Authoritarianism and Democratic Decline

A global phenomenon has stricken the democracies of the world for the last thirty years that unfortunately regresses the several centuries worth of work towards popular sovereignty and government accountability: executive takeovers. Political science professor, Milan W. Svolik, at the highly esteemed Yale University, reveals that not only is democratic breakdown on the rise ever since the end of the Cold War (ironic enough considering democracy was proclaimed victorious from that conflict), but the leading culprit is actually democratically elected officials themselves in his extensive article, “POLARIZATION VERUS DEMOCRACY.” Much like the professor argues, I agree that the reason as to why these executive takeovers occur is rooted in ever-increasing party polarization; voters are willing to overlook the breakdown of democratic principles and institutions from candidates if their socioeconomic policies are beneficial or party allegiance is favorable. With the necessary background information presented, this paper shall prove that even the profoundly entrenched democracy of the United States is not immune to the determinantal effects of polarization on cultural norms and legal institutions. Furthermore, this analysis shall explain how this polarization line of reasoning can only tell the breakdown of previously stable, mature democracies. As for newer, less consolidated states, there is another reason as to why executive takeover occurs: the dreaded resource curse, which identifies states with an abundance of natural resources tending to be less developed and experiencing less economic growth.

Mr. Svolik lists several political officials responsible for the subversion of democracy throughout recent history such as Hugo Chávez followed by Nicolás Maduro, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and of course, Vladimir Putin. But debatably, Donald Trump should be added to this list as the result of the polarized political landscape of America, which has already led to the expansion of executive powers and the political subjugation of the judiciary, characteristic to democratic decline. The United States fulfills the prerequisite for an executive takeover to successful happen in a state: a factious public. The ideological gap between parties is widening, and that partisanship has also made opposing party members ever more antipathic. This leaves the stage open for opportunistic elites to erode democracy and erodes an electorate’s ability to resist that democratic breakdown, which has happened here at home. For example, President Trump’s executive order that imposed a 90-day ban on citizens from seven Muslim-majority entering the country violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments as the government cannot discriminate based on religion nor deny equal protection under the law. But it was not struck down by the Supreme Court for its unconstitutionality due directly to partisanship, as the verdict was 5-4 down the party lines, meaning Republicans voted in favor of course and Democrats against. Decisions like this also harm the cultural norms of society as well as evidenced by a 2019 pro-Trump rally where supporters chanted in favor of deporting a Muslim refugee who serves in Congress, Ilhan Omar. These behaviors are only the tip of the iceberg if voters do not punish President Trump for his disregard of democratic principles and instead put party allegiance beneath the priority of upholding democracy.

Despite the concrete reasoning of this polarization theory, it cannot explain the retreat from democracy in developing nations that are rich in mineral wealth as well, characteristic in Africa. There are executive takeovers in these states, but polarization cannot be to blame as political participation and conversation are not existent, to begin with. The culprit in these cases is the lack of taxes, and by extension, social contracts that are customary of nations with extreme wealth bearing resources, so leaders do as they see fit without consequence.