Democratic Deconsolidation

Crucial reading:

What does it mean, in concrete terms, for democracy to be the only game in town? In our view, the degree to which a democracy is consolidated depends on three key characteristics: the degree of popular support for democracy as a system of government; the degree to which antisystem parties and movements are weak or nonexistent; and the degree to which the democratic rules are accepted. […] This empirical understanding of democratic consolidation opens up conceptual space for the possibility of “democratic deconsolidation.” In theory, it is possible that, even in the seemingly consolidated democracies of North America and Western Europe, democracy may one day cease to be the “only game in town”: Citizens who once accepted democracy as the only legitimate form of government could become more open to authoritarian alternatives. […] … It is at least plausible to think that such a process of democratic deconsolidation may already be underway in a number of established democracies in North America and Western Europe. […] … In a world where most citizens fervently support democracy, where antisystem parties are marginal or nonexistent, and where major political forces respect the rules of the political game, democratic breakdown is extremely unlikely. It is no longer certain, however, that this is the world we live in. […] … As democracies deconsolidate, the prospect of democratic breakdown becomes increasingly likely — even in parts of the world that have long been spared such instability. If political scientists are to avoid being blindsided by the demise of established democracies in the coming decades, as they were by the fall of communism a few decades ago, they need to find out whether democratic deconsolidation is happening; to explain the possible causes of this development; to delineate its likely consequences (present and future); and to ponder the potential remedies.

Considerable statistical evidence (provided in the paper) supports this alarmed conclusion.

(Drezner is nervous.)

Previously by the paper’s authors, Roberto Foa and Yascha Mounk, making the same thesis here, and here.

ADDED: At The American Interest: “The dark specter of illiberalism across the West is symptomatic of a deep and broad-based decline in confidence in democratic institutions and ideas that has been taking place for two decades. Champions of liberalism need to think hard about how to reverse this—and soon—because as Foa and Mounk point out, the floor could fall out from under our feet all at once.” (Systematic confusion of democracy and liberalism is to be expected at this stage of cultural ruin, but it’s still irritating.)

August 7, 2016admin 28 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Democracy

TAGGED WITH : , , , ,

28 Responses to this entry

  • grey enlightenment Says:

    The good news is that faith in democracy among millennials, both on the ‘left’ and ‘right’, is at lows . More and more people are realizing democracy, simply, does not work. It does a poor job allocating resources, leading to wasted money (such as failed attempts to spread democracy in the Middle East) . It is also to blame for Europe being invaded refugees

    [Reply]

    a Reply:

    ▬ „Democracy does a poor job allocating resources, leading to wasted money”

    Yes, vs. (Anarcho-)Capitalism, it does this.

    But vs. Fascism & Monarchism?

    Pretty sure there were some gigantic misallocations and wastes there. Revolutionaries couldn´t just get the people angry out of pure fabrication. I´m not sure their taxes were being wisely spent. Extravagant pseudo-royal degenerate parties filled with ridiculous luxuries?

    Maybe the Fascists spent money better than some monarchies and some or most democracies? I don´t know, but they anyway got wasted by getting into a ridiculous war.

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    disillusionment in democracy is one side being so close yet so far and the other about to go under for the third time.There’s no consensus only impatience they each want a thug to enforce their will.It’s unlikely but conceivable someone will emerge who can avoid triggering one side or the other,someone who can do that is likely the antichrist.

    [Reply]

    a Reply:

    Whatever.

    I´m taking a hot antichristian bath

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 7th, 2016 at 8:04 pm Reply | Quote
  • Barnabas Says:

    Never mentioned is how moves to elect a new people undermine trust in the system and lead to people casting about for alternatives.

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 7th, 2016 at 8:39 pm Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    Citizens who once accepted democracy as the only legitimate form of government could become more open to authoritarian alternatives.

    Or just get off the stupid ship altogether and put the aristocrats back in power.

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    Seriously brett ? who prince charles? Or shall we appoint a new aristocracy facebook boy, buffetfoon, The father of a billion africans gates?or the welfare case musk?If you want real actual nobles you will have to fight to war and see who they are. But you better find a better system than the last because it wasnt an accident they didnt survive

    [Reply]

    a Reply:

    If you want real actual nobles you will have to fight to war and see who they are.

    This is legit. Aristocracy comes from being best at domination, ingenuity & war.

    ▬ „Auctoritas is a Latin word and is the origin of English “authority”. While historically its use in English was restricted to discussions of the political history of Rome, the beginning of phenomenological philosophy in the 20th century expanded the use of the word.

    In ancient Rome, Auctoritas referred to the general level of prestige a person had in Roman society, and, as a consequence, his clout, influence, and ability to rally support around his will. Auctoritas was not merely political, however; it had a numinous content and symbolized the mysterious “power of command” of heroic Roman figures.”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auctoritas

    [Reply]

    a Reply:

    Maybe Mr. Brett doesn´t really know what he is saying. One day it is “Work 4 hours” the next it is “Put the aristocrats back in power”, as if it is known if there are (m)any left opposed to just mere nobles (‘noble’ means basically ‘known person’, cf. gno*, i.e. not the same as aristocrat) or pseudo-royals.

