Dear Adrian,

The first issue in order to adequately answer your question is to determine which definition of democracy are you adopting in examining the transformation of democracies into autocracies. Are you adopting a basic definition of democracy (i.e., formal/electoral democracy)? Or, are you referring to a more encompassing conceptualization of democracy (e.g., liberal democracy)?

Indeed, cases such as Turkey clearly attest to the emergence of conservative, right-wing and even fascist populist governments into power. In the case of Russia, we have seen a rather nationalist-populist platform deployed by Putin and his ONF more prominently since 2011. Albeit the nuances, there has definitely been a swing towards the election of strong authoritarian figures. This is not a phenomenon which is unique to Europe or the Western world as such (think here of the election of Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines).

What is clear is that the rise of autocracy is inherently linked to citizen dissatisfaction with the preponderant "democratic figure", who is perceived now as unable or unwilling to deliver the results citizens hoped for (political stability, employment, housing, healthcare, tackling the immigration issue, etc.). In the current context of rampant neoliberal capitalism and its corollaries of unemployment, precariety and poverty, citizens are increasingly dissatisfied with the democratic experience overall (in particular traditional political parties) and, as a consequence, turn to new populist and strong leaders who promise to deliver real, tangible change. Take the case of Donald Trump in the US.

Dear Adrian,

there are several studies addressing how democratic countries can fall in an autocratic backlash. I suggest you a book wrote by Professor Leonardo Morlino, a leading scholar in the study of democracy, and democratization processes. The book is: "Changes for Democracy: Actors, Structures, Processes".

In particular, in the book's part 2, Morlino examines the processes of transition to democracy, and the democratic crisis. The book indeed addresses mainly the process of democratic transition, but is extremely useful also to understand how and why a democratic country could experiment an autocratic backlash.

Hoping that this could help you in answering your question.

Have a good day.

Marco

Dear Adrian,

I suggest you first review classical writings by Giambattista Vico and Niccolò Machiavelli, who both theorized the cyclical nature of historical development.

G. Vico, The new science, 1725

N. Machiavelli, Discourse on Livy, 1531

It has been a long time since I studied these issues, but I recall that wherever and whenever democratic ideas and movements have threatened the privileges of the ruling classes, the lead criticism has been that democracy will foster demagogues. Edmund Burke might be the best place to start. Might also want to look at Plutarch. I highly recommend Finis Germania by Rolf Peter Sieferle, one of the finest critiques of modern politics I know - see especially where he discusses the demise of the professional, experienced and competent ruling classes in favor of political chaos. The problem, as I - and many others - see it, is not just autocracy, but public policy altogether. Prime example might be the treatment by North American settlers of the native American populations, abhorred by the British, whose victory in the American Revolution might have saved native Americans from annihilation. Hitler is possibly the best example; the experienced Hohenzollern and Habsburg ruling families would never have dreamed of the genocidal chaos that ensued after their demise.

As a lesser - so far - example, witness Donald Trump. A true demagogue who threatens all civilizational progress since the Bronze Age.

I could go on and on, but just talking off the top of my head. Look at all those places and times where democracy has threatened the ruling classes, from ancient Greece through the French and American revolutions and all the way out to the Weimar Republic, where you will find not only the most pertinent criticisms, but living - and dying - proof of their cogency.

Complex processes often have multiple influences. As a media lawyer my focus is on the role of media within this process. The basic principles of democratic legal systems are: rule of law, (administration) division of power, independance of courts, freedom of press/media, free elections and education. All these aspects do have an influcence on the democartic level of a society. The loss/change of even one of these points can be the beginning of an anti democratic process. In most cases the first signs are a loss of a diverse media landscape.

Theories of democratic failure? Damn good question. Note, though, established democracy doesn’t fail—rampant capitalism, unemployment, poverty, populism don’t upset it. It is so tough it seems it can weather any crisis short of being conquered.

The only theory that comes to mind is Rustow’s on democratisation. His theory says the final “ingredient” of democratisation is “habituation” and so with new democracies we can say they need more time. It’s a bit vague but the concept is supported by those conquered countries which immediately reverted to democracy after the Germans left—democracy was what they were habituated to.

