The notion of democracy is presently deemed as the most ethically sensible system of government that can be structured in modern society. Although there is a probability that some members of the state will be underrepresented, the general concept of democracy is founded on the notion of inclusivity and respect for all parties involved in the political, economic, and sociocultural relationships (Mashaw 81). However, democracy as a concept is targeted by a range of opponents who seek to disrupt the social balance; hence there is a necessity to reinforce the concept of democratic relationships within a state. Since freedom of speech is a critical aspect of democracy, it needs to be upheld as a crucial value, yet the key moral dimensions based on which social values are developed should not be obscured by emotional manipulation. Therefore, an open discussion of the opposing views is needed despite the statements made by Levitsky and Ziblatt in How Democracies Die.
The principles of democracy have been engraved into the very fabric of the American society and justice system. To ensure that democratic principles would remain intact, the Founding Fathers established a rigid principle of equality and basic human rights for all citizens (Levitsky and Ziblatt 21). Thus, the phenomenon of democracy was immune to external threats for a while. However, even with the increase in acceptance of democratic principles across the globe, instances of violations of equality-related ideas have been recurrent. Although the use of a coup d’Ă©tat is a traditional way of suppressing democratic principles, the Venezuelan scenario has shown that the legally approved erasure of democracy is also a possibility.
Therefore, one may argue that intolerance toward opposing opinions and the tendency to stifle a two-sided discussion are the key threats to democratic values. The introduction of any kind of intolerance immediately implies that democracy compromises itself and turns into the weapon of silencing people. Thus, to uphold democratic values and ensure that they are not erased from the political landscape. However, the introduction of “more democracy” may not be the exact solution to the problem since it shows attackers on democratic values that they will face no legal responsibility for their actions. Therefore, fighting the erasure of democratic values is possible as long as the policies of gatekeeping are introduced for the parties that represent openly authoritarian viewpoints.
The political and social concerns of recent years have shaken the foundation of people’s belief in democracy significantly, with numerous threats to free speech and the opportunity to promote multiculturalism. The political concerns in the United States, especially with the 2016 election results, have affected American citizens deeply, causing them to question the very nature of democracy (Levitsky and Ziblatt 15). In their book, Levitsky and Ziblatt provide an extensive analysis of the scenarios that may eventually lead to the downfall of democracy as a system of government (17). The authors’ conclusion about democracy being only possible once neither of the sides is silenced and everyone has the right to free speech seems legitimate. However, the authors seem to ignore the fact that the idea of gatekeeping as the ostensibly effective way of preventing authoritarian political forces from demolishing the foundation of democracy will destroy the basic trust between the government and citizens (Levitsky and Ziblatt 25).
Indeed, by limiting the ability of certain members of the population to participate in elections freely and voice their opinions, one will inevitably create premises for democracy to be replaced with a semblance of oligarchy. As a result, the very notion of democracy as the tool for safeguarding the rights of every citizen and ensuring that they have a voice within the American society will be ultimately eroded. Therefore, the introduction of the discussion participants to factual information that has not been biased in any way is crucial, hence the need to strive to maintain the sources of trustworthy data working.
The authors also posit that not only alliances but also the establishment of a dialogue between democratic parties and those that oppose their view should be viewed with extreme caution and avoided in the best-case scenario in order to prevent the instances of opponents winning from taking place (Levitsky and Ziblatt 26). While the described threat could theoretically be seen as a well-meaning endeavor at setting ethical boundaries for Democrats, it, in fact, nullifies the opportunity for political opponents to build understanding and reduce social pressure. With social relationships across the globe and spherically the United States having been politicized to the extreme, the side of refusing any constructive dialogue would be equal to similar tactics used by the people that oppose free speech and are willing to destroy the principal democratic postulates in which the relationships between the state and its citizens are rooted. Therefore, the idea of blocking the opponents’ chances to voice their opinions would be equivalent to the tactics used by the political opponents and thus be deemed as unfair and dishonest by the people within the Democratic camp.
In their analysis, Levitsky and Ziblatt make a crucial logical error when addressing the problem of social and political relationships in the post-Trump US. The authors claim that the inability to contain the willingness among Southern voters to elect Trump created the current social disarray. However, in actuality, it was the lack of communication between the supporters of both camps and the increase in tensions within the voters that caused the least expected outcome to take place (Gauja 91). For this reason, it is crucial to invoke the notion of a coherent and honest dialogue in which all parties present are allowed to vocalize their arguments and protests against a particular idea. It is only by discussion and analysis of the point of disagreement between groups of people that a rational solution can be found. Claiming that even the notion of a dialogue, not to mention a political alliance, between two opposing camps, is inherently absurd, Levitsky and Ziblatt make reconciliation and the prospect of an agreement between the two political parties and the people that support them impossible (25). As a result, the breeding ground for numerous confrontations and conflicts not in the political arena but also in the social environment is created.
Sustaining the principles of democracy has become inexplicably difficult in modern society, especially with the recent elections in the U.S. and the victory of Donald Trump, whose political views cannot be credited for the lack of controversy. However, the suggestions that Levitsky and Ziblatt provide in How Democracies Die is not the optimum solution, either. Due to their focus on silencing the arguments of political opponents for the sake of keeping the present principles of democracy intact, the authors succumb to the same misinterpretation of the idea of political freedoms as their opponents. Therefore, inviting an open discussion of the crucial points of disagreement should be regarded as the only legitimate tool for sustaining the principles of democracy in American society.
Works Cited
Gauja, Anika. Political Parties and Elections: Legislating for Representative Democracy. Routledge, 2016.
Levitsky, Steven, and Daniel Ziblatt. How Democracies Die: What History Reveals About Our Future. Crown, 2018.
Mashaw, Jerry L. Reasoned Administration and Democratic Legitimacy: How Administrative Law Supports Democratic Government. Cambridge University Press, 2018.