American Elections: Is American Democracy Really “Dead”?

I read ‘How Democracies Die’ with great interest because, as a title, it questions the survival of American democracy, a topic that is becoming hotter today than the presidential election. The United States whose focus is on is none other than the current President Donald Trump, a man who breaks the system and can disrupt American democracy (?).

The book is very elaborate, full of data, information on topics about how to organize elections in the United States, about the process of authoritarian institutions in many countries. Thanks to authors Steven Levitsky, Daniel Ziblatt, they are two Harvard political researchers.

These are some of my comments on the book.

One is a book that exposes a model of authoritarian leader that Mr. Trump meets almost all the criteria (threats from the media, demands for the imprisonment of political opponents …).

Unfortunately, this is not a pre-existing model, but it was built after Trump moved into the political arena. Readers may think that the authors are building a model in which Trump has many points to conclude that he is an authoritarian. This reduces the conviction of the conclusion.

Second is the book on the process of acquiring power and becoming dictator / cruel of many world leaders from Chávez to Mussolini to Hitler.

The fact that the book parallels and compares the ways of Trump and other notorious dictators coming to power may suggest a similar scenario. This appears to be the gimmick of a political document rather than a purely objective research book.

Third, because it was written in 2018, the book has not fully looked at the progress of Trump’s term. The authors are also very responsible in concluding that Mr. Trump only has signs of becoming an authoritarian, not of exercising it (for example, the press is still above the freedom to criticize Trump …). Then we can observe more to complement the authors’ judgment.

My own observation is that, until now, Trump never intended to build a separate system of media and power (such as the Gestapo or Goebbels style) to become truly authoritarian or authoritarian. .

Trump simply paused at the threats out of his mouth and on Twitter. Frankly speaking, these threats are also a bad thing for a leader of a democratic country. And although they are not systematic, Trump’s methods can strain society and reduce containment of extremist groups.

Fourth, from what I can tell, there is still a VERY DIFFERENT gap between concerns about Trump and the idea that democracy can die in America.

In this sense, it must be said, the fact that the Power Room and even society have been continuously and vehemently criticized Mr. Trump without any difficulty. What’s more, the other branches of power remain more powerful than ever to control even the possibility of bringing down Trump.

Furthermore, Trump does his best, only powers within the reach of his executive, for example not having the power to dissolve parliament.

While Trump may be the strongest representative, he is not the first to have less constructive ways, such as distorting opponents, less cooperation between parties (one of the signs of a democratic recession, according to authors). These practices predate Trump on both sides.

Most importantly, and occupying many pages of books, the authors question the failure of the initial Republican selection mechanism that resulted in the candidacy of someone like Trump and, ultimately, is the president of the United States.

However, the authors must admit that such a preparatory mechanism would not be democratic in its infancy if it were too strict, and history has been volatile in both parties because of the candidates themselves. because they had the confidence of the people and were rejected by some big ears of the republicans or democrats.

Trump fought from day one and won. That is what the authors also acknowledge.

At this point, you can see the most negative angle of view that the projection mechanism has left a mess.

But a positive perspective, supporting Mr. Trump, or even more objectively can see that Mr. Trump is the most powerful representative of democratic America, the will of the people is more fully expressed through the elections. America, a free America, in constant change and adaptation.

If the most negative see Trump as a problem, it is clear that the United States is also the pioneer.

Isn’t it the very democratic electoral mechanism (which some fear is dying) that just drove a black president, Barack Obama?

Since when did we break with the spirit of daring to do, dare to say otherwise, dare to start in politics? Since when do we break with the spirit of change that can come not from the cumbersome system, but from a group of two, even an individual? And that individual in this case is Mr. Trump.

Finally, the last part of the book looks at one of the reasons for polarization in American politics, which is skin color. A growing number of black voters were voting for Democrats and white voters on the Republican side.

The book takes a fairly fair view of the responsible contribution of both parties to the formation of polarization.

Although I do not fully share the solutions given, I fully agree with the authors about the seriousness of the problem and the need to solve it with solutions to gradually improve economic and social conditions. community associations are neglected, regardless of skin color.

The authors also proposed political solutions, including the need for Republicans to go out of reach to serve only their white community. With this I agree. But for whatever reason, the authors seem to disagree that Democrats should also cut policies that favor only communities of color.

I think both parties should be more involved in the other community. Or maybe it will be a third party job, perhaps a future of American democracy that is changing and adapting every day?

Post to page Facebook personal of the author, who currently lives and works in the UK.