How do democracies arise, and what conditions promote their survival? In a CDDRL seminar series talk, Professor of Political Science and Classics Josiah Ober addressed this question, drawing on his latest book, The Civic Bargain: How Democracy Survives (Princeton University Press), co-authored with Brook Manville. The book traces paths to democracy across four case studies: Athens, Rome, Great Britain, and the United States.

Ober defines democracy as collective self-governance by a large, socially diverse, and self-authorized body of citizens. This definition does not require liberalism, allowing for analytical separation between the basic characteristics of a democracy and possible additive attributes. 

Ober argued that democracies today are experiencing what he characterized as a Schmittian moment. They operate under “the friend-enemy relation.” In other words, political actions and motives are reduced to distinguishing “friend” or “enemy.” Under this model, called “political theology” by the German jurist and political theorist Carl Schmitt, partisans assign the mark of “good” or “evil” to differing perspectives. Thus, political contests have become increasingly high stakes. All in all, politics is seen as a zero-sum game.

In stark contrast to the zero-sum state prevalent in many contemporary democracies, Ober argued that democracies all began with a civic bargain. For instance, in his final Constitutional Convention speech, Benjamin Franklin acknowledged that there were several parts of the Constitution of which he did not approve and that he accepted the Constitution since it was the best option offered. 

Democracies, Ober argues, have civic bargaining at their core and follow seven essential conditions. They have no boss, as the scope of the executive is limited. They are able to provide for their country's basic security and welfare. There are defined citizenship and citizen-led institutions. Negotiations are made in good faith, building off civic friendship and the recognition of other actors as part of a common enterprise. Finally, they are all based in a civically educated citizenry. 

In addition to establishing the necessary conditions for a democracy, Ober made a series of observations about their nature across case studies. 

Athens, Rome, and the U.S. all developed into powerful and wealthy societies without turning over authority to an all-powerful ruler, suggesting that keeping security and welfare does not require a guardian. The structures of Athens and Rome also suggest that republics and democracies are compatible and that organized political parties are not essential features of a democracy. 

Democracies, however, require respect for fundamental rights and citizens’ defense of these rights. In many cases, the negotiation of rights comes via political bargains between the elites and non-elite citizens. 

According to Ober, scale is both democracy's greatest challenge and greatest opportunity. It is an opportunity to the extent that it provides a diverse skill set that could increase security and welfare. Scale is a challenge because it brings about diverging interests, thereby making good-faith bargaining more difficult to achieve. 

In distilling both the core features of democracy throughout history and the challenges contemporary democracies face in upholding them, Ober highlights that what is missing today is respectful civic bargaining. Thus, a stronger base of civic education is a central element of any solution.

The Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law at Stanford University is proud to announce the appointment of Sophie Richardson as a Visiting Scholar. Dr. Richardson, a longtime activist and scholar of Chinese politics, human rights, and foreign policy, will be in residence with the Center through December 2024.

From 2006 to 2023, Dr. Richardson served as the China Director at Human Rights Watch, spearheading the organization's research and advocacy efforts. She has published extensively on human rights and testified to the Canadian Parliament, European Parliament, and the United States Senate and House of Representatives. Dr. Richardson is the author of China, Cambodia, and the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence (Columbia University Press, Dec. 2009), an in-depth examination of China's foreign policy since 1954's Geneva Conference, including rare interviews with Chinese policymakers.

Dr. Richardson speaks Chinese and earned her doctorate from the University of Virginia and her BA from Oberlin College. Her current research focuses on the global implications of democracies’ weak responses to increasingly repressive Chinese governments, and she is advising several China-focused human rights organizations.

During her tenure at Stanford, Dr. Richardson will embark on individual research endeavors while focusing on completing her forthcoming book project, titled "Great Changes Unseen in a Century: How to Save Democracy and Human Rights from Xi Jinping."

Ukrainian leaders told a Stanford audience on February 23 that the Russian war against their country is not only about Ukrainian sovereignty but about the future of Europe and freedom and democracy in the world as autocratic regimes increasingly align against Western allies.

The Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law hosted the two-hour panel discussion, “Two Years of War: Updates from Ukraine,” which featured CDDRL alums currently based in Ukraine. 

They included Oleksiy Honcharuk, a former prime minister of Ukraine and 2021 Bernard and Susan Liautaud Visiting Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI); Serhiy Leshchenko, advisor to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's Chief of Staff and an alumnus of the Draper Hills Summer Fellows program (now the Fisher Family Summer Fellows Program); Oleksandra Matviichuk, founder of the Center for Civil Liberties (co-recipient of the 2022 Nobel Peace Prize) and an alumna of the 2017-18 Ukrainian Emerging Leaders Program; and Oleksandra Ustinova, People’s Deputy of Ukraine and an alumna of the 2018-19 Ukrainian Emerging Leaders Program.

Reforms in Ukraine

Kathryn Stoner, Mosbacher Director of CDDRL, and Michael McFaul, director of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, served as moderators for the discussion. One year ago, with the same guests, CDDRL and FSI co-hosted a similar roundtable, the conversation of which had a different tone with more optimism.

In his opening remarks, McFaul asked the panelists for their responses to critics of U.S. military aid to Ukraine who claim Ukraine is corrupt, the money would be wasted, and that continued aid would only prolong an unwinnable war.

Matviichuk said that Ukraine has made many reforms over the last decade since the Revolution of Dignity in 2014. “Government is accountable. The judiciary is independent, and police do not kill students who are peacefully demonstrating. We have paid the highest price for this chance,” despite it being very difficult to implement far-reaching reforms during wartime.

As Americans head to the polls this year, a growing number of voters are disgruntled by national politics and their elected officials. Survey after survey has found that Americans are increasingly falling out of favor with the country’s two political parties – a trend likely to continue in what Stanford political scientist Didi Kuo is describing as a “brutal” campaign season.

“Americans are already exhausted by it, even though it has barely begun,” said Kuo, a center fellow at the Freeman-Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI).

Like other democratic institutions, political parties are reckoning with a crisis of public confidence.

“Political parties remain critical to organizing democracy but they are beleaguered,” said Kuo.

Stanford Report sat down with Kuo to learn more about the discord between political parties, candidates, and voters and what these fissures may mean for the 2024 election.

No longer gatekeepers

Kuo sees several factors that have led to political parties’ waning support among the American public, including reforms made in the early 1970s.

Until then, political parties used to have more power in selecting the party nomination for presidency.

But after Hubert Humphrey secured the Democratic Party nomination in 1968 for president of the United States without ever taking part in any of the country’s primary races, changes to the presidential nomination process were made to give voters more power in deciding who will represent the party at the general election.

“Political parties used to be gatekeepers in politics. Now, voters have a much bigger say in determining who’s going to be the presidential candidate,” said Kuo.

Those changes made it possible for Donald Trump, an insurgent candidate who had neither formal membership in the Republican Party nor any previous military or government experience to secure the nomination.

Over recent years, incumbents have faced challengers in primary elections who often tout their lack of government experience as a strength rather than a weakness.

“The party seems to have very little leverage determining who gets to run under its party label,” Kuo said.

This makes the party vulnerable to outsiders and radical candidates, and also undermines the party’s ability to choose candidates who share the party’s priorities. The party has few ways to manage factional conflict or vet candidates for office when it cannot serve as a gatekeeper in politics.

More susceptible to outside influences

Another change Kuo sees as transformative to the current political landscape was the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 – also known as the McCain-Feingold Act – that limited financial contributions people can make to political parties and campaigns.

“That had the consequence of expanding the type of financing that donors would pursue outside of the party through 501(c)(4)s or super PACs,” Kuo said.

In addition, the ruling by the Supreme Court in the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case equating corporate, political communication to that of an individual has also accelerated new ways for political power to take shape.

“What we see is a world not just of parties trying to vie for seats in the legislature or candidates, but also of these external party organizations that sometimes are connected to the party and sometimes not,” Kuo said. “These groups can run their own ads, drum up support for their own issues, and collect a lot of money, sometimes undisclosed, on behalf of specific candidates and parties.”

