Democracy's Unpluckable Feathers and Presidential Term Limits

The Little Leviathan, 2018

Nowadays, in the era of accelerated globalization, we are challenged to re-examine some basic postulates of democracy. The notions of individualism, human rights, freedoms and equality of chances must undergo serious changes because democracy is threatened from at least three sides. First, the global trend of empowerment of the far right makes us think about the efficiency of democracy’s defense mechanisms. Second, the dystopia of the world as a global village, when combined with the hyperreality of mass media, has transformed democracy into Beck’s risk society. And third, democracy is threatened by its inner paradoxes. Furthermore, our aim will be to show theoretically that democracy can only exist as a promise to come. Its fatal attraction lies in this deceptive nature. In the midst of mainstream interpretations, our opinion is that only a radical critique of democracy can help us deal with its self-destructive nature.

2019

During the summer of 2018, I had occasion to write a book review of How Democracies Die by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt. The book has its flaws, including practicing the kind of partisanship that it highlights and claims to deplore. But, whatever the book’s flaws, Levitsky and Ziblatt clearly demonstrate that it can happen here — our democracy can actually die — by contrasting the decline of democratic norms in America over the past forty-five years with countries in which similar experiences led to dictatorial rule. According to the authors, the fundamental change that explains the end of democratic systems is the decline of tolerance for rule by the other side and the resulting end of forbearance against using all legal means to prevent that outcome. When political competition becomes unremitting warfare, democracy may come to an end. Who can doubt that this describes America today? Levitsky and Ziblatt demonstrate the various ways that American politicians do everything in ...

There have been many who prognosticated democracy's doom. It now may seem strange that one of France's most brilliant political theorists, Jean François Revel, an ardent defender of Western liberal democracy, once feared that democracy might not survive the threat posed by the Soviet Union and its disciplined pursuit of world power. While the Soviet threat was not imaginary, democracy survived its most potent postwar adversary. Today, however, we must again wonder: even without such a global threat as Soviet communism, could democracy still perish? Is it vulnerable, as Revel wrote, to internal enemies " seeking to abolish it legally " ? Could modern democracy, like ancient democracy before it, end up being a historical anomaly? These are not frivolous academic questions. We face a clear and present danger. For the first time in American history, an explicitly authoritarian candidate has gained the nomination to the US presidency of one of America's two major parties. We can hope that the majority of the voters will save American democracy from its grave threat. Certainly, the danger his candidacy poses merits the largest possible repudiation in the general elections (see also my earlier article, " The Authoritarian Temptation "). Yet, hope is no substitute for analysis. The following is an analysis of how an authoritarian has a realistic chance to be president of the most established democracy in the world.

2004

I. STRUCTURAL BACKUP SYSTEMS IN A DEMOCRATIC CONSTITUTION A basic design premise of the United States Constitution is that the main constitutional mechanism for assuring good governance is democratic accountability through elections. As Madison put it, "[a] dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government."' These primary systems, when they work properly, are expected to produce good government through the installation in power of good rulers who will rule for the common benefit of all. Democratic systems will thus produce "a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. ' 2 A second design premise of the Constitution, however, is that the primary system may fail: "the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, * Professor of Law and William J. Magavern Faculty Scholar, State University of New York, University at Buffalo Law School. A draft of this paper was presented to the faculty of St. John's University School of Law on September 27, 2004 as part of the St. John's Law Review Distinguished Scholars Series. An earlier version was also presented at the University at Buffalo Law School as part of a Faculty Seminar on Institutional Analysis, held under the auspices of the Christopher Baldy Center for Law and Social Policy. My thanks to the participants in both workshops for their comments, especially Lynn Mather. I additionally wish to thank Neal Devins and Bob Goodin for comments on an early draft, and Devon Runyan for research assistance. ' THE FEDERALIST No. 51, at 322 (James Madison) (Arlington House 1966). 2 Id. No. 10, at 82 (James Madison).

