January 29, 2025 - Classroom

Dr. Brenner stands at the whiteboard, tie loosened, thumb stained faintly blue from a dying dry-erase marker. He flips through his lesson cards twice. Slots them under the lip of the lectern.

He clears his throat once, glances at the clock, and the room settles from low chatter to the scrape of pens finding margins.

"Attendance is set," he says, voice even. "Let's anchor the history before we interpret it."

"In 2016, political scientist Nancy Bermeo reviewed recent democratic breakdowns and found three recurring pathways: promissory coups that promise a swift return to elections, executive aggrandizement where elected leaders hollow out checks, and strategic election manipulation that tilts the rules while keeping the ballot box."

"Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt argue that today's democracies rarely fall to tanks. Instead, we watch two guardrails—mutual toleration and institutional forbearance—and four warning signs: rejection of democratic rules, denial of opponents' legitimacy, toleration of violence, and willingness to curb civil liberties."

"Barrington Moore, writing in 1966, mapped how social coalitions shape endings. He charted three routes from agrarian societies: liberal democracy through bourgeois alliances, fascism through landed elites plus a fearful middle class, and communism through peasant revolutions."

He uncaps the marker and writes the day's prompt in block letters: How do democracies die in the 21st century? The sentence sits underlined twice.

"That's our core question," he says. "Today is frameworks. Friday we test them against specific cases."

He draws two columns: "Mechanism" on the left, "Institutional Effect" on the right. "Executive aggrandizement," he says, "looks boring on paper—legal revisions, rule changes, sometimes even court rulings—but the net effect is a weaker legislature, trimmed institutional checks, a leader who accumulates power without tearing up the constitution."

Marcus leans forward, elbows on the table.

"These overlap though, don't they? Like, you'd rig the elections while also stripping the oversight at the same time."

"Exactly," Dr. Brenner replies. "These aren't mutually exclusive boxes. Think of them as lenses. The question is which combination signals the institutional checks failing." He circles a blank space beneath the columns. "Add a third axis—norm erosion. Once rival parties stop treating each other as legitimate, institutional self-restraint evaporates."

Jake raises his hand halfway and waits. When Dr. Brenner nods, he keeps his tone measured. "But if the mechanisms are legal—legislatures passing laws, courts issuing decisions—doesn't that mean the system is still working? You might dislike the outcomes, but they're constitutional."

"That's the crux," Dr. Brenner says. He taps the board with the marker cap. "Something can be legal but still undermine democracy. The challenge is spotting when rule changes tilt the playing field so much that the other side can't win anymore."

Nisha shifts forward, eyes sharp. "Bermeo also notes that promissory coups pitch themselves as emergency resets. That language sounds benign, but it launders power grabs as patriotic duty."

"Right, "Dr. Brenner answers. "Whenever actors wrap extraordinary steps in guardianship language, we interrogate the follow-through. Do elections resume on open terms, or do the promise-makers entrench instead?"

He draws a small triangle labeled Gatekeepers at each corner—parties, courts, military. "Levitsky and Ziblatt emphasize gatekeeper responsibility. Parties vet nominees, courts apply neutral rules, militaries stay in barracks. When they fail—or worse, collaborate—the slide accelerates."

Marcus raises a finger. "So where do business elites sit? Moore's coalitions suggest they can swing outcomes."

"Good catch," Dr. Brenner says. "Moore reminds us that coalitions determine the route from agrarian society. If economic elites decide their interests are safer under a strongman, gatekeeping collapses faster. The coalition that defends democracy has to include people with real leverage."

Sarah Kimbrell glances at her notes. "Strategic manipulation—does it always involve ballot tampering, or can it be stuff like closing polling places and gerrymandering?"

"It's the latter," Dr. Brenner says. "Bermeo stresses subtlety: changing electoral commissions, shifting district lines, altering turnout rules. The vote happens; the outcome was curated beforehand."

Nisha inhales like a sprinter at the blocks. "If we're naming mechanisms, we have to look at what's happening right now. Day one this week: twenty-six executive orders, including reinstating Schedule F — renamed 'Schedule Policy/Career' — to strip civil service protections, plus the border order calling migration an 'invasion.' Then Friday night came the emails firing seventeen inspectors general without the required notice. That's executive aggrandizement married to narrative control."

