Scan barcode
tbpardue's review against another edition
5.0
Five stars - mainly for the remedies section. There are a lot of “what’s wrong” books, but few that offer up a practical set of interventions to get democracy back on track. Much to his credit, Mr. Mounk devotes a full third of the book outlining a way forward.
sureiken's review against another edition
3.0
Liberal democracy is in crisis. But liberal democracy is two different things joined together. You have a liberal regime if you have checks and balances, safeguarded freedoms, etc. You have a democracy when the opinion of the majority of the citizens is translated into policies.
This book is an excellent survey of why liberal democracies are in crisis and it deserves 5 stars for that survey.
The book is less convincing when proposing solutions to that crisis.
This book is an excellent survey of why liberal democracies are in crisis and it deserves 5 stars for that survey.
The book is less convincing when proposing solutions to that crisis.
nelson_123456's review against another edition
4.0
Genuinamente acredito que as democracias se encontram ameaçadas e mas nem sequer refletimos muito sobre esta palavra “democracia” e o que ela significa. Temos tendência para ver de forma simplista como um sistema político em que o “povo” através de eleições expressa a sua vontade, mas eu sempre preferi ver para além disto: como um sistema que permite que sejam respeitadas as nossas liberdades e em que o poder político não está concentrado numa só pessoa.
Neste livro Yascha Mounk reflete sobre a crise das democracias e usa vários exemplos. Debruça-se sobre países como a Hungria e Polónia, formalmente democracias, mas que na prática são estados onde as liberdades vão desaparecendo lentamente. Revela estudos chocantes que mostram que as pessoas estão a valorizar cada vez menos as democracias (incluindo os jovens) e que estão cada vez mais tolerantes a serem governados por regimes autoritários. Para além aspetos mais óbvios que tornaram mais fácil a ascensão dos movimentos populistas, como as redes sociais, analisa-se também a crescente desigualdade e interrupção de décadas de crescimento económico como fator impulsionador.
O tema da imigração é abordado de forma pragmática. Os dados apresentados no livro sobre as eleições americanas mostram que quando estamos habituados a conviver com pessoas de outras culturas, somos menos sensíveis a discursos populistas anti-imigração. No entanto tal não acontece em sociedade muito monoétnicas e que de repente têm um fluxo grande imigrantes.
Sendo filho de imigrantes conheço bem esta fonte de desconfiança, discriminação, mas pragmaticamente este medo irracional dos imigrantes tem de ser lidado corretamente e não ignorado, por forma a que não seja aproveitado por movimentos de extrema-direita. Os estados têm de ter oficialmente políticas de imigração que permitam a inclusão económica e social e prevenir a formação de guetos.
Outro problema com que nos confrontamos atualmente é o facto das opiniões públicas caminharem rapidamente para a polarização e para a criação de grupos que não dialogam entre si. É preciso mais do que nunca que a sociedade como um todo partilhe um conjunto de valores inclusivos que façam de si uma comunidade e isto tem de partir da educação nas escolas.
Este livro é um exemplo desta reflexão cada vez mais urgente na nossa sociedade, para que se encontrem soluções contra o populismo, contra a polarização de opiniões e contra uma individualização excessiva em que perdemos o sentimento comunitário. Não se trata de concordar ou não com o conteúdo do livro, mas entender que cada um dos nós, tem também de fazer esta reflexão e não continuar conformado e equivocado de que está tudo bem.
Neste livro Yascha Mounk reflete sobre a crise das democracias e usa vários exemplos. Debruça-se sobre países como a Hungria e Polónia, formalmente democracias, mas que na prática são estados onde as liberdades vão desaparecendo lentamente. Revela estudos chocantes que mostram que as pessoas estão a valorizar cada vez menos as democracias (incluindo os jovens) e que estão cada vez mais tolerantes a serem governados por regimes autoritários. Para além aspetos mais óbvios que tornaram mais fácil a ascensão dos movimentos populistas, como as redes sociais, analisa-se também a crescente desigualdade e interrupção de décadas de crescimento económico como fator impulsionador.
