What is less clear is how we move on in the future, though the author does give some thoughts on the future of democracy. In the Trump and Brexit era, many books are taking a deeper look into these events and what may have brought us to this place, but I appreciated the author's willingness to simply present facts (and opinions) and ask insightful questions. The book is certainly thought-provoking, and I think it is an important book for those of us who care about democracy and our future to read.

I received a free copy of this book, but that did not affect my review.

Read my other reviews at https://www.readingfanaticreviews.com

[Tristan · Rating 3 out of 5]

No country is immune to democratic backsliding, despite what proponents of a forgotten American Dream may argue. Przeoworski explores the catacombs of democracy wherein the remnants of individual political agency are but tokens of yesterday’s utopia.

[Hope · Rating 3 out of 5]

Crises of Democracy written by Professor of Politics, Adam Przeworski could not have been written at a more critical moment in our contemporary political climate. All around the world, it seems that large political shifts are occurring, the results and effects of which we are yet to learn. Whether it is the rise of Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, the volatile riots and inequality in Chile, or Trumpism in the U.S.A., it seems that a shift towards right-wing and extremist politics is in motion. Even if I look to my own homeland Australia, and the government’s refusal to listen to the Australian people concerning refugees or climate issues (just to name a few issues) shows there is a disconnection and discontentment with democratic practices. But what does this mean really for us? Sadly, Przeworski is no mystic. He cannot predict the future political outcomes of our times, but he can ask us to think critically about our political climates on a local and global scale.

Przeworski asks his readers to think critically about the current socio-economic-political climate. Furthermore, he asks his readers to contextualise current political trends with previous political outcomes from the fall of the Weimar Republic in Germany to Chile’s dictatorship. History doesn’t always repeat itself, but it does rhyme.

Before looking at how Przeworski unpacks past political crises concerning the present, it is first important to briefly address how he defines both ‘crisis’ and ‘democracy’. He keeps his definitions simple and tries not to add adjectives to his definition of democracy for fear of overcomplicating the term, and for the purpose of his academic exploration, I believe he is right. “Democracy,” Przeworski states, “is a political arrangement in which people select governments through elections and have a reasonable possibility of removing incumbent governments they don’t like.” To add to this, “democracy is a mechanism for processing conflicts. Political institutions manage conflicts in an orderly way by structuring the way social antagonisms are organized politically, absorbing whatever conflicts may threaten public order, and regulating them according to some rules.” Democracy is based on fair elections through the votes of civilians. However, what happens if there are cataclysmic differences between the values of those voting?

The word ‘crisis’ stems from ancient Greek meaning ‘decision’. Some crises are chronic, and others are acute. Some institutes, capitalism, for example, is considered impervious to crises in the sense that it is a self-correcting systems. A crisis in regards to politics is a breakdown of the traditional and generally accepted definitions and rules of that institution. A crisis forces people to make decisions that will change the direction and outcomes of thing being impacted. Crises in democracy occur when there is a break down in democratic practices, namely when voting is compromised, when governments cannot function and/or absorb public conflict productively, and/or when a person or group takes over politically which disables the country from overthrowing them through safe non-confrontational means.

“The specter that haunts us today, I believe, is the last possibility: a gradual, almost imperceptible erosion of democratic institutions and norms, subversion of democracy by stealth, the use of legal mechanisms that exist in regimes with favorable democratic credentials for anti-democratic ends.”

History is sadly a treasure-trove of democracies in crises. Przeworski gives a few major examples of democracies that have been in crisis, some of which were able to recover and avoid major catastrophe, and others that were not so lucky. What is always important to remember about historical discussions of political crises is that it is very easy to see ‘how’ everything went wrong afterwards. Hindsight is always 20/20.

One of the most common ways for democracy to find itself in crisis is through a coup. Other ways are ‘backsliding’ which is a slow erosion of democratic rights are achieved through democratic channels. Presidential democracies are, according to Przeworski, more brittle and are the least stable in times of crises. Democracies with stable and strong economies are less likely to have crises, and if they do, these crises are usually solved peacefully. Inequality and power corruptions mixed with weak economies, however, are a recipe for crisis. With these in mind, let’s look at how democracies have fallen into crisis.

The most classic and obvious example Przeworski gives is the fall of the Weimar Republic in Germany and the rise of Nazism and Hitler. Hitler rose to power legally and democratically. He was able to exploit political policy flaws within the Weimar Republic, and his effects on German and world history echo to this day. Chile’s democratic fall came about after the leader, Allende, was not able to rule effectively and democratically. The military takeover, seen as a way to stop Allende from further political blunders turned into something more toxic and horrific than could have been predicted. And if we turn to current events in Chile, it is the fear and pain from Chile’s dictator past that is partly fuelling the events that are unfolding today.