Marcus raises his hand. "Can we translate that? Executive aggrandizement—basically the executive branch grabbing more power while staying technically legal."

"Right," Dr. Brenner says. "The president accumulating authority that used to be checked by other institutions."

Billy snaps upright, neck flushed. "Or it's finally making bureaucrats accountable. Folks back home cheered those firings. The agencies weren't answering to anyone."

Jake lifts his palm. Tone even, he says, "Courts are already reviewing those moves. Congress can act. Using legal tools doesn't automatically equal authoritarian drift."

He flips the marker cap once, a metronome. "Our task is diagnostic, not verdict. We note the pattern Nisha described—rapid personnel moves, emergency framing—and we pair it with the countervailing fact Jake raises: independent courts still issue injunctions."

He turns back to the columns. "Let's parse promissory coups with a case study preview. Nisha, you mentioned emergency rhetoric. Think about leaders who promise order during chaos—Turkey in 1980, Thailand 2006—then reset the rules. On Friday we'll examine how often the 'temporary' phase becomes permanent."

Emily raises a timid hand. "Is democratic backsliding the same as authoritarianism, or is it a stage on the way?"

"Stage, usually," Dr. Brenner says. "Backsliding describes the process—the slow-motion erosion. It can plateau, reverse, or accelerate. Paxton would tell us to watch sequences: mobilization, legality, consolidation. Friday's reading from Bermeo argues backsliding often stops short of full collapse, but it leaves institutions fragile."

Michael Lee speaks from the far window seat. "Does executive aggrandizement always come from the executive, or can legislatures do it to entrench themselves?"

"Legislatures can certainly rig rules," Dr. Brenner replies. "But we're focusing on elected executives who use their popularity to knock down the guardrails around them. The pattern we're tracing is leaders reshaping the system from the top."

He writes Mutual Toleration on the board and underlines it twice. "Levitsky and Ziblatt define mutual toleration as accepting opponents as legitimate. Institutional forbearance means choosing not to weaponize every legal tool. Guardrails collapse when rivals start treating each other as existential threats."

Marcus gestures toward Jake. "So if parties frame rivals as illegitimate—say, calling them traitors or criminals—that's a warning sign even if no laws change yet?"

"Precisely," Dr. Brenner says. "The rhetoric primes the public to accept later rule changes. That sequence shows up repeatedly across the cases we study."

Sofiia jumps in with a soft accent. "In Ukraine we watched courts become politicized before the invasion. Voters saw judges as partisan, so nobody trusted decisions. That feels like norm erosion more than legal change."

Dr. Brenner nods slowly. "Important observation. Trust is an institution. When it is gone, formal structures struggle to function, even if the text of the law stays intact."

He glances at the clock—forty minutes remain. "Break into trios for two minutes. List one recent example from readings and identify which category it fits. We'll report out rapid-fire."

Chairs scrape, low conversation hums. Billy pushes back from his seat near the center of the room, hesitates, then gravitates toward Jake and Sarah at their table, though he shrugs more than talks.

When they reconvene, Dr. Brenner pulls responses quick: Sarah cites Hungary's media consolidation as strategic manipulation, Marcus flags Turkey's 2017 referendum as executive aggrandizement, Nisha names Brazil's 2022 court confrontations as guardrail stress, Jake counters with cases where courts restrained executives.

"Notice the pattern," Dr. Brenner says, pulling the class back. "Legalistic language plus norm erosion equals slow strangulation. Barrington Moore would remind us that without a broad coalition committed to democratic bargaining, the system tilts toward authoritarian bargains."

Billy huffs. "Regular folks just want stability. If elites finally deliver it, they won't care what you label it."

"Stability matters," Dr. Brenner concedes. "The historian's job is to trace what is traded away to get it—and whether those trades foreclose democratic recovery."

"For Friday," he says, "bring one example of a gatekeeper failing and one of a gatekeeper resisting. We'll map them onto Bermeo's framework and preview our Turkey case study next week."

He scans faces as the room packs up — Jennifer nodded through a quick point about institutional forbearance, Michael Lee offered a pragmatic shrug about courts, Emily squeaked out a question. The room felt fuller now, less muted than it had in September. He felt it too: something had cracked open. The students were leaning in.