They are going too far.
Harvard professors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt advocate for the implementation of a “militant democracy” to prevent the emergence of authoritarian leaders, like former President Trump, in the future. In a recent op-ed published in the New York Times, they reflect on their research over the past year regarding how democracies can shield themselves from internal threats posed by authoritarian figures. They express concern over Trump’s continued proximity to a potential second term.
The professors pose critical questions about how someone with such openly authoritarian tendencies could have a viable chance of returning to the presidency. They note that many defenses of democracy appear to have weakened, raising concerns about which protections are still effective. To counter this, they propose a “militant or defensive democracy,” which allows authorities to restrict or prohibit expressions that support anti-democratic movements.
This concept of militant democracy has roots in post-World War II Germany, where constitutional designers aimed to prevent a repeat of the rise of figures like Hitler, who came to power through democratic means. They established legal frameworks that permitted the government to limit or ban “anti-constitutional” speech and organizations.
While Levitsky and Ziblatt recognize potential drawbacks of this approach, including the risk of misuse by politicians, they argue it may be more effective than relying solely on electoral competition or a hands-off attitude to weed out harmful ideologies. They point out that in the U.S., the Electoral College distorts the electoral process, allowing candidates who lose the popular vote to gain power, as seen in the 2016 election. Furthermore, they highlight that electoral competition alone is inadequate to combat extremist threats.
The authors criticize the hesitant response from political leaders, businesses, and religious institutions regarding Trump’s rise. They warn that the U.S. is “sleepwalking” toward a significant crisis, with an openly anti-democratic candidate potentially winning the presidency again. Levitsky and Ziblatt emphasize the urgency of taking decisive action and question why influential figures remain passive in the face of such threats.