O tema da imigração é abordado de forma pragmática. Os dados apresentados no livro sobre as eleições americanas mostram que quando estamos habituados a conviver com pessoas de outras culturas, somos menos sensíveis a discursos populistas anti-imigração. No entanto tal não acontece em sociedade muito monoétnicas e que de repente têm um fluxo grande imigrantes.
Sendo filho de imigrantes conheço bem esta fonte de desconfiança, discriminação, mas pragmaticamente este medo irracional dos imigrantes tem de ser lidado corretamente e não ignorado, por forma a que não seja aproveitado por movimentos de extrema-direita. Os estados têm de ter oficialmente políticas de imigração que permitam a inclusão económica e social e prevenir a formação de guetos.
Outro problema com que nos confrontamos atualmente é o facto das opiniões públicas caminharem rapidamente para a polarização e para a criação de grupos que não dialogam entre si. É preciso mais do que nunca que a sociedade como um todo partilhe um conjunto de valores inclusivos que façam de si uma comunidade e isto tem de partir da educação nas escolas.
Este livro é um exemplo desta reflexão cada vez mais urgente na nossa sociedade, para que se encontrem soluções contra o populismo, contra a polarização de opiniões e contra uma individualização excessiva em que perdemos o sentimento comunitário. Não se trata de concordar ou não com o conteúdo do livro, mas entender que cada um dos nós, tem também de fazer esta reflexão e não continuar conformado e equivocado de que está tudo bem.
cook_memorial_public_library's review against another edition
4.0
Recommended by Rob.
Check our catalog: https://encore.cooklib.org/iii/encore/search/C__Speople%20vs.%20democracy%20mounk__Orightresult__U?lang=eng&suite=gold
Check our catalog: https://encore.cooklib.org/iii/encore/search/C__Speople%20vs.%20democracy%20mounk__Orightresult__U?lang=eng&suite=gold
bakudreamer's review against another edition
Read some of , had to return before finishing
metella's review against another edition
2.5
Du k.a. Ist halt son Standart. Hab leider zu spät gesehen, ass es von 2016 ist...Und er setzt links und rechts gleich bei Populismus. Idk du.
sunnny's review against another edition
That thing he said about cultural appropriation was really embarrassing.
jasonfurman's review against another edition
5.0
Yascha Mounk’s “The People vs. Democracy” is an outstanding analysis of the roots of our current political situation. It is a rare book that combines the best of the fox and hedgehog approach to organizing knowledge. The Fox is an animating thesis that Democracy (i.e., popular choice) and Liberalism (i.e., protections for minorities, freedom of expression, other rights) are two different concepts that only happen to have gone together but that either of them can also override the other. At the same time, Mounk does not offer a single explanation/solution but instead provides a thoughtful and nuanced argument for three of the major theories floating around: immigration, economics and social media. Finally, Mounk offers a range of solutions.
I cannot understate how well organized Mounk’s book is with a clear statement of its thesis, a roadmap to the chapters, and then all of them fitting together logically into different sections. In the course of this Mounk draws liberally from examples around the world, but especially from the United States and Europe, as well as from some of the political science literature.
Overall I found Mounk’s diagnosis of the problem original and compelling, his explanation of the causes of the problem sensible but not as convincing as I would have liked, his solutions also sensible but possibly not sufficient, and his predictions highly implausible. Let me take these in turn.
For the diagnosis, separating out the concepts of democracy and liberalism and describing how their coexistence has been more of a fortunate coincidence than an inevitable outcome is one way this book will change my perspective going forward, along with the ways that an excess of democracy can overcome liberalism (e.g., people voting for leaders who limit rights or even directly voting to limit rights, like Switzerland’s referendum that banned the construction of minarets). But also ways that liberalism can limit democracy, particularly through the expansion of the administrative state, judicial review, and international treaties—all of which come together in something like the European Commission. (Although I would note that Mounk talks about controversy over the Democratic legitimacy of bureaucratic rules or the Supreme Court, but it is not like everyone happily accepts the Affordable Care Act because it came to us through the democratic process.)