Following Rustow, why has democracy failed in Hungary? Because it was a new democracy which hadn’t had time to bed in when it suffered an unlucky break. One party got a very big majority in 2010 and exploited it to distort the constitution. Why? Two decades after democratisation, the cohort in charge was one that had grown up knowing that politics is dishonest (i.e., they were not habituated) and suddenly they got an opportunity and grabbed it. It was a sort of Reichstag fire moment of which they took advantage. So that explains Hungary. Pity Hungary. It is going to take a long time to claw its way back.

Why has democracy failed in Russia, Poland and Turkey? Here is my theory. It is not because of newness for they are never going to get past being new. They failed because they are presidential. The same goes for all the stans that were part of the USSR. South America has been vainly experimenting with presidentialism for generations. There is only one presidential country that has stayed democratic (and it is pretty faulty). The Philippines has failed; watch to see Indonesia fail soon; South Korea will succumb sooner or later. Will Lithuania fail? Maybe its strong diaspora along with the EU will hold its head above water.

I don’t think any leadership theory will help. I rather doubt there exists a coherent theory of leadership. I also don’t see voter dissatisfaction helping—voters are dissatisfied all over the place.

The Morlino 2012 book looks interesting but it seems there are no reviews. His biblio lists Rustow. Whether he cites my favourite author, Arend Lijphart, I don’t know because Amazon omitted that page from its preview.

Letizia, that’s all fine for a history thesis. There’s this particular thing and there's that particular thing and there’s... I don’t dispute a word of it. But political science wants a theory. The question is: Why? And the political science explanation is lower case—not capitalised things like Christian or European or PiS. That is what a theory is: the general, underlying relationships.

I suggest that Poland has gone bad because it is presidential (presidential always goes bad). The things you list are the particular reasons and the excuses the dominant party offers in Poland. A theory must subsume them as variations on a theme that plays out the same everywhere, say: presidential narcissism, nationalism, control of media. In Poland Christianity is enlisted in the cause; in China Confucius is in the front line—whatever serves the autocrat’s purpose.

Of course you can ask why Poland went presidential and the answer (which will have to do with power wrangling as the Soviet Union collapsed) might be interesting particularly if it illuminates generalities about democratisation (see, again, Rustow). Most former soviet satellites went presidential and all of these have failed except Lithuania.

My best guess is that you will ultimately abandon your search for a one-size-fits-all universal theory. Seems to me that historical and cultural anomalies always and everywhere complicate searches for universal historical truths. We can, of course, nevertheless, learn much from these quests. Spengler and Toynbee, for example, can still teach us today if we consider them in their time and place. Even Freud is best understood as having derived his theories from analyzing 19th century upper class Viennese housewives. He nailed it for his time and place.

See Brexit as a 21st century episode of democracy and demagoguery. The direct democracy referendum was, by law and by is terms, merely a recommendation to be taken into account by Parliament. Week-kneed parliamentarians and ministers, scared by all the demagoguery, have turned the close and bitter vote into the 11th Commandment. Centuries of political experience, expertise and refinement thrown to the dogs. What universal theory might explain British fears, whipped up by demagogues, of being overrun by African and Asian migrations let loose on them by Angela Merkel and post-war German conscience? What theory can even explain whether that was a breakdown or success of democratic process?

THE BEST IS THE LITERATURE ON GERMAN TRANSIT FROM SOME KIND OF DEMOCRACY (BEFORE 1933) TOWARD DARKEST REGIME IN THE EARTH'S HISTORY, TOWARDS HITLER'S DICTATORSHIP. UNFORTUNATELY MOST OF PUBLICATIONS ARE IN GERMAN LANGUAGE

UNFORTUNATELY SUCH COUNTRIES LIKE,

SPAIN AND FRANCO

PORTUGAL WITH THERIR DICTATORSHIP

ITALY OF THIRTIES

GREECE OF SEVETIES (BACK COLONELS)

IS RATHER UNTACHED

THE NEW PHENOMENA OF OPPOSITE DIRECTION GOING FROM UNDEMOCRATIC SOVIET ALLIES

TOWARDS SOME KIND OF DEMOCRACY

MORE PEACEFULL

OR DRASTIC - ROMANIA; YUGOSLAVIA

IS STILL WAITING FOR ANALYSIS