Kuo thinks these party-like organizations will be particularly important in 2024. “Many groups are mobilizing voters around specific issues, such as abortion rights, while others may mobilize for and against specific candidates, like the faction of ‘Never-Trumpers’ from 2020,” Kuo said.

A growing appeal of populist candidates

Another issue Kuo is paying attention to is the rise of populist, extremist candidates, a trend occurring both in the U.S. and across the globe.

Kuo, alongside her colleagues at FSI, have examined how after the financial crisis of 2008, an increasing number of voters on both the left and right have become frustrated – aggrieved, even – by their democratic and economic institutions.

“One of the things people were turning toward were populist candidates who claimed that the entire system was rigged,” Kuo said.

Kuo added: “2024 is going to be a really difficult year for Congress. It’ll be a real test of whether or not extremists can still outperform moderate Republicans.”

New ways to mobilize

The advent of digital and social media has had a transformative effect on how political parties and candidates can rally their base. In addition, data analytics afforded by these new tools has also helped candidates build targeted and effective communication strategies – all without the backing of a political party.

An example of that is Stacey Abrams, who led a galvanizing campaign to flip her home state of Georgia from Republican to Democrat in the 2020 election.

“Stacey Abrams had a massive organizational, multiyear effort in Georgia because she was convinced that you could turn the state blue, but the party was not behind those efforts,” Kuo said. “It was driven at a local level.”

Meanwhile, the same tools that have helped candidates reach people at the local level are also being used to find support beyond their precincts.

“There’s empirical evidence showing that new candidates who come into the political process to challenge an incumbent often have a lot of support from outside their district,” said Kuo. “It’s easier now for people to find candidates they support and circumvent a traditional party approach to cultivating a candidate.”

No longer reflecting what voters want or believe

When Americans are surveyed about how they feel on different policy issues, they are actually not that divided. Rather, it is the political class that has become more polarized, leading voters to feel alienated from their party.

“People feel distant from parties more and more,” Kuo said.

Increasingly, people are shunning a party label entirely and identifying as independent. Here too, political scientists see changes among how independents behave as well.

The conventional wisdom was that independent voters were people who didn’t like labels but were still solidly Democrats or Republicans, Kuo explained.

“Now, there is new evidence showing that people who call themselves ‘independent’ are turned off by the party system and see both parties as corrupt. They are very cynical about the role of special interests,” she added. “They don’t think their vote matters. When people develop this attitude, that’s more of a rejection of the party system. Many voters may feel unenthusiastic about another Biden-Trump contest and disillusioned with both parties. However, there was record turnout in 2020, and hopefully cynicism will not keep people away from the polls when the stakes of the race are so high.”

Political parties have gotten weaker

Overall, these changes have culminated in political parties becoming weaker.

“Parties have always had this tension between being run by a set of leaders who make decisions and also being democratic,” said Kuo.

Over the year to come, Kuo expects tensions to continue – not only among political parties but with other democratic institutions as well.

“I think there will continue to be a big tension between what the Supreme Court rules on things like democracy and rights and what people actually want,” Kuo said, adding how this has already been seen at the state level where voters have taken a collective stand against issues like restrictive abortion measures.

“Hopefully, there’s some way in which democracy can serve as a corrective to some policy areas where people feel as if a majority opinion is not represented.”

In December 2023, the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law (CDDRL) announced the launch of its newest research initiative, the Program on Identity, Democracy, and Justice (IDJ). Last month, IDJ hosted Harvard University professors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, authors of How Democracies Die, for a series of launch events centered on questions explored in their newest book, Tyranny of the Minority: Why American Democracy Reached the Breaking Point. 

The day’s programming included a seminar with graduate students and postdoctoral scholar associates of the program, a roundtable with undergraduate students, and the culminating event, titled "Multiracial Democracy and its Future in the United States” — a public lecture and moderated conversation with the authors about their newest book.