Democracy and the Limits of Self-Government, 2009

The political institutions under which we live today evolved from a revolutionary idea that shook the world in the second part of the eighteenth century: that a people should govern itself. Nevertheless, if we judge contemporary democracies by the ideals of self-government, equality, and liberty, we find that democracy is not what it was dreamt to be. This book addresses central issues in democratic theory by analyzing the sources of widespread dissatisfaction with democracies around the world. With attention throughout to historical and cross-national variations, the focus is on the generic limits of democracy in promoting equality, effective participation, control of governments by citizens, and liberty. The conclusion is that, although some of this dissatisfaction occurs for good reason, some is based on an erroneous understanding of how democracy functions. Hence, although the analysis identifies the limits of democracy, it also points to directions for feasible reforms.

The 1910s was a decade in which theories of socialism, pacifism, and collectivism flowered. Publicists and playwrights from Sidney Webb to George Bernard Shaw expressed not just belief in "utopianism" but a vigorous assault on the existing political and economic order. Less well known is how a group of Tory thinkers laid the foundations of a conservative counter-attack expressed with equal literary and intellectual brilliance. Foremost among them was W. H. Mallock. In The Limits of Pure Democracy he argued that the pseudo-populist leaders of the political party system promise everything but deliver only the end of parties as such. For Mallock, what starts with populism ends in dictatorship. The Russian Revolution was simply the historical outcome of utopian socialist visions that were more dedicated to destroying the present system of things than bringing about a revitalized future. Mallock's book explains how the modern free market succeeds through competition in increasing output, broadening occupational opportunities, and multiplying the numbers of skilled professionals. In contrast, welfare schemes serve to deepen poverty by spreading wealth so evenly that incentives to work decline and personal savings are eliminated. These arguments have become commonplace today. But at the time they served as an incendiary reminder that class warfare works in both directions. Mallock was a remarkably talented writer who made the case against exaggerated expectations, a nascent welfare system, and mass political parties led by oligarchs. But he also offered a case for increasing a regard for work, advancing the cause of education as a method of entering the modern world, and for retaining a sense of religious codes that define the West. Mallock's search for an understanding of popular rule coincided with his appreciation and elucidation of the limitations of the emerging plebiscitarian spirit within democracy. The Limits of Pure Democracy will be of interest to political scientists, intellectual historians, and economists. W. H. Mallock was the author of Religion as a Credible Doctrine, The Reconstruction of Belief, The Individualist, The Heart of Life, and A Human Document. H. Lee Cheek, Jr. is chair, Division of Social and Behavioral Sciences and professor, Political Science and Philosophy at Brewton-Parker College, Mt. Vernon, GA. His books include Political Philosophy and Cultural Renewal and Order and Legitimacy, both available from Transaction. H. Lee Cheek, Jr. is associate vice president for academic affairs and professor of political science at Athens State University. He is the author or editor of numerous works, including Order and Legitimacy, Political Philosophy and Cultural Renewal, Calhoun and Popular Rule, and Confronting Modernity.

American Political Science Review, 2008

Although democracy is a key concept in political science, debate continues over definitions and mechanisms. Bueno de Mesquita, Smith, Siverson, & Morrow (2003) make the important claim that most of democracy's effects are in fact due to something conceptually simpler and empirically easier to measure than democracy: the size of the minimum winning coalition that selects the leader. The argument is intuitively appealing and supported by extensive data analysis. Unfortunately, the statistical technique they use induces omitted variable bias into their results. They argue that they need to control for democracy, but their estimation procedure is equivalent to omitting democracy from their analysis. When we reestimate their regressions controlling for democracy, most of their important findings do not survive.

DEMOCRACY ENDS ON ELECTION DAY: HOW MODERN GOVERNANCE IS RULED BY AUTOCRACY, 2024

I am not a politician. I am a geological engineer by profession, with a deep interest in global affairs. Over time, I have become increasingly concerned about the monopolistic use of the beautiful word democracy by certain self-acclaimed democratic countries-nations that, through their actions, often contradict even the most basic principles of democracy.