Old democracies usually don't fail, therefore democracy in the U.S. isn't in trouble, isn't a very convincing thesis.
Influential voices in academia and the media contend that democracy is in decline worldwide and threatened in the US.
Using a variety of measures, I show that the global proportion of democracies is actually at or near an all-time high; that the current rate of backsliding is not historically unusual; and that this rate is well explained by the economic characteristics of existing democracies.
I confirm that breakdowns tend to occur in countries that are poor, have had relatively little democratic experience, and are in economic crisis. Extrapolating from historical data, I show that the estimated hazard of failure in a democracy as developed and seasoned as the US is extremely low — far lower than in any democracy that has ended in the past.
Some suggest that undemocratic public attitudes and erosion of elite norms threaten US institutions, but there is little evidence that these factors cause democratic breakdown. While deterioration in the quality of democracy in countries such as Hungary and Poland is itself cause for concern — as is the reversion to authoritarianism in Russia and Turkey — alarm about a global slide into autocracy is inconsistent with current evidence.
From Daniel Treisman, "Is Democracy in Danger? A Quick Look at the Data", paper prepared for presentation at conference on “Democratic Backsliding and Electoral
Authoritarianism,” Yale University, May 4-5, 2018 (linked draft dated June 7, 2018).
Black Swans
Black Swans
Outliers happen and unprecedented things happen all the time. Treisman might be well advised to read "The Black Swan" by Nassim Nicholas Taleb.
Complancency
Complancency
Moreover, a democracy can be in a dangerous time and only saved if we are not complacent, even if it does ultimately survive by dint of the efforts of people who recognize the risk and take aggressive and active steps to address it.
Is The Democracy Really Developed And Seasoned In The US?
Some parts of the U.S. have a much longer history of healthy democratic governance than others.
In many of the states where concern about democratic principles under Trump is weakest, that history isn't there.
In the American South, the franchise was particularly restricted prior to 1865, because the substantial proportion of the population that was enslaved had no vote, and neither did women, and neither did free white men who didn't own property which many sharecroppers didn't. There was a regime change in 1861 and in 1865 when the Confederacy surrendered, there was martial law for a period of time during Reconstruction. (This study doesn't even treat the U.S. Civil War or subsequent period of martial law in parts of the U.S. as a democratic break down.)
When Reconstruction ended, voter suppression denied the vote to perhaps 80-85% of black voters and a dominant party system in which the Democratic Party controlled every significant legislative body and every significant executive branch office throughout the region, remained in place for 90 years, that is, about three generations of de facto one party rule through the Civil Rights movement. The Republican Party wasn't actually banned. It could field candidates and hold meetings, subject to occasional KKK disruption, but it was as irrelevant in the South as the Libertarian Party is, or Green Party is, in today's two party system.
So, the South has only had any real semblance of full fledged democratic government for half a century, and even that experience has been fraught. For example, the are counties in Georgia in which all local government is run by a single elected county commission, elected at large, who has unilateral and complete legislative and executive branch power, and voting rights for all remain an ongoing problem, for example, in Florida, where felon disenfranchisement laws deprive a disproportionate share of black voters from voting in one of the few states that could be competitive between Democrats and Republicans.
Similarly, Utah was denied statehood until 1896, and has likewise had a dominant party system that is in practice little different from a one party state, for most of its history since then.
The weak tradition of democratic governance in large swath of the U.S. is one reason, among many, that democratic governance is less developed and seasoned than it appears.
Is The Democracy Really Developed And Seasoned In The US?
Some parts of the U.S. have a much longer history of healthy democratic governance than others.
In many of the states where concern about democratic principles under Trump is weakest, that history isn't there.
In the American South, the franchise was particularly restricted prior to 1865, because the substantial proportion of the population that was enslaved had no vote, and neither did women, and neither did free white men who didn't own property which many sharecroppers didn't. There was a regime change in 1861 and in 1865 when the Confederacy surrendered, there was martial law for a period of time during Reconstruction. (This study doesn't even treat the U.S. Civil War or subsequent period of martial law in parts of the U.S. as a democratic break down.)
When Reconstruction ended, voter suppression denied the vote to perhaps 80-85% of black voters and a dominant party system in which the Democratic Party controlled every significant legislative body and every significant executive branch office throughout the region, remained in place for 90 years, that is, about three generations of de facto one party rule through the Civil Rights movement. The Republican Party wasn't actually banned. It could field candidates and hold meetings, subject to occasional KKK disruption, but it was as irrelevant in the South as the Libertarian Party is, or Green Party is, in today's two party system.
So, the South has only had any real semblance of full fledged democratic government for half a century, and even that experience has been fraught. For example, the are counties in Georgia in which all local government is run by a single elected county commission, elected at large, who has unilateral and complete legislative and executive branch power, and voting rights for all remain an ongoing problem, for example, in Florida, where felon disenfranchisement laws deprive a disproportionate share of black voters from voting in one of the few states that could be competitive between Democrats and Republicans.
Similarly, Utah was denied statehood until 1896, and has likewise had a dominant party system that is in practice little different from a one party state, for most of its history since then.
The weak tradition of democratic governance in large swath of the U.S. is one reason, among many, that democratic governance is less developed and seasoned than it appears.
No comments:
Post a Comment