Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Read Between the Lines: Your Ultimate Book Summary Podcast
Dive deep into the heart of every great book without committing to hundreds of pages. Read Between the Lines delivers insightful, concise summaries of must-read books across all genres. Whether you're a busy professional, a curious student, or just looking for your next literary adventure, we cut through the noise to bring you the core ideas, pivotal plot points, and lasting takeaways.
Welcome to our summary of How Democracies Die by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt. This crucial work of political science argues that democracies no longer end with a bang—a military coup—but with a whimper. The authors reveal how elected leaders can gradually subvert the very process that brought them to power, dismantling democracy step-by-step. Drawing on global historical examples, from 1930s Europe to modern-day Venezuela, Levitsky and Ziblatt provide a guide for identifying the warning signs of democratic backsliding. Their analysis serves as a stark, urgent call to defend the essential unwritten rules of political conduct.
How Democracies Die: The Gradual Erosion from Within
Democracies no longer perish as they once did. The classic, televised image of democratic death—of tanks rolling through the streets of a capital city, a military junta announcing its takeover on the radio, or a charismatic strongman seizing power in a single, violent stroke—has become a historical artifact in much of the world. The dramatic coups of the 20th century, like Pinochet’s in Chile in 1973 or the Argentinian military’s seizure of power in 1976, are now the exception rather than the rule. Blatant dictatorship, whether in the form of Cold War-era fascism, communism, or military rule, has receded as a global model. Most countries now hold regular elections, and the spectacle of a violent, extra-legal overthrow of government is increasingly rare. Yet, this does not mean democracy is safe. It still dies, but the mechanism of its demise has changed. It dies now not with a bang, but with a whimper, often at the hands of the very people elected to lead it. The modern tragedy is that elected leaders, men who once stood for election and swore oaths to uphold the constitution, have become the primary undertakers of the very democracies that brought them to power. Figures like Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez all came to power through the ballot box. This is the new front line in the struggle for democratic survival. The erosion happens slowly, in barely perceptible steps, cloaked in the guise of legality. Each individual step—the appointment of a loyalist judge, the subtle intimidation of a media outlet through a tax audit, the gerrymandering of an electoral district, the passage of a law that makes voter registration more difficult—can appear, in isolation, as a legitimate exercise of political power. There is no single moment, no storming of the palace, that signals the end. But when accumulated, these actions form a lethal sequence that subverts the democratic process from the inside out. The public may not immediately recognize the threat, as the familiar architecture of democracy—elections, legislatures, courts—remains standing. These institutions, however, are being systematically hollowed out, transformed into a hollow façade for what is, in effect, a new form of authoritarianism. Elections are held, but the playing field is tilted to ensure the incumbent cannot lose. Courts exist, but they rubber-stamp the executive’s agenda. The press is not formally censored, but it is cowed into self-censorship through economic pressure and political intimidation. Understanding this slow, incremental, and often legalistic process of decay is the first, and most critical, step toward defending against it, because a threat that is not recognized cannot be fought.
Part 1: The Gatekeepers of Democracy
The first and most important line of defense against would-be authoritarians is not a nation’s constitution, nor its courts, but its political parties. Mainstream political parties, and the leaders who helm them, function as democracy’s essential gatekeepers. Their most critical task is to filter out demagogues and extremists, identifying and isolating them before they can gain access to the levers of mainstream power. When they perform this function well, democracies are protected from existential threats. When they fail, the gates are thrown open, and the entire democratic enterprise is put at risk. For much of American history, this gatekeeping function occurred in what were once called “smoke-filled rooms,” where party elites deliberated and vetted potential candidates, screening out those deemed temperamentally unfit or ideologically dangerous, such as the demagogic Henry Ford and Huey Long. While undemocratic in its own way, this system effectively kept extremists from capturing a major party’s nomination. History is littered with the wreckage of gatekeeping failures, often born of a disastrous miscalculation. Mainstream politicians, facing a crisis or seeking a shortcut to power, sometimes enter into fateful alliances with extremists, believing they can co-opt and control them. This was the catastrophic error of Germany’s conservative elites in the early 1930s. President Paul von Hindenburg and his circle, led by figures like Franz von Papen, viewed Adolf Hitler as a vulgar but useful rabble-rouser. They appointed him Chancellor, confident they could contain him and his Nazi movement. Von Papen famously boasted, “In two months, we will have pushed Hitler into a corner so hard he’ll be squeaking.” They saw him not as a grave threat to the Weimar Republic, but as a tool to dismantle the left and achieve their own conservative ends. A similar tragedy unfolded in Italy a decade earlier, when liberal politicians, including Prime Minister Giovanni Giolitti, formed an electoral alliance with Benito Mussolini’s small Fascist party. They believed that bringing the Fascists into the political fold would domesticate them. In both cases, the establishment politicians were disastrously wrong. The extremists they thought they could control ended up devouring them, and democracy along with them. These historical calamities, and more recent ones like the political establishment’s underestimation of Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, are not mere accidents. They are failures of gatekeeping. The warning signs of authoritarian behavior are often visible long before a leader takes power. We can identify four key markers that function as a litmus test for would-be autocrats. The