    Maybe Mr. Brett is a robot. Or a scenester who has found his niche.

    GC Reply:

    It seems inconceivable to these people that democracy could ever be regarded as authoritarian.

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    do you mean you think authoritarian democracy might be a solution, or something else? While i get MM objections agree to an extent and certainly its clever, at least here i the states i don see democracy really being the problem watching the last 60 years what i saw was a mostly middle class nation resist leftism through democracy and leftism use extra legal extra democratic means to institute it anyway and use the cathedral to minimize the blowback. We have an aristocracy even a cognitive aristocracy ruling. They cleverly use the technical existence of democracy as a cover and its true as their goals got more extreme they have elected a new people. but its naive to think they give a shit what the niggers they import as brownshirts will vote for they will continue to do as they want.So we have an authoritarian democracy and it works for the left,if the cathedral were owned by the right i see no rason it would not work just as well for the right actually much better because it would have less absurdity to defend.When NRX insists we need robot kings because MM and so theres no point in doing anything until we can have robot kings because taking over the cathedral without robot kings would mean fighting and we would surely lose but robot kings will surely be here to save us before we are a handfful of white coders slaving in a sea of niggers and if they dont we will exit to mars or download ourselves and escape to tronville. well its what you would expect from neckbeards. The reality is taking over the cathedral is orders of magnitude more probable than robot kings and getting whites to accept non democracy might be really really against DNA but cathedral system is best of both worlds just in wrong hands.Other problem is kings dont work for a lot of reasons and its kind of ironic that a bunch of HBD buffs dont understand why

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 7th, 2016 at 9:17 pm Reply | Quote
  • Kino Says:

    The Autocrats will need to be constructed… and hacked.

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 7th, 2016 at 11:36 pm Reply | Quote
  • The Fall Of Democracy Becomes Plausible Says:

    […] The American Interest asks a vital question, citing this study (via Outside In: […]

    Posted on August 7th, 2016 at 11:42 pm Reply | Quote
  • Harold Says:

    Who said this? (I know who said it)

    ‘But only one who […] is not afraid of phantoms, but at the same time has a well-disciplined and numerous army ready to guarantee public peace, can say what a free state may not dare to say: Argue as much as you will and about what you will; only obey! Here a strange, unexpected course is revealed in human affairs, as happens elsewhere too if it is considered in the large, where almost everything is paradoxical. A greater degree of civil freedom seems advantageous to a people’s freedom of spirit and nevertheless puts up insurmountable barriers to it; a lesser degree of the former, on the other hand, provides a space for the latter to expand to its full capacity.’

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    admin knows

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 7th, 2016 at 11:48 pm Reply | Quote
  • Kgaard Says:

    So what are some ideas as to how this breakdown of democracy might occur in the US? The state can crush any and all rebellions against universalist multi-culturalism via drone strikes. This whole movement to the American Redoubt in the northern rockies is interesting … but how do they defend against drone strikes?

    I agree too with the notion that there are no regional borders anymore by which different sides may be drawn.

    The only path I can really see is a leftist one: Hillary wins, drums up some argument against the right, calls in the armed forces and police to put it down and declares a police state. She becomes Chavez.

    Even this of course doesn’t sound that realistic.

    [Reply]

    a Reply:

    Yeah, she´s not gonna declare a police state. Don´t let the noia run too far.

    Anyway I believe there is already a bunch of material about a projected U.S. secession available online.

    But not opposed to seeing it discussed here of course, at Mr. Land´s will.

    Ultimately, I´d say, forget about any scenarios that don´t involve some of the establishment joining in. At least it´d have to be one of [large segments of the security forces] “we´re not going to shoot these citizens.” Like in e.g. Turkey, and ca. 1918 in Russia.

    [Reply]

    a Reply:

    The ol´ conspiracy theory is that if the USFEDGOV gets remotely (closely) threatened, they will send in U.N. or mercenary forces (because those will be able to shoot anyone).

    And I believe it. But it wouldn´t even come to that.

    But it´s not even a conspiracy theory.

    I am amused by how dupy much of the NRx actually is. It´s like they´re born yesterday.

    [Reply]

    a Reply:

    Firstly, (as it was mentioned in a similar context here recently) the famed “Communist revolution”, which was actually not a Communist revolution to begin with, but was hijacked by them later, only* (*this means ‘most significantly’) happened because the Tzar was almost a completely autistic HRx fag.

    It was parts of the armed forced that rebelled, took over ships & islands.

    The French revolution happened because (most significantly) it was pumped by professional revolutionaries, against about as autistic pseudo-royalty as in Russia.

    Total cucks who were obviously not running and experimenting with the right Deep State mechanisms or hanging out with the right brahmins.

    NRx-HRx is at least 50% autisto-cuckified, yet another subculture.

