Customer Reviews

Democracy's Good Name: The Rise and Risks of the World's Most Popular Form of Government

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

What surprised me in reading this very well written treatise on democracy was the fact that democracy is now the most common form of government in the world, and that has been a fact for only the last two or three decades. Prior to say the 1970s democratic governments were not only in the minority worldwide, but were seen by many as something of an experiment. After all, until the rise of Great Britain in 18th century, there were no nation-state democracies on the planet. Britain was first and the US was the second. Professor Mandelbaum explains all this and more in a most engaging manner.

The problem has always been that democracy, far from having a "good name," was considered dangerous to liberty and private property. It was believed that if you allowed popular sovereignty, you were on the road to disaster since the majority would take resources from minorities and stifle opinions that the majority found disagreeable. But, as Mandelbaum is careful and anxious to note, if you add liberty to popular sovereignty you have the magic formula that leads to relative wealth and happiness, or at least the opportunity for same. Consequently what Mandelbaum calls democracy is really a hybrid of popular sovereignty and liberty. He shows how they go together like love and marriage.

The book begins with the origins of democracy and ends with the future of democracy. Along the way Mandelbaum makes the case for democracies being more conducive to the creation of wealth and more peaceful than other forms of government; indeed he claims that no democratic state has ever attacked another democratic state. That is eye-opening. He also argues that a prerequisite for democracy is a market economy. He argues further that a market economy, because it is based on economic liberty, tends to lead toward political freedom and democracy. However, as is presently the case in China, a free market economy may exist without political freedom, but for how long?

In the last chapter Mandelbaum looks at prospects for real democracy in Russia, China and the Arab states. He concludes that Russia is the closest to achieving it, but must overcome the habits of 70-some years of communist rule and before that the undemocratic mind set of the czarist state. He sees China as coming along more slowly because the communists are still firmly intrenched and he doesn't see them giving up power any time soon. In the Arab/Muslim Middle East the situation is more difficult. Mandelbaum notes that the autocratic states there will have to overcome not only a disinclination to follow Western ways, but the tenets of Islam itself which argue against democracy. Furthermore, petro states are very far from having either true market economies or the requisite institutions of civil society that foster popular sovereignty and liberty. As for the future of democracy in the democracies themselves, Mandelbaum sees that as rosy. Only a major catastrophe of some sort is likely to change the leading democracies in Europe, the US and Japan into something else.

I found it interesting that Mandelbaum is careful not to directly criticize Bush's misadventure in Iraq while at the same time giving very substantial reasons for the foregone conclusion that attempts to impose democracy there from without would fail. Natan Sharansky, a cabinet member in the Israeli government, has argued that a good way to fight terrorism is to turn tyrannical states into democracies. Mandelbaum agrees but notes how very difficult that is to do. He writes (pp. 171-172) that Sharansky's ideas influenced George W. Bush in his attempt to turn Iraq into the first Arab/Muslim democracy. Mandelbaum also quotes Ronald Reagan, who said "Freedom and democracy are the best guarantors of peace. History has shown that democratic nations do not start wars." (p. 137) I could not help but see this quote, placed conspicuously at the beginning of Chapter 4, as a direct stab at the policies of our current president.

But Mandelbaum is scrupulous in his avoidance of any direct criticism of the Bush administration and careful not to endorse any political platform. Indeed one of the strengths of this book is its nonpartisan tone and the fact that its political agenda does not extend beyond an enthusiastic three cheers for democracy.

For those wanting to know more about what democracy is, how it comes into being, how and why it has become "the world's most popular form of government," and what its prospects are, this book is about as good as anything I can imagine. It is authoritative, readable and masterfully argued. This is a fine piece of work by an outstanding political scientist.

Dr. Mandelbaum's highly readable and stunningly insightful review of the origins of democracy, how countries become democracies, and the future of democracy is feat of unparalleled analytic skill. This outstanding work should be required reading for all candidates seeking national office in any country, as well as anyone dealing with or interested in international affairs, and all who wish to comprehend or already cherish democratic freedom.

Professor Mandelbaum is masterful in providing the reader with a clear, concise and wholly enjoyable history of democracy while explaining the interrelationship of democracy with free markets, international trade and how democracy determines whether we live in a world at war or we have peace. After reading this fine book one not only feels more optimistic about the future but you are well educated with an understanding of the basis for such optimism. Perhaps of equal importance, this book explains the risks to existing democracies and the factors that will determine whether democracy thrives or withers around the globe. The insights regarding Russia, China and the Arab world help explain the situation in those areas today and the potential outcomes for them in the future.