first is a rejection of, or weak commitment to, democratic rules of the game. This can manifest as suggesting the postponement or cancellation of elections, expressing a desire to suspend the constitution, or refusing to accept credible election results. The second sign is the denial of the legitimacy of political opponents. Authoritarian figures do not treat their rivals as legitimate competitors, but as criminals, subversives, or an existential threat to the nation’s way of life. They may baselessly accuse them of treason, describe them as “un-American,” or claim they are agents of a foreign power. The third marker is a toleration or encouragement of violence. This can range from praising past acts of political violence to refusing to unequivocally condemn violence carried out by their own supporters. They may even use menacing language that tacitly encourages their followers to engage in violence against opponents, creating an atmosphere of intimidation. Finally, the fourth sign is a readiness to curtail the civil liberties of opponents, including the media. A politician who threatens to sue or shut down critical news organizations, who calls for the investigation and prosecution of their political rivals, or who promises to use state power to punish their critics is exhibiting a clear authoritarian impulse. When parties take these signs seriously, they can successfully keep extremists at bay. In the 1930s, mainstream conservative parties in both Belgium and Finland refused to cooperate with rising fascist movements, choosing instead to form alliances with their traditional social democratic rivals to protect democracy. They recognized the extremists as an existential threat that superseded their ideological disagreements. This is gatekeeping in action. The tragic counterpoint in recent history is the failure of the Republican Party in the United States to stop the rise of Donald Trump in 2016. Despite Trump exhibiting all four authoritarian warning signs with remarkable clarity—from questioning the legitimacy of the electoral process to encouraging violence at his rallies and threatening to jail his opponent—the party establishment failed to unite against him. Instead of isolating him, they normalized him, and ultimately, they capitulated to him, prioritizing short-term partisan victory over their historical responsibility as democratic gatekeepers. The gates were left undefended.
Part 2: The Guardrails of Democracy
If political parties are the gatekeepers of democracy, then a set of unwritten rules—what we call democratic guardrails—are what keep politics from veering off the road and into a ditch. Constitutions alone are never enough to guarantee democratic stability. Many failed democracies, including Weimar Germany, had, on paper, brilliantly written constitutions. The long-term survival of a democracy depends on robust, informal norms of behavior that guide how political actors wield their power. These norms act as the soft guardrails of the system, preventing the intense competition inherent in democratic politics from degenerating into a fight to the death. Two of these norms are paramount: mutual toleration and institutional forbearance. Mutual toleration refers to the collective understanding that as long as our rivals play by the constitutional rules, we accept that they have an equal and legitimate right to exist, compete for power, and govern. It is the political equivalent of agreeing that we can lose to the other team today and live to play again tomorrow. When mutual toleration prevails, we recognize our political opponents not as existential enemies to be destroyed, but as legitimate adversaries. We may disagree fiercely with their policies, we may believe their vision for the country is profoundly mistaken, but we do not question their right to govern or their fundamental loyalty to the country. This norm is the bedrock that allows a democracy to endure intense partisan conflict without collapsing. The second critical guardrail is institutional forbearance. Forbearance is the act of not using one’s institutional prerogatives to their absolute legal limit, even when one has the formal right to do so. It is the deliberate exercise of self-restraint for the sake of preserving the system. For instance, a president has the constitutional power to pardon anyone they wish, but forbearance dictates that this power should not be used to systematically shield themselves, their family, or their political allies from legitimate criminal investigation. Senators have the right to filibuster legislation, but forbearance prevents them from using this tactic to grind the entire legislative process to a halt over every minor disagreement; historically, it was reserved for issues of supreme national importance. Likewise, a party with a majority in Congress has the power to refuse to confirm any of a president’s judicial nominees or to launch impeachment proceedings on flimsy partisan grounds, but forbearance counsels against such behavior. This is what political scientists call avoiding “constitutional hardball”—the aggressive use of the letter of the law to undermine its spirit. Forbearance is essential because no constitution can anticipate every contingency. Politics is full of opportunities for actors to use their legal powers in ways that could cripple the functioning of government. When politicians practice forbearance, they resist the temptation to weaponize their powers for short-term partisan gain, understanding that doing so would provoke a dangerous cycle of retaliation that would ultimately damage the democratic system itself. In the United States, these guardrails of mutual toleration and forbearance were not born with the republic; they were painstakingly and imperfectly constructed. After the cataclysm of the Civil War and the bitter conflicts of Reconstruction, American political elites gradually forged an implicit pact. They learned to coexist, to treat each other as legitimate rivals, and to exercise restraint. However, this stability came at a terrible price. The arrangement that fostered forbearance between white Northern and Southern elites was built upon the abandonment of Reconstruction and the acceptance of Jim Crow, effectively excluding African Americans from the democratic process for nearly a century. This 'guarded' democracy, though deeply flawed and exclusionary, maintained a remarkable degree of stability among white politicians for much of the 20th century. It was this foundation of unwritten rules, not just the written Constitution, that sustained American democracy through the Great Depression, two world wars, and immense social upheaval.