    It´s either pseudo-royalist bourgeois chads or dorks.

    And then there´s the minority.

    Which is something else.

    michael Reply:

    I dont think its going to be a revolution more of a guerilla terror situation and it will be mostly ex military doing it but as it builds others will just do their thing. It won’t even be organized at first. people are at a point they are going to start lashing out. They have pushed so far so fast that pool has gotten huge and will get bigger and will include sane competent people. But it will inspire and spiral and theres nothing they can do but investigate as best they can they will be quickly overwhelmed attempting to treat it like crime scene and occasional terror type but cant just blast away at crowds of white guys.

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 8th, 2016 at 12:59 am Reply | Quote
  • Ahote Says:

    >Systematic confusion of democracy and liberalism is to be expected at this stage of cultural ruin, but it’s still irritating.

    But it is true, is it not? Both the Radicals and the Classical Liberals called themselves Liberals in the 19th century and the re was much ideological intermingling between the two, but fairly quickly any and all “libertarian” elements were totally eradicated from Liberal movements, a thing of which Herbert Spencer complained about, warning of “the coming slavery” which is to be instituted by Liberals themselves – by the second half of the 19th century Liberal movements were, for all intents and purposes reformist, totalitarian, social democratic movements… from Gladstone to Keynes, bringing about nothing but sheer lunacy for a century. Liberalism thus became inseparable from democracy in general, and social democracy with its litanies of rights in particular.

    [Reply]

    a Reply:

    ▬ „Herbert Spencer complained about, warning of “the coming slavery” which is to be instituted by Liberals themselves”.

    Mighty interesting.

    [Reply]

    Ahote Reply:

    Check out The Man Versus the State by Herbert Spencer and The Tyranny of Liberalism by James Kalb.

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 8th, 2016 at 4:43 pm Reply | Quote
  • SVErshov Says:

    growing momentum for alt-rights. imperialistic ambitions in external affairs calling for internal consolidation.

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 8th, 2016 at 7:43 pm Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    This line of thought ignores that governments are at war with their own peoples by importing proxies, not to mention a host of illiberal measures.

    We’re calling administrative government democracy simply because it holds elections-which it then ignores.

    The New Deal and it’s bastard child by World War 2 the EU aren’t “democratic” in rule. They simply hold elections.

    Now one can and in the present should end these “democracies” but that the peoples of America and Europe [especially *click click* America] can be ignored is the mistake the current bunch has made. Of course they have a deep (((Cultural Marxist))) hatred of Europeans driving them to their present madness.

    As for aristocracy replacing well something born of wars will.

    [Reply]

    a Reply:

    ▬ We’re calling administrative government democracy simply because it holds elections-which it then ignores.
    ▬ The New Deal and it’s bastard child by World War 2 the EU aren’t “democratic” in rule. They simply hold elections.

    Indeed. { Inverted totalitarianism is a term coined by political philosopher Sheldon Wolin in 2003 to describe the emerging form of government of the United States. Wolin believed that the United States is increasingly turning into an illiberal democracy, and uses the term “inverted totalitarianism” to illustrate similarities and differences between the United States governmental system and totalitarian regimes such as Nazi Germany and the Stalinist Soviet Union.[1][2][3][4] }
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 9th, 2016 at 1:21 am Reply | Quote
  • Jack Arcalon Says:

    Just finished “Closing of the American mind”. For the above scenarios to happen, we’ll need at least one utterly brilliant new idea.
    It will be relatively simple yet far-reaching, a way to organize large and complex groups.
    There have already been some precursors, like the primacy of genes over social peer groups over parents, and the vital importance of IQ and IQ ratios.
    It might be possible to invent this idea, since 10% of all humans are alive right now, including the biggest nerds.

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 11th, 2016 at 5:13 am Reply | Quote
  • a Says:

    > An unfamiliar picture emerges from Sperber’s well-documented account. At points in the 1840s Marx’s political views had something in common with those of 20th-century anti-communists. In 1842 he wrote that as a result of the spread of communist ideas ‘our once blossoming commercial cities are no longer flourishing’, while in 1848 he rejected the idea of revolutionary dictatorship by a single class as ‘nonsense’. Partly as a result of the influence of Engels, Marx has often been seen as an admirer of Darwin. But in fact Marx disliked Darwin’s theory of natural selection because it left human progress ‘purely accidental’, preferring the work of the forgotten French ethnographer Pierre Trémaux, who argued that racial differences have ‘a natural basis’ in biology and geology – a common view at the time. Intellectually Marx was a prototypical 19th-century figure, absorbing from French positivist thinkers the idea that traditional religions were fading away and industrialism becoming better organised and ultimately more harmonious. These aspects of his thinking were at odds with others shaped by Hegelian philosophy and German radical humanism. Rather than being an exercise in system-building [of course it was still that], Marx’s shifting and at times contradictory theoretical views were closely related to the political struggles in which he was actively involved.

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 12th, 2016 at 11:12 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment