35 pages • 1 hour read
Twilight of Democracy: The Seductive Lure of Authoritarianism
A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Themes
Democracy Versus Authoritarianism
Applebaum does not give an explicit definition of democracy. However, she does suggest that a successful, modern democracy is not simply a representative government. Democracies should have a “competitive model” and a “neutral state.” This competitive model would be economic and political, with businesses and political parties alike given the space to compete. Meanwhile, the institutions of a state, such as its courts and the media, should not be dominated by a single political party or agenda. At one point, Applebaum discusses how authoritarian governments rig both political parties and businesses. She thus implies that, for democracies, she sees the free market and democracy as strongly linked (27). Further, Applebaum at least implies that a healthy democracy is associated with “religious tolerance, independent judiciaries, free press and speech, economic integration, international institutions” (19).
When it comes to authoritarian governments, Applebaum is much more specific about its traits. Some key characteristics of authoritarian governments and their supporters in the current era she discusses include:
- Authoritarianism is not inherently right-wing or left-wing (16-19, 106).
- “Authoritarianism appeals […] to people who cannot tolerate complexity” (16, 106, 117-18).
- It requires the existence of an “elite” of writers and promoters whom Appelbaum calls clercs to promote (18-19).
- They prefer either a state with only one political party or one where other political parties are allowed to exist as a “token opposition” (22-25).
- Political, media, and sometimes business positions are filled with party loyalists, and political power is used to intimidate or silence critics (35, 47, 103-04).
- Violence and anti-democratic methods may be used against the opposition (35-36, 102, 151-53, 167-68).
- They rely on marketing techniques, falsehoods, conspiracy theories, and misinformation, spread by their clercs or social media (37-48, 61-62, 75, 88-89, 113-15, 123-24, 133-38).
- They encourage and exploit social conservatism, xenophobia, nationalism, and polarization and debate critics with open hostility (38, 49-51, 72-73, 83-86, 98-101, 106-08, 130-33, 166-67).
- They are skeptical of and hostile to existing democratic and international institutions (51, 64-65, 83-85, 90-91, 97-98, 102-04, 125-29, 132-33).
- They want to return to an idealized past (62-64, 167).
- They exhibit a cultural despair, the idea that the present form of the nation has been weakened by some agenda or that the nation is no better than other nations, and believe the nation needs to be saved through any means necessary (75-83, 87-88, 138-40, 145-50, 152-58, 165-68, 171).
- They desire the destruction of current institutions or to at least annoy a political establishment, even if it means chaos (51, 89-94, 128-29).
Through this lens, Applebaum examines what she perceives is a historic tendency of societies to turn against democracy—a recurring historical process that has happened before and will likely happen again.
Communications, Technology, and Historical Change
Although Applebaum writes that there is “no theory that will explain everything” (188), she does offer a possible explanation as to why the current threat to democracy exists: The internet revolution that began in the 1990s has brought about “the contentious, cantankerous nature of modern discourse itself” (109).
She compares this to past information revolutions like the invention of the European printing press in the 15th century, saying it is “exactly the sort of communication revolution that has had profound political consequences in the past” (111). Democratic governments have had time to adapt to older forms of communication technology that were once new, like radio and television. As Applebaum writes, “Democratic governments struggled, at first, to find ways to counter the language of demagogues that now reached people inside their homes” (111-12).
As for newer forms of digital media, whose emergence has been “a rapid shift” (111), there has not been time for institutions, governments, and business models to adjust. Older forms of media are subjected to ethical codes, regulations, and laws that do not quite exist yet for new media (112-13). This theory is important to understand Appelbaum’s cautious optimism. If the rise of authoritarianism is primarily a result of technological change and is something mirrored in the past, then it is likely that, as circumstances change further, the threat will diminish. It is always possible that, in response to the coronavirus epidemic, “we will renew and modernize our institutions” and “we can rethink what democracy should look like in a digital age” (186, 188). Of course, Applebaum admits it is also possible that authoritarianism and polarization will instead increase. However, overall she seems to find comfort in the fact that history proves that “[n]o political victory is ever permanent […] no elite of any kind, whether so-called ‘populist’ or so-called ‘liberal’ or so-called ‘aristocratic’, rules forever” (186).
“Who Are We?”
Applebaum views “Who are we?” as one of the core questions of Twilight of Democracy: “How is a nation defined? Who gets to define it? Who are we?” (178). Throughout the book, Applebaum is interested in the idea of nation. Further, she clearly believes in expanding identities beyond the nation to an international scale. When describing the party she hosted in 2019, she expresses optimism over her son’s teenage friends she met at the party: “Maybe the teenagers who feel both Polish and European, who don’t mind whether they are in the city or the country, are harbingers of something else, something better, something that we can’t yet imagine” (181).
Further, Applebaum sees a broad answer to the question that accepts diversity as important to democracy. Conversely, a narrow answer that limits “we” to an ethnic nationality is a trait of authoritarianism. For one example, one characteristic of President Trump that Applebaum bemoans is that he expressed a desire for “a return to the xenophobia and inward-looking isolationism of the 1920s” (157). Elsewhere, Applebaum bemoans how Brexit gave rise to a xenophobia that excluded Europeans from Britain: “The Polish plumbers and Spanish data analysts working in Britain were not fellow Europeans who shared a common culture but immigrants threatening the nation’s identity” (84).
Instead, Applebaum prefers the view she and her 1999 New Year’s Eve guests shared about Poland. They wanted “a Poland that was a member of NATO and on its way to joining the European Union (EU), a Poland that was an integrated part of modern Europe” (2). So, rather than being a side issue, the question of “Who are we?” is essential to the debate over democracy and authoritarianism. Applebaum would argue that since “it is possible to be rooted to a place and yet open to the world” (181), openness and diversity lead to a more functional democracy, rather than posing a threat to a national identity like the authoritarians believe.
Unlock all 35 pages of this Study GuidePlus, gain access to 8,800+ more expert-written Study Guides.
Including features:
Related Titles
By Anne Applebaum
Featured Collections
Books on U.S. History
View Collection
Community
View Collection
Nation & Nationalism
View Collection
Philosophy, Logic, & Ethics
View Collection
Politics & Government
View Collection
Sociology
View Collection
The Best of "Best Book" Lists
View Collection
Truth & Lies
View Collection