This commentary is by Edward McMahon, an adjunct associate professor of community development and applied economics, and of political science, at the University of Vermont, where he has taught since 2003. Earlier, he was a professor at Binghamton University, a senior adviser for USAID, and spent 10 years as a foreign service officer. He is immediate past board chair of the Vermont Council on World Affairs and is vice chair of the Election Reformers Network.
This will be an uncomfortable read, as it has been to write. Let me start by emphasizing that I am a centrist in my politics, albeit leaning a bit to the left. I am proud to have served my country for over a decade as a diplomat, to have worked to promote democracy and human rights around the world since, and to have taught at UVM since 2003.
What I pose here would have been considered fanciful just a few short years ago. But no longer. The reality is we have to consider that, in the not-too-distant future, the U.S. could cease to be a functioning democracy.
This may not take the form of a full-fledged dictatorship, with tanks rolling in the street to impose a military-backed government. Although, to be honest, even this scenario — which not long ago would have been laughable — is now creeping into the fringes of discourse.
No, what seems increasingly possible is that our liberal democracy could morph into what Fareed Zakaria has called an “illiberal democracy,” with the trappings of competitive politics but in reality rule by a single party. The party would have gained access to the levers of electoral power by bending the rules to prohibit in practice the possibility of alternance in power.
History tells us that this process often takes place during a period of decay of trust in democratic institutions. It typically does not occur at once; it results from a corrosion of the body politic over the course of more than one electoral cycle. Another feature is often the presence of a candidate or party promoting divisive populist rhetoric. History gives us many examples of this scenario, ranging from the advent of fascism in Italy to the rise of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.
Many of these causal factors are present in contemporary American politics. And we now see efforts by Donald Trump and his acolytes to use the Big Lie to further undermine American democracy. These range from use of Republican-dominated state legislatures to undercut the authority of state and local election authorities, new voting rules to restrict the franchise, candidacies of Big Lie proponents for state electoral administration positions in the 2022 election cycle, and ongoing efforts to undermine the legitimacy of the 2020 election through bogus “recount” efforts such as in Arizona.
The illiberal democracy scenario may still seem far-fetched, especially viewed from here in Vermont where we have continued to maintain our reasonable and open-minded political culture. but in recent years and months it has become less so.
After all, beyond the threat of Trumpism outlined above, gerrymandered congressional districts mean that Democrats have to do extra well to gain a majority. And as we know, a deeply flawed method of awarding electoral college votes has resulted twice in the past quarter-century in Democratic candidates winning the popular but losing the electoral college vote counts.
And Democrats should think carefully before doing away the filibuster; Trumpian Republicans would be sure to use it as a cudgel should they win back the majority.
All of these factors could contribute to alternance in power becoming an illusion. When exactly this would happen would in and of itself be a cause for controversy; since there is no scientific method for determining when a country descends from a fully democratic status to that of an illiberal democracy, there would be a range of opinions on when or whether this has occurred.
At some point, however, those of us who love democracy might have to decide for ourselves if the U.S. had in fact become an illiberal democracy. Should the answer be yes, we would then have to ask ourselves a very uncomfortable question: “What are we going to do about it?”
One answer could be nothing. We would go into a sort of internal exile in which we grudgingly accept the new reality and live our lives the best we can. The fate of Soviet citizens during the period of the USSR is one unenviable example of this.
Or we could engage in peaceful resistance. There is, of course, a rich history here of this as we consider the struggle of African Americans to gain their civil and political rights over decades of struggle. How effective this would be would depend to a large extent on how widespread participation in such an effort would be.
Or we could engage in violent and armed resistance. The liberation struggle in South Africa comes to mind, as does our own history. What would happen then is anyone’s guess.
Other options exist that in “normal” times would be considered absurd. The first is secession and independence. Like Texas and a number of other states, we in Vermont have a history outside of the United States. We were an independent republic from 1777 to 1791. There is no commandment from on high that our state must remain in the Union.
Yes, we had a civil war on this issue, but that was fought to free the slaves and to promote human rights and democracy, not to restrict them. The opposite would be true in the scenario we envision here. The fundamental human rights question would be: “Do we have to exist in a country in which we have no democratic rights?” The U.S., after all, was founded on the basis of no taxation without representation. Without a democracy, we would not have representation. The moral basis for secession would seem clear.
Obviously, independence would pose massive practical challenges, both of how and whether it could occur, and the basic viability of an independent Vermont. Consideration of this question would require much more thought and study; we will simply note here that there are many successful examples of countries roughly the size of Vermont around the world.
Another secession option could be to join Canada. As recently as 1949, Canada expanded, with the accession of Newfoundland to the Confederation. We share many values with Canadians — perhaps even more so than with some of our fellow Americans. Many Vermonters, upon reflection, might well feel more comfortable democratically electing members of parliament in Ottawa rather than going through an illiberal democratic charade of sending representatives to a powerless Congress in Washington.
Admittedly, this listing of alternatives is provocative. So now we come to the core point.
There is another path forward; that of prevention, an ounce of which as we know is worth a pound of the cure. To achieve this, we have to fully recognize what is happening and fight like hell, in the nonviolent sense of the term, to ensure that the rules do not get corrupted, that this illiberal scenario doesn’t happen, that we do not find ourselves facing the horrific choices outlined above.
How can we do this? We have to band together in political party and civic efforts to shine light and oppose efforts to subvert the democratic process. We should elect representatives at all levels of government who reject the Big Lie and make a specific pledge to uphold democracy.
I also propose that we all choose one or more civil society initiatives — of which there are many — to support democracy in this country and, as importantly, become sustained and active members of them.
At the end of the proceedings of the 1787 Constitutional Convention, a Mrs. Powell was reported to have asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” Franklin’s response: “A republic, if you can keep it.”
A similarly famous quote from the same time holds that “The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.” These sentiments have never been truer than today.