France’s crisis from 1954 to 1968 was brought on by the Algerian war, or ‘Algerian Events’ as it was referred to in France. De Gaulle was elected in 1958, and he wanted to maintain Algeria as a colony of France. De Gaulle restricted press, the war created protests and conflicts on the street. However, Przeworski suggests that it was De Gaulle’s personality that prevented him from becoming a dictator. De Gaulle stated: “Would one believe that, at the age of 67, I will begin a career of a dictator?” In the end, the French government was able to come together and act decisively in the face of disaster, which resulted in the fifth French Republic was born.

The period of 1964-1976 in the U.S. was extremely volatile. The Civil Rights movement was in full swing, the Vietnam war was dividing the country, and the political assassinations of Martin Luther King and Kennedy destabilised democracy. The Watergate scandal with President Nixon and his administration was the peak of the crisis point for the U.S. at that time. Nixon’s administration tried to defend its power by all means possible: “sixty-nine of his supporters were eventually charged, and forty-eight were convicted of illegal acts related to the Watergate scandal, including two attorney generals, the chief of staff, three White House staffers, the Secretary of Commerce, and Nixon’s personal lawyer.” The system that was in place in the U.S. meant that the president couldn’t abuse his power for too long. Although, as Przeworski rightly asks: “the obvious counterfactual question is whether the institutional system would have counteracted the abuse of power by the president had Republicans controlled both houses of Congress.” Nixon resigned before he was impeached.

What is perhaps an overarching conclusion that we can make about these examples is that “conditions do not determine outcomes; actions of people under the conditions do.” The divide that we are seeing between right-wing and right-wing extremism and the left is concerning. When we have drastic differences in ideological notions regarding race, gender, and nationalism, it can lead to political crises. Other contributing factors to crises are the “decline of growth rates of the already developed countries; increase in income inequality among individuals and households and declining labor share in manufacturing; and decline of employment in industry and rise of the service sector, particularly of low-paying service jobs.” All of these factors impact each other in their own ways. For example, high immigration and low-income rates affect right-wing tendencies.

While it might seem alarmist to suggest we are heading towards a crisis, but looking at these examples from Przeworski, one can see a reason to pay attention and watch political developments closely. Although democracy is a pillar of our political world now, it is still extremely fragile. It isn’t something we should take for granted. As citizens, we cannot let disenfranchisement dictate how we vote or participate politically. While Przeworksi’s book is more academic, and I do believe that it has accessible themes and notions that are not impossible for non-academic readers to appreciate and understand. As always, share the reading love.

[Aureo Toledo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Uma boa adição ao debate sobre as crises das democracias liberais.

[Maria Javierre · Rating 5 out of 5]

Si quieres leer sobre política y democracia, Adam Przeworski es una opción perfecta.

En este libro, Przeworski habla sobre la crisis que la democracia está atravesando en la actualidad. No de esa que a todos se nos viene a la cabeza cuando pensamos en el fin de una democracia, con golpes de estado violentos y dictaduras repentinas; sino de aquella en la que, autoridades elegidas mediante elecciones, llevan a cabo medidas constitucionales con fines antidemocráticos y, de forma gradual y casi imperceptible, erosionan la democracia hasta que ya no hay solución posible.
Si quieres leer sobre política y democracia, Adam Przeworski es una opción perfecta.

Mediante un estudio del pasado, un análisis del presente y una predicción del futuro, trata de determinar cuáles son los factores que debilitan la calidad de la democracia y de qué forma se puede intentar frenar esta crisis.

En su investigación del pasado, explica las crisis que sufrieron las democracias de Alemania y Chile (países que pasaron a tener regímenes dictatoriales), y las de Francia y Estados Unidos (que, por el contrario, sobrevivieron a la crisis). A partir de estas experiencias, el autor trata de encontrar patrones que expliquen cuáles son las razones del fin de una democracia.

Cuando estudiar el presente, Przeworski expone las señales que nos indican que podríamos estar atravesando una crisis (erosión del sistema de partidos tradicionales, ascenso del populismo de derecha radical y disminución del apoyo a la democracia), explica cuáles son las causas potenciales (la economía y la división), y cuenta cuáles son las situaciones sin precedentes que estamos viviendo en la actualidad (tales como la nueva ideología que tienen los extremos, una menor creencia en el progreso intergeneracional, la disminución de la densidad sindical o la desaparición de las Fuerzas Armadas de la escena política).