This is a fact filled book written is a highly entertaining style that ties together a multitude of issues. For anyone interested in the future of our world this is a book you must read at least once (it is so interesting and such a pleasure to read that I am now reading it a second time).

This book argues several inter-related points. First, democracy is the best type of government there is in terms of safeguarding lives and property, and producing a high, and continuously improving standard of living. Second, democracy as a form of government does not come naturally to all people in all situations, but is often spread thru imperfect imitation of one nation by another nation. Third, the US and UK are the world's exemplars of democracy in terms of role-modeling the practice of it, and convincing other nations to adopt it.

I agree completely with the author's first point. A tabulation of the relative standards of living in different parts of the world usually shows the highest standards of living occur in areas with the most-democratic regimes. This conclusion is applicable whether one takes the snapshot in 2000 AD, 1000 AD, or 1000 BC. The author argues that this correlation between wealth and democracy is due to the principles of the free market (exchange of goods and ideas, private property, etc...) that are needed to generate the former, also happen to instigate the latter. This might be correct, but the author misses a potentially bigger reason; and that is democracy offers a fair and practical method of choosing political leaders. All other methods of choosing leaders often end up as civil wars, revolutions or coups; and nothing destroys wealth better than violence. Hence the direct correlation between democracy and wealth is not necessarily via the free market and private property. Instead, it is because democracy provides a path around violent, wealth-destroying, succession struggles.

I disagree with the author's 2nd point, which is democracy does not come naturally. Studies of primitive societies throughout the world, such as the Native Americans of North America, consistently demonstrate that direct democracy was the prevalent form of government prior to European colonization. However, this democracy was usually practiced orally. For example, written documents from early explorers and missionaries describe how a given tribe of several hundred members would often discuss an issue (i.e. whether or not to war with a neighboring tribe) at great lengths that involved every adult member. Discussions happened face-to-face and hence decision-making was devoid of pamphlets, TV commercials, billboards, radio-ads and other manifestations of propaganda that is all too common in representative democracies. This is where the author either ignores or is oblivious to the truth. Direct democracy was actually a very prevalent form of government. Societies that practiced it were gradually wiped out, absorbed or marginalized by colonial extension of European monarchies. The latter (colonies and home nations) in turn evolved into representative democracies, often in fits and starts.

I believe the author's last conclusion is blatantly wrong and shows an incomplete understanding of 20th century history. The US and UK are not the world's best examples of democracy. The UK still has a taxpayer-funded monarchy that happens to own some of the most valuable real-estate in that nation. Likewise, the US has consistently maintained the highest incarceration rate among all democracies over the past 20 - 30 years. Even if one were to attribute both characteristics to voters' choices in each respective country, this still ignores one highly undemocratic feature in each country. For the UK, it is the relations between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Currently they are peaceful, but going back just 30 years saw routine violence between England and Northern Ireland over sovereignty that stretched back centuries.

For the US, it is the high amount of inconsistencies in voting results at all levels. Whether it be the registering of dead people, voter intimidation, destruction of uncounted ballets, forgery of votes, and outright miscounting, the American system of holding elections and tallying votes is probably the most error-prone in the industrialized world. Forget about the 2000 presidential election and Florida. One can look at LBJ's political rise as documented in Robert Caro's multi-volume biography. Or look across the political aisle at Nixon and Watergate; notice the scandal came out AFTER he got elected to a 2nd term. Probably the best testament to my point is the constant recounts of elections. Whether it is the 2008 Congressional elections or previous Congressional elections, one can find numerous races that took 2 or more recounts to decide, often with a different winner declared after each recount.

I think a better set of candidates for the world's role models of democracy would be the Scandinavian countries. From Iceland in the West to Finland in the East, the Scandinavian countries have lower incarceration rates, stronger protection of civil liberties, provide higher rates of public financing of civil institutions necessary for democracy such as schools, courts, and social welfare programs. The Scandinavian countries also do a much better job of separating commercial interests and government pressure from influencing the mass media. This last point is poignantly demonstrated by the passive complicity in which the American media (Fox News, MSNBC, Wall Street Journal, Time, etc...) believed the Bush Administrations lies about Iraq's WMD. Probably the best example of Scandinavia's leadership among democracies is their strong support for diplomacy, human rights, and open borders for political refugees.

Another miss by the author is the contribution by entities residing in democracies to the creation and maintenance of dictatorships (heredity or idealogical) in other countries. Again the best examples are the UK and US. The Saudi dynasty on the Arabian peninsula was created and rests on American power; see the novel Cities of Salt for evidence. Likewise the Nazis' rise to power was financially supported by US banks and corporations such as Ford, GM, IBM, and Standard Oil.

My final criticism of the book is the numerous fallacies in the text. Probably the most relevant example is the author's discussion of terrorism and democracy, and the author's specific statement that established democracies like the US and UK do not support terrorism. I guess if one were to narrowly define terrorism as the smashing of planes into buildings, then the author is correct. There is no evidence that the US and UK have ever supported the smashing of planes into crowded buildings. However, if one were to use the conventional definition of terrorism, i.e. the use of violence against civilians to achieve political goals, the author's statement is flat out wrong. Both the US and UK have actively supported terrorists and terrorism throughout the 20th century. Lets leave aside the UK for now and focus on the US, seeing that the author and I are both American. Throughout the latter half of the 20th century, the executive branch of the US government has provided money, weapons and training to thousands of violent bullies in Latin America as long as the latter professed anti-communism. Many of them used their wealth and weaponry to terrorize civilians through torture, rape, kidnappings and murder. Former Panamanian leader Manual Noriega is a good example. Trained in Fort Benning, Georgia, the US then released him onto the people of Panama whereupon he bullied them for over a decade until he sided with the wrong drug dealer, and imposed the wrath of President G. Bush. Another good example is the Afghan war of the 1980's. Call them freedom fighters then, but the tactics they used were hallmarks of terrorism. Many of them eventually made their way into urban capitals worldwide and became terrorists by anyone's definition.

So overall, this book has a lot of mistakes in it. There are better works to read to understand the spread and success of democracy in the latter decades of the 20th century.

This book is a good read. It starts off with a puzzle: how did the world go from only 10 democracies in 1900, then to 30 in 1975, and then to 119 (out of 190 countries) today? What makes a country embrace or resist democracy? From there, Mandelbaum develops various themes on the book's subtitle: "The Rise and Risks of the World's Most Popular Form of Government". The author keeps thing interesting by advancing the intellectual adventure from one puzzle to another. I got absorbed into the flow of the book instantly. However, I don't know whether it is his intention to trade academic rigor for readability, or it is just his style. He just doesn't back up his claims very carefully. For example, the book's most fundamental puzzle is based on the big jumps from 10 to 30 to 119 within 107 years. Yet, he never provides the lists of such "democracies". Upon a closer reading of his endnotes, you can see that he actually pulled the figures from at least three different sources. That makes you wonder whether the lists are comparable because they may have different standards of counting what constitutes a democracy. Looking back, this problem would leave an even worse taste in the mouth when he later makes the distinction between genuine and "nominal democracies", which are democracies in name only. Perhaps the fundamental puzzle is less surprising if most of the so-called democracies are actually nominal democracies? But, at that point, I was willing to suspend my judgment for the time being, and just read on.

While this book is at times sloppy on presenting evidences, it is certainly not shy on articulating the main ideas. The introduction not only defines many important concepts, but also provides the historical and theoretical context to relate all those concepts together. For example, he defines democracy as a fusion of two political traditions: "liberty— individual freedom; and popular sovereignty— rule by all the people" (p. xiii). Immediately he was able to leverage on the definition to highlight the conflicts between these two traditions and why they make an "odd couple" (p. 16), a metaphor that he will come back again and again throughout the book. And then he makes similar maneuvers repeatedly to drive his points home. I found this method of 'idea spawning' to be very effective in giving new life to an otherwise rather dull subject.

As for his main thesis, it sounds simple enough: "Democracy did eventually spread, largely because the countries where it flourished became unusually successful and therefore served as attractive models for others to emulate." (p. xiv) These successful countries happen to be victors of the two World Wars and the Cold War. According to Mandelbaum, the First World War illegitimised the rule of monarchy and empire, and gave rise to popular sovereignty. However, this doesn't automatically secure a place for democracy because "nominal democracies" (p. 32) were also born alongside as competing ideologies. A nominal democracy governs in the name of people, but offers no representation and does not protect liberty. By successfully defending themselves in the Second World War, genuine democracies discredited this rival political tradition found on inequality and oppression and give democracy the good name as claimed in the book's title. Finally, the Cold War established liberty-protecting representative democracies that embraced free-market economies as the victors. This is important because, according to Mandelbaum's theory, a free-market economy serves as a "school for democracy". Through the training of free markets, institutions that mediate between the public and the government are built, and the necessary skills and values are cultivated among the people to enable a genuine democracy to function. The victory of free-market economies lends support to his theory why free-market economies are not only good but also almost necessary for democracies to succeed. After that, the "wealth effect" (p. 100) took over: the poorer countries embraced democracy partly because they wanted to imitate the successful formula of the rich countries, and partly because they were required to convert to democracy as a pre-condition of joining important organizations, such as the European Union. The first three chapters wrap up at this point, and basically conclude the "Rise" part of subtitle rather splendidly.

