In The People vs. Democracy, the Harvard political theory professor Yascha Mounk offers a valid and pertinent insight on the prospects for liberal democracy in the world. Despite somehow dismantling Fukuyama’s dream of the ultimate triumph of democracy, the book does not have a pessimistic tone. Mounk, on the contrary, soberly exposes that although current trends on social, economic and political spheres present a real threat to democracy, we are still in time to fix it.
In the first part of the book, Mounk didactically exposes an increasing separation between democracy and liberal values and clearly explains his proposition of how democracy is deconsolidating. One of the positive aspects of this first section is that such a distinction between democracy and liberalism most of the times goes unnoticed. By thinking of a democratic government, one usually implies that it is endowed with individual freedoms – of speech, worship, press, etc. For Mounk, however, this is not the case anymore, as he explains the existence of both undemocratic liberalism and illiberal democracy, referencing European Union’s modus operandi and the current government of Viktor Orbán in Hungary, respectively. Stressing the importance of contested and fair elections, the role of checks and balances brought by institutions and individual freedom is by no means new. Political scientists, for long, have defended what is so valuable about liberal democracy. Nonetheless, Mounk succeeds in bringing to our attention subtle changes that are likely to escape our “democracy radar.” The fact that the United States or European Union countries are democracies is not under debate, but by observing the rise of populism and the measures to disregard popular opinion, as the EU backlash after Tsipras called for a popular referendum, we are provoked to at least think twice before defending that liberal democracy is ultimately consolidated in the West.
When exposing “democracy without rights,” the author brings the massive growth of populist leaders around the world. As Mounk asserts, people are so prone to populist ideas that they are likely to replace a failed populist regime with an opponent that is also populist rather than voting for establishment parties. One of his achievements is the international scope of the book. His arguments are relatable and current. While reading, I could immediately – and unfortunately – associate it with my home country’s current context. The 2018-presidential election in Brazil not just buried the “left era” started with Lula, the country’s most prominent populist leader, but also marked the major defeat of the lukewarm-right-wing-elite party, PSDB. Brazilians massively rejected conventional candidates by electing the populist right-wing candidate Jair Bolsonaro. Exactly as Mounk’s assertions on populist leaders, Bolsonaro’s campaign was remarked by discrediting the press, assumptions that the electoral process was likely rigged, and a constant labeling of “them,” “the left,” and “the communists” when mentioning opposition. Bolsonaro was often compared to Donald Trump and was severely criticized for flirting with dictatorial principles, such as torture.
Mounk succeeds in dismantling the common myth of popular preference, as leaders are “preferred” by the majority, as the only component of democracy. Although people claim that Bolsonaro’s victory in Brazil or Trump’s election in the United States were clear demonstrations of democracy’s consolidation, given the highly contested electoral process, the author clarifies that it is only partially right. In fact, as he explains, the popular election of such leaders is a legitimate representation of democracy, but also a likely threat to liberal values. These candidates are infamous for disregarding minorities and questioning the credibility of institutions. Probably, this is what best explains the title of the book: people voting for the erosion of their own power.
In the most striking section of the book, Mounk provides evidence that democracy is deconsolidating around the world. By showing consistent amounts of data, the author reveals that populations are increasingly shifting their support for democracy, to more authoritarian types of regime, especially among the newer generations. One of the most important aspects brought by this evidence is that it goes against the general assertions about the situation of democracy in our days. A sense that younger generations are more participative in politics, organizing movements and manifesting their opinions on social media seems to have distorted what is actually on the minds of many millennials. Mounk suggests that one of the explanations for this trend might be the distance between younger generations and events of authoritarianism in the West, which, at first, sounds unsatisfactory considering that the access to information and education is higher today. Some might argue that there are constant discussions about the horrors brought by Nazism, for instance, and it is unlikely that younger people are unaware of that. However, it can be explained by a gap in substantial political knowledge, especially among younger generations. The fact that more information is not necessarily translating into positive attitudes is likely to be a result of people now knowing how to deal with what they know.
Mounk mentions another factor in the book’s introduction that might fit as an explanation for the gap between democracy and younger generations. He claims that there is a growing sense of resentment deeply ingrained in certain progressive groups that leads them to question democracy as a whole. Those who argue that liberal democracy is hypocritical often try to use groups as building blocks of society. Mounk defends that a society based on group membership is unfair and that, morally and strategically, a society should be based on citizenship. What is interesting in his point is the proof that our days are being remarked by an excess of information, but no knowledge of how to reasonably deal with it. The rush to solve a very long history of injustices all at once has given margin the exaggerations committed by many activist groups, especially among younger populations.
In the second part, Mounk proposes three main causes for the instability of democracy: social media, economic stagnation, and identity. Despite his interesting arguments, at certain points, he seems to flirt with a somehow despotic protection of democracy. The media, he argues, used to occupy the role of “gatekeepers of democracy.” After the advent of the internet, however, a control over what was being said and received by the public fell apart. The problem with the way he exposes it is that, in a certain way, the role of gatekeeper of democracy can turn out to be a highly threatening factor in itself. Defending the monopoly of information by certain institutions due to its curatorship can quickly slip into an undemocratic perspective. Social media legitimizes liberal democracies, despite all its undemocratic content.
Heading to the end, Mounk focuses on possible “remedies,” as he calls it, that could save the future of democracy. Among his solutions, there are several mainstream claims such as protesting, uniting, standing up for one’s beliefs, etc. There are, however, other proposals that seem more compelling, as “domesticating nationalism.” Rather than defending extreme solutions, the author considers aspects that are very unlikely to change, as the case of nationalism, and proposes actions that conciliate grievances from both sides. His proposal of an inclusive nationalism is interesting because takes into consideration the rights of migrants and legitimates the grievances that motivated them to leave their countries in a first place, while also considering the grievances of those who are concerned with domestic issues and demand planning over immigration policies. Although critics might argue that it is too simplistic a view of a bigger problem, it is valuable for taking into account a conciliatory approach. There are, surely, other possible actions to deal with the issue of identity among populations that feel threatened in an increasingly connected world, but whichever aims to fit into liberal democracy must be as diplomatic as possible.
Mounk also succeeds when proposing a renewal of civic faith. In this section, the author somehow conceals his arguable claims about the gatekeepers of democracy and articulates more on the positive role of social media. The most plausible point, however, is when he criticizes the increasingly utilitarian perspective present in higher education institutions, especially in the United States. Mounk argues that by focusing on internal matters of politics within the academic sphere, America’s universities show little concern about transferring political knowledge to individuals outside the academia. The validity of Mounk’s criticism is evidenced by the ill use of social media. The spread of fake news and the increasing rejection of democratic values are symptoms of the lack of political knowledge across society. Millennials’ relationship with democracy reveals that access to information is not enough if important political concepts are not familiar.
The People vs. Democracy is permeated by glimpses of the author’s passions, having more of a personal, intimate character than a scientific, formal one. To those who are immersed in the study of politics, Mounk’s work might sound redundant. The book is not a seminal work and does not stand out for bringing innovative theories or arguments. However, it offers an easy assessment of important political issues. Yascha Mounk writes in a fluid way, with accessible language, and uses a serious but optimistic tone, allowing even readers that are not very fond of politics to gain a good understanding of the actual scenario. The international scope of the book enhances its relevance, by demonstrating that a problematic pattern is evolving in different parts of the world, and by allowing readers to examine the events in their own countries in order to see if they fit into these patterns as well. The author’s main achievement is in compiling all the progress made by social scientists in the study of democracy and translating it into a popular material. In this sense, this book becomes a significant part of Mounk’s contribution to one of his proposed solutions.