Por último, realiza una predicción del futuro, en la que habla de la importancia que tienen las instituciones a la hora de regular los conflictos que puedan surgir en la sociedad (éstas dan estructura a los conflictos, pueden absorberlos, y los perdedores tienen que aceptar). Además, explica el papel que también ocupan las elecciones (gracias a éstas, los ciudadanos sustituyen la violencia por la esperanza, además de que también expresan su opinión y oposición entre elecciones).

Con todo, este libro me ha encantado. Lo considero un "must" para entender la ola que estamos viviendo en la actualidad, de erosión democrática y reducción de su calidad.

[Carlos Freitas]

Przeworski hesita em fazer previsões ambiciosas aqui. Nesse aspecto o livro fica num meio campo ambíguo, por um lado tentando identificar os sinais de que democracias podem estar em crise, por outro reconhecendo o grau de incerteza desse tipo de análise. No próprio prefácio à edição brasileira, o autor é franco em admitir que não previu a ameaça que Bolsonaro viria a representar.

De todo modo, alguns sinais são sim apontados. A renda per capita dos países analisados, maior do que a observada nos países em que no passado a democracia ruiu, é um bom sinal. A estagnação da renda da classe média nas últimas décadas é um sinal ruim. Há vários outros sinais, para ambos os lados.

Um ponto útil do livro é a descrição de como a ruína das democracias se dá atualmente. Não mais com grandes rupturas como no passado, mas sim por um processo gradual de deterioração às vezes bem difícil de identificar. Essa descrição casa bem com a análise de outro livro com tema parecido, o "Como as democracias morrem", de Levitsky e Ziblatt. A utilidade aqui é mostrar para que tipo de medida governamental que devemos ficar atentos: restrições ao direito de voto, alteração das regras eleitorais, controle, censura ou intimidação da mídia, controle da oposição, restrições na liberdade de expressão, etc.

Enfim, o diagnóstico é o de que há sim uma crise da democracia em vários países, pois como Przeworski define "o velho está morrendo e o novo ainda não nasceu". No entanto, é difícil de prever qual vai ser o resultado final dessa crise.

[Anatolii Miroshnychenko · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very interesting study focusing on the inner mechanics of democracy, which is viewed mostly as a conflict resolution mechanism. The author studies both the instances when democratic institutions succeeded (in resolving the conflict) and when they failed. 1933 Germany and 1973 Chile are studied in detail, but the author also addresses creeping deconstruction of democracy, which is happening now in many countries.
The study invites the question, if it is possible to do something to improve political system of liberal democracy, which, according to the author (if I understood his idea correctly), is working in most cases because of self-restraint of those possessing the power – out of noble motives or due to the fear of rebellion (which will happen if the opposition sees no reasonable chance to outvote the incumbents, who are usurping the power).
The author is of the opinion that existing system is the “least bad” of all possible alternatives, which implies that its proper functioning depends on subjective factors. I would disagree, in my opinion the standard design of the system can and should be improved through gradual meritocratization (which is mentioned by the author, but just briefly, by referring to supra-majoritarian and counter-majoritarian institutions – see P.5). Meritocratic selection (which can be introduced gradually) can be a valid alternative to party-based elections, especially with the view to the authors justified conclusion that party system is deteriorating.

[Bookoholiccafe · Rating 2 out of 5]

Adam Przeworski explains how the current threats to democracy are not ust political, in his book “Crisis of Democracy offers an outlook of the political circumstances during an era of well-known democracies.
Adam Przeworski’s audience are not only professional social scientist but also individuals who are concerned about the prospects of democracy.

While the Crisis of Democracy provides great deal of data to the readers It is said that the information can change meaning the accuracy and relevance according to the tie of reading the book.
I found it not an easy read for me.
Many thanks to Net Galley and the Publisher for sending me an advanced copy.

[Jennifer Corredera · Rating 4 out of 5]

Cómo llegamos a dónde llegamos. Qué nos trajo hasta acá. Cuáles son los descontentos que terminan de canalizarse en el fin de una época. Qué es la democracia hoy en día. Todo esto es explicado perfectamente por el autor. Recomiendo su lectura para una mejor interpretación del presente social y político que nos atraviesa.

[Eda Naz · Rating 4 out of 5]

“bu bir fikir birliği değildir ama kargaşa da değildir. sadece düzenlenmiş çatışmadır; öldürmeden çatışmaktır. oy pusulaları kağıt taşlardır.”

ikinci tur öncesi okumak doğru karar mıydı diye soruyorum kendime

[Rafael Duarte · Rating 4 out of 5]

Every time I write an essay, I keep coming and coming to this book. For political science, this book has excellent concepts (populism, functions of democracy) that make it a reference and a beacon for investigations into the problems that affect and are eroding democracies.