For explanation, I am personally sympathetic to Mounk’s argument that liberal Democracy thrived because it coincided with economic advancement, communications were limited to oligopolistic providers of news/information, and nation states were monotonic or had dominant ethnicities. The flip side of this is that economic slowdowns, social media and immigration all move the other way. But I wish that Mounk did more to prove this. He is right that you can’t just do simple data correlating presence of immigrants or income with votes, but that leaves him with less testable hypotheses. Moreover, what about earlier periods of slower growth in American history or the advent of radio which transformed communications or the different trajectories of immigration in different countries?
For cure, I liked just about all of Mounk’s ideas. But even if we adopted all of his economic prescriptions, for example, it would not radically transform growth/incomes. And some ideas might actually increase tensions, like expanding social supports which may exacerbate resentments.
Finally, on prediction, I wish Mounk would define what he means by ending liberal democracy and put a probability on it. I myself would put a probability close to zero on any of the following in the United States: the government shutting down major media publications or universities or think tanks or websites, elections being suspended and rule is continued without them, or a President remaining in office for 12 years, or even a single political party controlling the Presidency and both houses of Congress for 12 straight years. I’m not sure if Mounk is putting higher odds on one/all of these outcomes or else is defining the end of liberal democracy in a much less severe way than this, it would be worth being clearer on it so we can better assess whether or not the predictions have come true.
I cannot understate how well organized Mounk’s book is with a clear statement of its thesis, a roadmap to the chapters, and then all of them fitting together logically into different sections. In the course of this Mounk draws liberally from examples around the world, but especially from the United States and Europe, as well as from some of the political science literature.
Overall I found Mounk’s diagnosis of the problem original and compelling, his explanation of the causes of the problem sensible but not as convincing as I would have liked, his solutions also sensible but possibly not sufficient, and his predictions highly implausible. Let me take these in turn.
For the diagnosis, separating out the concepts of democracy and liberalism and describing how their coexistence has been more of a fortunate coincidence than an inevitable outcome is one way this book will change my perspective going forward, along with the ways that an excess of democracy can overcome liberalism (e.g., people voting for leaders who limit rights or even directly voting to limit rights, like Switzerland’s referendum that banned the construction of minarets). But also ways that liberalism can limit democracy, particularly through the expansion of the administrative state, judicial review, and international treaties—all of which come together in something like the European Commission. (Although I would note that Mounk talks about controversy over the Democratic legitimacy of bureaucratic rules or the Supreme Court, but it is not like everyone happily accepts the Affordable Care Act because it came to us through the democratic process.)
For explanation, I am personally sympathetic to Mounk’s argument that liberal Democracy thrived because it coincided with economic advancement, communications were limited to oligopolistic providers of news/information, and nation states were monotonic or had dominant ethnicities. The flip side of this is that economic slowdowns, social media and immigration all move the other way. But I wish that Mounk did more to prove this. He is right that you can’t just do simple data correlating presence of immigrants or income with votes, but that leaves him with less testable hypotheses. Moreover, what about earlier periods of slower growth in American history or the advent of radio which transformed communications or the different trajectories of immigration in different countries?
For cure, I liked just about all of Mounk’s ideas. But even if we adopted all of his economic prescriptions, for example, it would not radically transform growth/incomes. And some ideas might actually increase tensions, like expanding social supports which may exacerbate resentments.
Finally, on prediction, I wish Mounk would define what he means by ending liberal democracy and put a probability on it. I myself would put a probability close to zero on any of the following in the United States: the government shutting down major media publications or universities or think tanks or websites, elections being suspended and rule is continued without them, or a President remaining in office for 12 years, or even a single political party controlling the Presidency and both houses of Congress for 12 straight years. I’m not sure if Mounk is putting higher odds on one/all of these outcomes or else is defining the end of liberal democracy in a much less severe way than this, it would be worth being clearer on it so we can better assess whether or not the predictions have come true.