Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
Wow, what great timing, I wrote about this today: https://acoup.blog/2020/10/30/fireside-friday-october-30-2020/ … This only holds true if you use the artificially small modern democracy sample; get into ancient democracies, this 'emprical matter' turns on its head and we see that democratic deconsolidation was common.https://twitter.com/shadihamid/status/1322203799008743430 …
Democratic deconsolidation was sufficiently common that ancient Greek writers theorized about it (e.g. famously Plb. 6.3.9-13). This is a real problem with political theories that don't reach past the modern period - the small sample set leads to absurd 'emprical' conclusions.
So anyone telling themselves that their democracy is safe because "old consolidated democracies" never deconsolidate is fooling themselves.
Self-government is fragile. It was fragile in Athens, fragile in Rome. Fragile.
Handle your democracy with care. This side up 
I should add that I see no compelling argument that modern democracies are uniquely resistant to deconsolidation in a way that ancient democracies were not If anything, wouldn't we assume small, tight-knit democracies beset by security threats would be *harder* to deconsolidate?
Even if we grant him his false premise; its still a terrible idea to claim something can't happen purely because it hasn't yet
I was wondering how you’d foreseen that this particular take would be making the rounds today
No idea! But the idea that consolidated democracies can't deconsolidate is an article of faith in some corners of the Political-Science world so I though tit might. Poli-Sci, generally, I think, is often poorly served by an excessively modern and European focus.
And even then, it really depends what kind of deconsolidation you fear. Civil war? US, 1861-65. Coup? De Gaulle, 1958. Guerrilla warfare? Northern Ireland, 1969-98(ish). All very well-established democracies, and all pretty ugly outcomes, even if none went full dictatorship.
and even then, the states arguably wasn't a "consolidated democracy" until the civil rights movement of the 60s
which just gets to the inherent difficulty here of defining terms in a consistent way across literal millennia of social change athens was a "democracy" in the most literal sense, but does that mean that their system is "the same" as ours?
Would you say that your blog post also questions claims that the Roman Republic collapsed solely because of demagogues who bought votes from the plebeians by promising hand-outs? That's a right-wing hot take I see a lot online.
Yes, though I am not really breaking ground there. The 'bread and circuses' model of the collapse of the Roman Republic is pretty well abandoned and has been for quite a long time - at least since Syme (so, 1939) if not earlier.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