[Landon Young · Rating 3 out of 5]

Read this for class. Liberal garbage I fear. The paper I wrote for it was about how he doesn’t adequately explain the contradictions within liberal democracy. Was being pretentious but I do still agree

[T.J. Burns]

A must read! Top priority.

[Iakovos (Jake) · Rating 5 out of 5]

Must read. thought-provoking arguments about the future of democracy.

[Manuel Barahona · Rating 5 out of 5]

Escenarios en el devenir democrático

Una obra que traza una ruta teórico metodológica para el abordaje de la democracia y sus crisis a partir de un aparato conceptual preciso.

[Carmen Sanzo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Un libro muy ilustrativo e inquietante sobre lo que se nos viene encima. El capítulo sobre Alemania (1928-1933); Chile (1970-1973); Francia (1954-1962) y 1968 y Estados Unidos (1964-1976) es muy clarificador sobre algunos fallos de la democracia y es también excepcional el capítulo sobre el populismo, la subversión sigilosa o autocratización de la democracia que ya están entre nosotros. Un libro pesimista de un optimista bien informado. En ls situación actual no se puede ser otra cosa.

[Simon Banks]

Brilliant and authoritative book on how democracy can fail and how it can be lost by little steps.

[Rafael Nardini · Rating 5 out of 5]

O problema da interação entre as plataformas digitais e a democracia é um que anda por nossas conversas há alguns anos. Quase sempre nossa discussão o trata como algo que tem que ser resolvido pela Justiça ou por leis. Mas a questão vai além: não temos ainda boas explicações sobre o problema e como adaptamos as ideias sobre democracia e liberdade de dois ou três séculos atrás à nova realidade.
O professor Adam Przeworski define a democracia de maneira singela. "Democracia é um sistema no qual ocupantes do governo podem perder eleições. E, quando isso acontece, eles simplesmente vão embora para casa".
Essa definição sobre democracia traz uma condição indispensável para vigência plena e duradoura do regime: a confiança. Tanto entre os cidadãos como entre as instituições.
Para que a democracia se sustente, é fundamental que um político derrotado numa eleição confie que haverá um novo ciclo eleitoral e que, se assim desejar, terá plenas condições de se apresentar mais uma vez ao processo eleitoral.
Implica dizer, também, que os políticos devem confiar na transparência do processo eleitoral, salvo evidências cabais de fraude. Caso contrário, aos governantes de turno não restaria alternativa a não ser lançar mão de instrumentos - legais ou ilegais, pouco importa - para se aferrar ao poder e trair o mandato que receberam dos eleitores para ser exercido por tempo determinado. Seria o fim da democracia.

Trump x Obama

Confirmada a eleição de Donald Tump como presidente dos Estados Unidos, no dia 8 de novembro de 2016, o discurso mais importante não foi o do candidato eleito na noite da vitória, mas sim o de Barack Obama, na manhã seguinte. "O caminho que este país vem seguindo", disse Obama no Rose Garden da Casa Branca, "nunca foi uma linha reta. Fazemos nossos zigue-zagues e, às vezes alguns americanos pensam que estamos indo para a frente, enquanto outros acreditam que caminhamos para trás. Mas não há problema. A questão fundamental é que todos avançamos quando presumimos a boa fé de nossos cidadãos, porque sem boa fá, não há democracia vibrante e funcional".
Quatro anos depois, no que pode ser considerado o maior ataque à democracia norte-americana recente, Trump não teve a mesma honradez e espírito público de seu antecessor.

A Torre de Babel

A história da Torre de Babel é uma que pode nos ajudar a entender onde nos metemos. A verdade é que nossas sociedades se fragmentaram. Estamos nos transformando em dois países diferentes. E o pior, com duas versões distintas da Constituição, duas histórias completamente diferentes.
Esse fenômeno pelo qual o Brasil atravessa permite que temos três ou quatro histórias de contamos a respeito do que se passou aqui nos últimos dez anos. Histórias incompatíveis umas com as outras, em alguns casos antagônicas, que levam a compreensões tão radicalmente diferentes da realidade que qualquer conversa de torna impossível.

E como isso começou?