Part 3: The Unraveling & Trump's Presidency
Beginning in the late 20th century, the informal guardrails that had long stabilized American democracy began to erode. This was not a sudden collapse, but a ‘Great Unraveling’ driven by the relentless intensification of partisan polarization. As the two major parties grew more internally homogeneous and more ideologically, culturally, and demographically distant from one another, the spirit of mutual toleration and institutional forbearance began to decay. Politics increasingly came to be seen not as a process of negotiation and compromise, but as a kind of war, where the stakes were existential and any tactics were permissible in the pursuit of victory. Several deep-seated forces drove this polarization. The civil rights movement triggered a great racial and religious realignment, sorting white, conservative Christians into the Republican party and minorities and secular voters into the Democratic party. This transformed partisan identity into a form of mega-identity, a tribal affiliation encompassing race, religion, and geography. Growing economic inequality exacerbated social divisions. The rise of partisan media, from talk radio in the 1980s to cable news in the 1990s and online echo chambers today, created separate informational realities for partisans, reinforcing stereotypes and fueling animosity. Americans also began to sort themselves geographically into politically homogeneous communities, meaning they rarely interacted with people who held different views. A new generation of political leaders, most notably House Speaker Newt Gingrich in the 1990s, pioneered a confrontational style of politics that explicitly rejected the old norms of civility and compromise. Gingrich taught a generation of politicians that treating opponents as enemies—using words like 'traitors,' 'sick,' and 'corrupt'—was a path to victory. This erosion of democratic norms created a fertile ground for an authoritarian-leaning figure to emerge. The presidency of Donald Trump was not the cause of this unraveling, but its product—and a dramatic accelerant. He did not invent the modern authoritarian playbook, but he followed it with instinctual precision. This playbook, used by aspiring autocrats from Peru’s Alberto Fujimori to Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, has three main steps. The first is to capture the referees. An elected authoritarian moves quickly to neutralize the key institutions that can hold them accountable: the judiciary, law enforcement, and intelligence agencies. They do this by packing the courts with loyalists, purging the civil service of independent professionals, and weaponizing law enforcement agencies against their critics. Trump's repeated attacks on the FBI and the Department of Justice, his firing of Attorney General Jeff Sessions for recusing himself from the Russia probe, and his attempts to install loyalists in key intelligence posts were all moves from this playbook. The second step is to sideline the key players who might serve as a check on their power. This involves buying off or intimidating potential rivals in the business community and, most importantly, silencing independent media through lawsuits, regulatory pressure, and relentless attacks on their credibility as 'fake news' and 'enemies of the people.' The goal is to create a playing field where only one team—their own—can effectively compete. The third and final step is to rewrite the rules of the game to lock in their advantage. This can include changing electoral laws to make it harder for opposition supporters to vote, engaging in extreme gerrymandering, and, in some cases, amending the constitution itself to eliminate term limits or weaken legislative oversight. Donald Trump’s presidency served as a live-action stress test of America’s democratic institutions, revealing just how fragile the guardrails had become. He waged a relentless assault on the norm of mutual toleration, labeling his political opponents ‘enemies’ and spreading conspiracy theories that cast them as treasonous criminals. The chants of ‘lock her up’ were a frontal assault on the idea that one’s political rivals are legitimate actors. His assault on institutional forbearance was equally systematic. He repeatedly pressured the Department of Justice, shattering the norm of prosecutorial independence. He fired multiple inspectors general, the internal watchdogs of the executive branch, for uncovering misconduct. Most consequentially, he attacked the very foundation of the democratic process, baselessly claiming widespread fraud in 2016 and 2020 and ultimately refusing to accept the legitimacy of his own defeat. His efforts to pressure state officials like Georgia’s Brad Raffensperger to “find” votes and to deploy alternate slates of electors were not just norm violations; they were an active attempt to overturn a democratic election. By attacking both the written and unwritten rules of democracy, Trump exposed and deepened the vulnerabilities that extreme polarization had created, leaving the American democratic experiment in its most perilous state since the Civil War.
