Author of "How Democracies Die": "Trump is just a symptom of US problems"
A week before the elections in the US, the author of "How Democracies Die", Steven Levitsky maintains to Ex-Ante that Donald Trump does not have a "minimum commitment" to the rules of the democratic game. But he warns that the problems come from before, that the United States has not seen a polarization like the current one since the civil war of the 19th century and that an eventual victory for Biden will not produce a 180º turn.
- What is at stake in this election between Trump and Biden?
What is at stake is the democracy of the United States, which has suffered a very large level of democratic deterioration in the last four years. If you examine the global indices of democracy, they all show a deterioration in the level of democracy in the United States. According to Freedom House, a fairly right-wing NGO, we have already descended to a level of democracy lower than Chile, Uruguay or Costa Rica. We are at the same level as Panama. The current government has politicized several key institutions in an atrocious way. The Ministry of Justice, the Department of State, Foreign Relations or Public Health, have become politicized in a way that we have not seen in many decades. If Trump wins reelection, this will continue to happen.
- Can only Trump be held responsible or is it a process that comes from before?
–It comes from before. Trump is just one symptom of the problem. He has made it worse because he does not have a minimum commitment to the rules of the democratic game. Every time in a presidential system you elect a guy with no commitment to the rules of the democratic game, it's a problem. Trump arises from a deeper problem that is the extreme polarization of American politics. The two parties have become polarized in a way that we have not seen since the end of the civil war in the 19th century. And that polarization will continue even if Biden wins. Removing an authoritarian president is one step but it is not going to solve the problem.
- That polarization was seen very clearly in the first debate between Trump and Biden ...
- It is true and it is very difficult to hold a healthy, interesting and civil debate when the forces are very polarized. But it also has a lot to do with Trump's personality. Trump did not prepare, he is not able to talk seriously about politics, he never has, so he basically destroyed the debate by constantly interrupting Biden and bullying the moderator. He is like a child who cannot play by the rules and destroys everything.
- Why is there such deep polarization in the United States? What got you there?
- We are going through a transition that few democracies in the world have gone through, in which a dominant ethnic group loses an electoral majority and loses its dominant status in society. 50 years ago, when I was a child, Christian whites were 80% of the electorate and dominated everything political, social and cultural in the country. All the presidents, governors, Supreme Court justices, senators, corporate CEOs, experts, political scientists, they were all white and Christian. In 50 years this has changed profoundly. Christian whites are about to lose their electoral majority, their majority in the country, and they are also losing their dominant status in society. And that feels like a deep, almost existential threat, and that's why we see slogans like "Make America Great Again." The extremism of the Republican Party is an answer to that.
How different could a government led by Joe Biden be from that of Donald Trump?
- It will be impossible to erase the effects of the Trump administration. Even if he wants to, it will be difficult for Biden to make a 180 degree turn on things like foreign policy or immigration policy. But I think the external image, at least in the international forum, is going to be different. We have seen a government that does not care about the international image of it and I believe that Biden will try to return to the image that we had with Obama and with all previous governments. A more internationalist government, which at least intends to cooperate with other countries, which works with our Western allies, more with France and Germany than with Russia. There is going to be an important change.
- In any case, there are those who defend Trump's management. For example, the US economy has performed well during his administration ...
"Trump inherited a strong economy." The performance was positive, yes, we grew for 3 years, but he has not done much. The only thing he approved was a tax cut for the wealthiest that few economists say he helped.
- What is the impact of these elections for Latin America?
- The United States was not paying much attention to Latin America in recent years. Obama didn't get into much. Then Trump did not represent such a dramatic change, especially for South America. In the first 15 or 20 years after the Cold War, under Bush Sr., Clinton and Bush Jr., the United States supported, promoted and defended democracy in the region, opposing coup attempts in Paraguay, Ecuador and Guatemala. Trump does not care one bit about democracy and the United States ceased to be a democratic model on the continent. My impression is that a Joe Biden government could at least support democracy in the region with a minimum of energy.
- What is the reason for the arrival of anti-systemic leaders to power, such as Trump or Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil?
- The power of the establishment has been reduced. Fifty years ago, establishments in democracies had a monopoly on the resources necessary to win elections and stay in power. And the established parties dominated the candidacies. In the 60s, 70s or 80s, in any democracy in the world it was very difficult to be an outsider and be elected. The media ignored you, nobody gave you money and the parties never gave you the candidacy. But in recent decades it has become easier and easier. The establishment has lost its monopoly. And with the rise of social media, candidates can raise a ton of resources through the internet and can reach the electorate without going through the media.
But it also has to do with discontent in society, right?
–It is that there is always discontent. There is always mistrust of people towards politicians. The difference is that now it is simply easier to be an anti-establishment than before. Choosing an inexperienced outsider dedicated to attacking the political elite often ends up generating at least one institutional or democracy crisis. Be it (Alberto) Fujimori, Hugo Chávez, Rafael Correa or Trump… many outsiders end up confronted with Congress, with the judiciary, with the media. In many cases they end up attempting a self-coup or attempting to shut down Congress.