Vamos voltar no marco zero da transformação. O ano é 2009. Até lá, o que víamos nas redes sociais era o listar cronológico do que publicavam aqueles que escolhíamos seguir. Mas naquele ano, o Twitter incluiu o botão de retuíte, para compartilhar. E o Facebook pôs o botão Like. O número de curtidas e a capacidade de viralizar se tornaram a medida de avaliação de importância da internet social.
Essas plataformas foram quase que perfeitamente desenhadas para trazer a tona nosso moralismo e enterrar a nossa capacidade de reflexão. Você não precisa mais pensar. Agora, você só precisa julgar. Até porque, pensar dá trabalho.

As democracias só se sustentam em instituições nas quais a sociedade confia e nas histórias sobre porque formamos uma só nação. Quando nos partimos em grupos que deixam de ter uma história comum, deixamos de nos ver como povo único e interpretamos a ação das instituições de forma tão diferente que perdemos a confiança nelas. Assim, a democracia perde a base que a sustenta.

[Mariana. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Leí este libro en dos días, en el marco de una ponencia que estoy preparando, fui con reparos, no esperando demasiado de el, ha sembrado en mi la semilla de la curiosidad y de querer continuar el estudio del tema.

Me parece muy interesante un punto que desarrolla poco y justifica en el prefacio: ¿por qué personas que se pueden identificar con ideas progresistas de repente se encuentran inclinadas a ideas contradictorias y opuestas? Su respuesta es la misma que plantea Thatcher cuando pierde las ultimas elecciones donde se postula, habiéndose encontrado satisfecha que la vara se corrió tan a la derecha que los partidos de centro y de izquierda tuvieron que correrse si o si a posturas de derecha para hacerle frente en los comicios. Sin embargo, no me deja satisfecha como justificación. Claro, esto es solo una opinión en formación.

[Anderson Paz · Rating 4 out of 5]

Para Adam, a atual crise da democracia passa pelo populismo delegativo, aquele em que o povo delega ao governante os rumos do país. Esse populismo leva à destruição de eleições competitivas, restrições à liberdade de expressão e esfacelamento do Estado de Direito.
A democracia é, para o autor, o mecanismo de escolha de governantes e troca de poder pacífico. A democracia funciona quando conflitos políticos são processados dentro de parâmetros legais e institucionais. O objetivo da obra é analisar se a situação atual ameaça às instituições representativas. Crises da democracia é a deterioração das instituições e normas democráticas.
Na primeira parte, o autor apresenta experiências históricas de democracias que se consolidaram e ruíram. Para isso, seleciona como amostra 88 países com duas alternâncias de poder pacífico após 1918. A análise descritiva indica que a economia e desigualdade são importantes para manter ou não uma democracia e que democracias presidenciais são mais instáveis e propensas a cair.
O autor busca lições de como crises surgiram e foram ou não resolvidas na Alemanha de 1928-33, Chile 1970-3, França 1954-62 e 1968, e EUA 1964-76. E procura observar as condições econômicas, a história democrática, a intensidade das divisões sociais e a forma das instituições.
Na parte dois, Adam busca entender em que medida experiências passadas explicam o cenário atual. Sinais que vivemos uma crise da democracia: desgaste dos partidos tradicionais, avanço de partidos racistas e nacionalistas, declínio do apoio à democracia em pesquisa de opinião. E as causas sugeridas são: estagnação econômica e profunda desigualdade, polarização e hostilidade. A partir disso, Adam busca explicações para a direita radical e conclui que "as origens desse comportamento continuam nebulosas".
A última parte é sobre perspectivas do futuro. Nesse ponto, o autor trata de como a democracia funciona: instituições do Estado estruturam, absorvem e regulam conflitos conforme às regras. As eleições são a instituição mais importante para processar conflitos. Governos devem manter a ordem pública para implementar uma política estável.
Por outro lado, a destruição da democracia por retrocesso acontece por sub-repção, isto é, por meio de mecanismos legais e democráticos para minar a própria democracia. O efeito cumulativo do retrocesso precisa ser resistido. O autor acredita que a democracia vai sobreviver, mas que o descontentamento parece não ter prazo de validade.
Pontos positivos: pesquisa empírica e coleta de dados para sustentar algumas posições; honestidade ao reconhecer que "as origens desse comportamento continuam nebulosas"; texto agradável de ler.
Pontos negativos: o autor é bastante crítico ao autoritarismo de direita, mas nada fala do autoritarismo de esquerda no seio da democracia por meio do identitarismo; o autor sugere que a violência de 1968 na França não ameaçou a democracia; o autor rotula toda a direita como racista ao querer algumas regras objetivas para imigração. Em suma, o autor é fortemente crítico contra o autoritarismo de direita, mas de esquerda é um tanto quanto paciente.