Read the full essay here.
This essay critiques Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt’s argument about “democracy-subverting” institutions, agreeing that authoritarian actors abuse rules but warning against reducing democracy to strict “vote majoritarianism.” The author contends that branding plurality electoral systems, federal upper houses with equal state representation, or independent central banks as inherently suspect mislabels many good-faith institutional choices as undemocratic. Forcing all institutions into a majoritarian-versus-countermajoritarian dichotomy wrongly treats majority rule as democracy’s core. Instead, the essay argues, democracy should be judged by widely accepted legal standards: meaningful political participation, free and fair elections that confer real power, robust rights, and the rule of law.
Image Credit: DAVE CHAN/AFP via Getty Images