Chapter 4 and the first part of Chapter 5 aim to explore the "Risk" part of the title. Unfortunately, Chapter 4 relies too heavily on the "democratic peace" thesis, which asserts that democratic countries tend to avoid wars against one another. Since I regard this theory as utter nonsense, I only skimmed over this portion in disappointment. But that's just me. Chapter 5 reiterates the point that a necessary condition for democracy to succeed is "the people of that country must acquire the habit of tolerance... and the skills to manage an effective legal system". Unfortunately the author gave this seemingly reasonable proposition an warranted twist in the second part of Chapter 5, which is basically a series of case studies on why democracy failed to take root in Russia, China, and the Muslim and Arab-speaking countries. He was too willing to assume these cultures do not value— at least do not practice— tolerance and laws. Occasionally he blames the U.S. for rushing the democratization campaign so much that it created suspicion among the people whom they seek to gain cooperation. But he tends to frame it as good intention poorly executed, and is not critical at all against his own government. In contrast, his tone against the "case study" countries is a lot harsher. He also recites nationalism way too often to explain away the failure of democracy. Based on that he makes the implausible implication that democracy will flourish once the status quo stops stirring up nationalism. However, this at least contradicts his case study on China because the communist China government always sees nationalism a threat to their power, and keeps it in check most of the time. So his theory has trouble to explain at least one case. This makes me can't help but wonder whether his understanding of politics in Russia and the Arab world is equally superficial.

In summary, I have very mixed feelings about this book. Its writing style deserves at least 4 stars; but its scholarship is really in the 2-star range— even for a current events book that targets the non-academic, general public. I finally decided to give a 3. With that said, I would like to congratulate the publisher, PublicAffairs, for delivering a fine book. It is well edited and well printed. Both the cover pages and the interior pages are made of paper of high quality. The fonts are printed in reasonably big sizes, unlike most political science books that try to bore readers to death (or blindness) by printing the main text in nearly footnote sizes. I hope they will continue to find good writers like Mandelbaum to produce more good books on the subject. I also hope the author will have the chance to revise this otherwise wonderful book by filling the holes and balancing the biases.

This book was very good, but it just wasn't quite as excellent as was "The Ideas that Conquered the World," and also not as innovative. Again, Mr. Mandelbaum's writing style is excellent -- very clear and to the point. The discussion as to how democracies came about was well done.

However, I felt like the themes were being repeated so that what is presented here was a pamphlet, that was expanded into a short book.

If you haven't yet read "The Ideas that Conquered the World," I would suggest reading that book before this one.

I have been reading books about politics and international relations for 40+ years. This book is exceptional in every respect: it is a book that should be read by everyone interested in the movements around the globe
that seek to instill democratic governments in place of dictatorships. This book explains both the glories of democracy and the challenges to its establishment in countries where it has never flourished. It is a gripping book. I read it in a single sitting because I couldn't put it down. Highly recommended.

This book is a clearly-written, brilliant book that will tell you everything you need to know about what "democracy" really means. As the news is often filled with references to "pro-democracy forces" and "democracy demonstrators" this is the book that will explain how likely it is for democracy to spread. It is the best book I've ever read on a subject concerning politics. A truly great book.

No one can write as clearly and as powerfully about international relations as Johns Hopkins Professor Michael Mandelbaum. He is lucid, he is persuasive, he is one of the true wise men in Washington, and in the world today. He sees the big picture and he explains how everything you read in the newspapers and on the blogs, and see on TV all fit together in a comprehensible way. Even if you've never read a book on a subject like this, expand your world and your understanding of the world by buying this breathtaking book. If you read just one book this year, make it DEMOCRACY'S GOOD NAME. Better still, accept Amazon.com's offer and buy three of this great thinkers books. You'll be a better citizen, voter and thinker after reading this great writer.

This is a great book, ideal for anyone from high school through retirement. It is clearly written---no, it is vividly written---and you will learn more from this one book about the full meaning of democracy than you will in a hundred other books.
This is the one.

Michael Mandelbaum looks at the complex political concepts and historical forces that shaped the rise of modern democratic nations. He explicates the origins of modern democracy and how it is changing in today's globally interconnected world, and explains the relationships between historical and current events. Although you may not agree with some of his assumptions - about the interdependence of free markets and democracy, for example - his book is thought-provoking and illuminating. getAbstract recommends it to managers and executives whose responsibilities cross borders, and to history buffs and others who wish to understand current political developments.