Harvard professors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt advised pushing a “militant democracy” to ensure an “authoritarian figure” like former President Trump never rises to power again.
In an op-ed for the New York Times, Levitsky and Ziblatt describe how they spent the last year “researching how democracies can protect themselves from authoritarian threats from within,” lamenting how close Trump remains to getting a second term.
“How could such an openly authoritarian figure have a coin flip’s chance of returning to the presidency? Why have so many of our democracy’s defenses seemingly broken down, and which, if any, remain?” they wrote.
One of the ways they suggested limiting figures like Trump’s rise to power was a “militant or defensive democracy” which they described as a way authorities can restrict or outlaw speech against “antidemocratic forces.”
“Born in West Germany as a response to Europe’s democratic failures in the 1930s, the militant democracy approach empowers public authorities to wield the rule of law against antidemocratic forces. Haunted by the experience of Hitler’s rise to power via the ballot box, West German constitutional designers created legal and administrative procedures that allowed the state to restrict and even outlaw ‘anti-constitutional’ speech, groups and parties,” they wrote.
Though they acknowledged “significant drawbacks” that could be “easily abused” in this strategy by politicians, they argued how it may be better than simply relying on electoral competition or the “laissez-faire approach” to sort out bad ideas.
“Electoral competition is, of course, essential to democracy. But a laissez-faire approach has two important limitations. First, in the United States, competition is distorted by an 18th-century institution, the Electoral College, that allows election losers to win power. In one sense, the electoral marketplace worked in 2016 the way it is theoretically supposed to: More Americans voted for Hillary Clinton than for Mr. Trump. But the Electoral College permitted an authoritarian figure who won fewer votes to become president,” they wrote. “In addition, history shows us that electoral competition alone is insufficient to fend off extremist threats. Good ideas don’t always win out. And candidates seeking to subvert democracy don’t always lose.”
Levitsky and Ziblatt criticized the “tepid” approach from politicians as well as leading businesses and religious institutions on calling out or limiting Trump’s rise.
“The U.S. establishment is sleepwalking toward a crisis. An openly antidemocratic figure stands at least a 50-50 chance of winning the presidency. The Supreme Court and the Republican Party have abdicated their gatekeeping responsibilities, and too many of America’s most influential political, business and religious leaders remain on the sidelines. Unable to rise above fear or narrow ambition, they hedge their bets. But time is running out. What are they waiting for?” they concluded.