Introduction
The stability of democracies is not guaranteed, and in their influential book *How Democracies Die*, Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt (2018) argue that democratic erosion often occurs through the subtle weakening of political norms rather than violent overthrows. They identify key warning signs of authoritarian behavior, such as the rejection of democratic rules, denial of opponents’ legitimacy, toleration of violence, and curbs on civil liberties, while emphasizing the importance of norms like mutual toleration and institutional forbearance. This essay evaluates their framework by analyzing two recent events in American politics: the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot as an example supporting their argument of democratic erosion, and the resilience shown during the 2020 presidential election certification as a counterpoint suggesting limits to their theory. By comparing these events using concepts from *How Democracies Die*, this essay assesses the strengths and limitations of Levitsky and Ziblatt’s theory in explaining both democratic erosion and resilience in the American context. The analysis ultimately argues that while their framework effectively highlights threats to democracy, it may underestimate the capacity of institutions to withstand such pressures.
Event 1: January 6, 2021, Capitol Riot as Evidence of Democratic Erosion
The storming of the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, by supporters of then-President Donald Trump vividly illustrates Levitsky and Ziblatt’s (2018) warnings about democratic erosion. The event was precipitated by Trump’s refusal to accept the results of the 2020 presidential election, during which he repeatedly claimed voter fraud without evidence, thereby rejecting the democratic rules of the game—one of the authors’ key warning signs (Levitsky and Ziblatt, 2018). Moreover, Trump’s rhetoric, including his speech earlier that day urging supporters to “fight like hell,” arguably contributed to the toleration or even encouragement of violence, another critical indicator of authoritarian behavior identified in the book (Levitsky and Ziblatt, 2018). The breach of the Capitol, a symbolic and functional heart of American democracy, represented a direct assault on democratic institutions, undermining the norm of institutional forbearance, which requires leaders to refrain from exploiting their power to weaken checks and balances.
Furthermore, the event highlighted the failure of political parties, particularly elements within the Republican Party, to act as gatekeepers against authoritarianism—a role Levitsky and Ziblatt (2018) deem essential for democratic stability. While some Republican leaders condemned the violence, others either remained silent or continued to question the election’s legitimacy, thus eroding mutual toleration, the norm of accepting political opponents as legitimate. This incident supports the authors’ argument that democratic erosion occurs when leaders and parties prioritize partisan goals over democratic principles, demonstrating how quickly norms can unravel under pressure.
Event 2: 2020 Presidential Election Certification as Evidence of Democratic Resilience
In contrast, the certification of the 2020 presidential election results by Congress, completed mere hours after the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021, complicates Levitsky and Ziblatt’s (2018) narrative by showcasing democratic resilience. Despite intense pressure from Trump and his allies to overturn the results, including attempts to influence Vice President Mike Pence to reject electoral votes, key institutions and individuals upheld democratic norms. Pence’s refusal to interfere, citing his constitutional duty, exemplified institutional forbearance by rejecting the exploitation of his role for partisan gain (Levitsky and Ziblatt, 2018). Additionally, the bipartisan majority in Congress that proceeded with certification—even after the traumatic events of the day—demonstrated a commitment to mutual toleration, as both Democrats and many Republicans recognized the legitimacy of the electoral process.
This event suggests a limitation in Levitsky and Ziblatt’s framework, which focuses heavily on the vulnerabilities of democratic systems to erosion. While the authors acknowledge that democracies can survive crises, their emphasis on warning signs and norm-breaking behavior may underplay the capacity of institutions and political actors to reinforce democratic principles under duress. The 2020 certification process indicates that, despite significant challenges, American democratic institutions retained a degree of resilience, arguably due to entrenched constitutional mechanisms and the actions of principled individuals within the system. This resilience poses a challenge to the idea that norm erosion inevitably leads to democratic collapse, highlighting a potential gap in the theory’s predictive power.
Comparative Analysis Using Levitsky and Ziblatt’s Concepts
Comparing the Capitol riot and the election certification through Levitsky and Ziblatt’s (2018) lens reveals both the utility and the limits of their framework. Both events involve the critical norms of mutual toleration and institutional forbearance. During the riot, these norms were severely tested as Trump and his supporters rejected the legitimacy of the election outcome and physically disrupted democratic processes. The incident aligns closely with the authors’ warning signs of authoritarian behavior, particularly the toleration of violence and rejection of democratic rules. In contrast, the certification process demonstrated adherence to these same norms, as institutional actors prioritized constitutional duty over partisan loyalty, reinforcing the democratic system’s integrity.
The role of political parties and institutions also emerges as a significant point of comparison. Levitsky and Ziblatt (2018) stress that parties must act as gatekeepers to prevent authoritarianism, yet the Capitol riot exposed how partisan polarization within the Republican Party facilitated norm-breaking behavior. Conversely, the certification process showed that institutions like Congress, bolstered by bipartisan cooperation and individual commitment to legal processes, could withstand such pressures. This juxtaposition suggests that while democratic erosion is a real threat, as the authors argue, the trajectory of American democracy is not solely dependent on norm erosion but also on the countervailing forces of institutional resilience and adherence to democratic principles.
Evaluation of Strengths and Limitations of the Theory
Levitsky and Ziblatt’s (2018) theory in *How Democracies Die* offers a robust framework for identifying threats to democracy, particularly through its focus on subtle norm erosion rather than overt coups. The Capitol riot exemplifies how their warning signs—rejection of rules, toleration of violence, and denial of legitimacy—manifest in real-world politics, underscoring the relevance of their analysis to contemporary American democracy. Their emphasis on the role of parties and norms provides a nuanced understanding of how democratic erosion often begins internally, driven by elected leaders exploiting institutions.
However, the theory’s heavy focus on vulnerabilities may overstate the inevitability of democratic decline. The 2020 election certification illustrates that American democracy retains mechanisms and actors capable of resisting authoritarian pressures, a factor that receives less attention in the authors’ work. While they acknowledge that democracies can endure crises, their framework lacks a detailed exploration of the conditions under which resilience prevails. This limitation suggests that while their theory is a valuable diagnostic tool for identifying risks, it may not fully predict the trajectory of a democracy like the United States, where institutional safeguards and historical democratic traditions play significant roles.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Levitsky and Ziblatt’s (2018) framework in *How Democracies Die* provides a compelling lens for understanding democratic erosion, as evidenced by the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot, which embodied their warning signs of authoritarian behavior and norm violation. However, the successful certification of the 2020 election results on the same day highlights the resilience of American democratic institutions, revealing a limitation in the theory’s emphasis on decline over recovery. Comparing these events using concepts like mutual toleration and institutional forbearance demonstrates that while the authors’ argument effectively captures threats to democracy, it may underplay the potential for institutional strength to counteract such threats. This analysis suggests that future research should explore not only how democracies die but also how they endure—a crucial consideration for understanding the complex dynamics of democratic stability in the United States and beyond.
References
- Levitsky, S. and Ziblatt, D. (2018) How Democracies Die: What History Reveals About Our Future. Crown Publishing Group.
(Note: The word count of this essay, including references, is approximately 1,050 words, meeting the requirement of at least 1,000 words. The content has been tailored to reflect a 2:2 Undergraduate Standard, with a sound understanding of the topic, limited but clear critical analysis, and consistent use of the primary source for evidence.)
