Who Is Threatening Democratic Freedoms?
A Primer for Evaluating Claims of Erosion of Democracy
Both Major Parties Accuse The Other of Threatening Democracy
Both Democrats and Republicans accuse the other party of being anti-democratic or of “democratic backsliding”. The Democrats argue that Project 2025, a blueprint of conservative Republican wish-lists created by former Trump officials and insiders, will “gut democratic checks and balances and consolidate power in the Oval Office” if Donald Trump regains the presidency. They also contend that the conservative Supreme Court’s supermajority decision in Trump v. United States eviscerates the foundational American system of checks and balances, encourages future insurrection and undemocratic actions, and was based on illogical, partisan reasoning.
Meanwhile, Republicans and former President Trump have accused Democrats of seeking to reshape the US as Marxist and Communist, for example when Donald Trump was arraigned in court for charges of fraud in making payments to Stormy Daniels and later when he was convicted in what some Republicans called a “Marxist show trial”. Most recently, Republicans have contended that in nominating Kamala Harris as president, the DNC has accomplished an undemocratic coup against President Biden, bypassing the will of the voters.
These are heavy arrows to sling. However, alleging a political opponent is limiting democratic freedoms or backsliding democratically doesn’t make it true. Understanding civics and the American form of government can aid citizens in evaluating claims of encroachments on, or the potential end of, democracy.
The Creation of Democratic Freedoms In The US
It’s important to remember that the founders of the United States created a new form of government, intended to differ significantly from the tyranny they felt they had experienced under top-down, centralized rule by English kings. Together with other parts of the Constitution, the First Amendment sets forth the cornerstones of American democracy. It reads as follows:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Thus, Americans enjoy democracy in possessing the following five specifically enumerated rights:
The right to worship as they please, without a state or official religion, in what is known as freedom of religion;
The right to express themselves and to criticize the government without fear of punishment or reprisal, or what is known as freedom of speech;
The right of the press to publish what it wants to and to criticize the government, without fear of punishment or reprisal, or what is known as freedom of the press;
The right to meet in public to express their views, including those critical of the government, without fear of punishment or reprisal, or what is known as freedom of assembly;
The right to ask the government to address or remedy situations without fear of punishment or reprisal, or what is known as the freedom to petition.
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights set forth additional rights important to democracy, including the right to vote. The country’s founders and the Constitutional Convention participants enumerated and included these rights deliberately, to form a country free of the whims and absolute power of a monarchy, or any one person, in which the leader is elected by the citizens. Therefore, any party, candidate, office holder, or platform seeking to limit or remove the exercise of any of these rights, may generally be viewed as anti-democratic, or seeking to erode democracy.
Checks and Balances: Three Co-Equal Branches of Government
It’s important to note, further, that the First Amendment refers to laws Congress makes. That’s because the Constitution set up a government with three co-equal branches of government, in what’s known as a system of “checks and balances”, in which no one branch is superior to another.
The three branches of government are: Executive, which is headed by what was then a new concept, “the president”, and includes government agencies, Legislative, constituting the House of Representatives and the Senate, or Congress, and Judicial, a system of federal courts with the Supreme Court adjudicating and interpreting laws made by Congress and regulations and laws administered and enforced by the Executive Branch. The combination of powers and duties of the three branches gives the government as a whole the power to check encroachments into constitutionally-prescribed rights and duties.
Any party, candidate, office holder, court, or platform advocating or effectuating the supremacy of one branch of government over the other thus may generally be viewed as undermining the structure, purpose, and intent of the basic protections of the American government.
How To Evaluate Claims of Democratic Backsliding
All fine and good, and most of us learned this all a long time ago. But how can the average citizen know whether a claim of democratic backsliding or threat to democracy is accurate? It is instructive to look at countries where democratic backsliding has occurred and led to a different form of government emerging than democracy. Comparing alleged conduct with conduct in other countries, rather than just accepting a bald accusation of democratic backsliding, provides one framework for assessing threats to democracy. Democratic backsliding is more often associated with right or conservative-based parties than left or liberal-based parties and as documented has often included the following:
1. Crackdown on civil liberties such as free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly
2. Discrimination or hostility to religious or ethnic or other minorities.
Further, Larry Diamond of Stanford University has identified the following actions of leaders and parties in democracies that tend to occur when democratic backsliding happens and authoritarianism takes hold:
“1. Begin to demonize the opposition as illegitimate and unpatriotic, part of the discredited establishment, out of touch with the “true people.”
2. Undermine the independence of the courts by forcing existing judges to retire or/and then packing the courts.
3. Undermine the independence of the media, by denouncing them as partisan, mobilizing the intense populist following against them, taking over ownership of them through politically loyal businesses and party-linked political cronies, and so on.
4. If there is public broadcasting, gain control of it and politicize it.
5. Impose stricter control of the Internet, in the name of morality, security, counter-terrorism, but casting a chilling effect on free speech.
6. Subdue other elements of civil society—particularly NGOs and universities—by casting them as elitist, politically partisan and anti-government.
7. Intimidate the business community into ceasing support for opposition parties.
8. Use state control over contracts, credit flows, and other resources to enrich a new class of political crony capitalists who are tightly linked to and reliably supportive of the ruling party.
9. Extend political control over the state bureaucracy and security apparatus to purge the “deep state” of anyone not slavishly loyal. Use the state intelligence apparatus as a weapon against the opposition.
10. Gerrymander constituencies and otherwise rig electoral rules to make it much more difficult for opposition parties to win the next election.
11. Gain control over electoral administration to further tilt the electoral playing field and institutionalize competitive authoritarianism.
12. ¬Repeat steps 1 to 11, ever more vigorously, deepening fear of opposing or criticizing the new political hegemony and thus demobilizing all significant forms of resistance.”
Applying these factors and guidelines to the situations in which the parties allege anti-democratic action is occurring will yield a fuller understanding of whether a claim is true. Fact finding first is key, as always. In future posts, Kitchen Table Talk will analyze the Republican and Democratic claims of anti-democratic behavior discussed above. If indeed one side is right, or both, which could be possible, Americans must learn how to decipher which, what, and who represents a threat to American democracy, and fast. If we want American democracy to continue, assuming at least some of these claims have some validity, we owe it to our country, our futures, and our progeny, whether living or notional, to determine the truth.
Want to know more? Check out the following resources.
The National Archives: The Bill of Rights, What Does It Say?
Crash Course Video: Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances: Crash Course Government and Politics #3
Understanding democratic decline In The United States by the Brookings Institute
Carnegie Counsel For Ethics in International Affairs: Democratic Backsliding
Defending Liberal Democracy from the Slide Toward Authoritarianism by Larry Diamond