Part 4: Saving Democracy
In a dangerously polarized political landscape, the temptation to respond to a norm-breaking opponent in kind is immense and politically rational. When one side abandons forbearance and begins to play ‘constitutional hardball,’ the other side feels compelled to retaliate with its own hardball tactics to avoid being steamrolled. This tit-for-tat escalation, however, is a death spiral for democracy. For example, when one party uses the 'nuclear option' to eliminate the filibuster for judicial nominees, the other party, when it takes power, is incentivized to eliminate it for legislation. The first party might then retaliate by threatening to pack the Supreme Court. The second party could respond by threatening to have a future president ignore the court's rulings. Each step is a rational response to the last, but the cumulative effect is the destruction of the system's legitimacy and the transformation of politics into a zero-sum conflict where all that matters is winning today, at any cost. Saving a democracy that is teetering on the brink requires breaking this cycle. It demands a commitment to a path that is politically difficult and often counterintuitive: a unilateral effort to restore and defend democratic guardrails. The primary responsibility for this falls on the shoulders of political leaders. They must have the courage to exercise restraint even when their opponents do not. More importantly, they must be willing to build broad, cross-partisan coalitions to defend the democratic process itself. This means forging alliances, even with ideological adversaries, for the express purpose of isolating and defeating would-be authoritarians. The priority must shift from advancing a partisan policy agenda to protecting the rules of the game that make all other political debates possible. A powerful historical example comes from Chile in the 1980s. After more than a decade of brutal military rule under General Augusto Pinochet, the country’s deeply divided democratic opposition—ranging from center-right conservatives to socialists—managed to put aside their profound differences to unite in a campaign for a ‘no’ vote in the 1988 plebiscite on Pinochet’s continued rule. By forming a broad pro-democracy coalition, they successfully defeated the dictator at the ballot box and paved the way for a return to democracy. They understood that protecting democracy was more important than any single policy dispute. In the contemporary American context, saving democracy requires a similar reorientation of priorities. The most fundamental challenge lies at the Republican Party’s crossroads. For the system to stabilize, the GOP must find a way to reform itself from within. It must unequivocally reject the extremism and anti-democratic impulses that have taken root and recommit itself to the foundational principles of free and fair elections and the peaceful transfer of power. Without a mainstream conservative party dedicated to the rules of the game, American democracy will remain in a state of chronic crisis. At the same time, the Democratic Party has a critical role to play in lowering the political temperature. To combat the identity-based polarization that fuels extremism, Democrats must work to build a broader, multi-racial coalition that is grounded not just in cultural identity, but in shared economic and civic interests. By focusing on issues like jobs, healthcare, and economic security that cut across racial and cultural lines, the party can potentially bridge some of the divides that make our politics so toxic and make it harder for authoritarians to frame them as an alien, existential threat. While leaders bear the primary burden, citizens are not helpless spectators. The defense of democracy requires active public engagement: supporting parties and candidates who are unambiguously committed to democratic norms, joining and building pro-democracy civic organizations, and vocally rejecting politicians who display the clear warning signs of authoritarianism. Ultimately, democracy is a shared enterprise. Its survival depends not on a single hero or a perfect constitution, but on the ongoing willingness of political leaders and citizens alike to put the health of the republic above their own partisan ambitions and to defend the guardrails that keep our political competition peaceful and fair.
In conclusion, How Democracies Die’s impact lies in its stark final argument. Levitsky and Ziblatt reveal that democracy’s survival depends on two key norms: mutual toleration and institutional forbearance. The book’s spoiler is its direct diagnosis of the United States, concluding that political parties have failed as gatekeepers and these norms have dangerously eroded. They argue that leaders now treat rivals as enemies and weaponize institutions, pushing the system toward a breaking point. Their ultimate prescription is for broad, cross-partisan coalitions to form with the singular goal of defending democracy against authoritarian threats, even if it means allying with ideological opponents. The book's enduring importance is its clear, actionable framework for safeguarding democratic foundations. We hope this was insightful. Like and subscribe for more content like this, and we'll see you for the next episode.