Democracy Begets Tyranny?

There seems to be surprise in Democide: An Inside Job? that democracy can destroy itself:

The idea that democracies can contain the seeds of their own destruction is explored by scholar Mark Chou, who writes, “democratic failure is a prospect that remains very much entrenched both within the idea and ideal of democracy itself.” The anti-democratic choice is always, tragically, democratically possible.

I thought this was common knowledge. I cannot even recall when I first read about the Greeks knowing political forms change. Tonight I tried hunting down verification of my memory.

What is Anacyclosis?

The word anacyclosis has been variously translated as “the cycle of political revolution” and “the cycle of the constitutions.” In short, the theory states that the six regime archetypes that the Greeks identified and which we still use today (monarchy, tyranny, aristocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and ochlocracy or mob-rule) each represent different stages of one long process of political evolution....

And why this is important comes from Democracy Paradox's Aristotle – Politics:

Aristotelian theory loses some of its explanatory power because the middle class was never supposed to become large. It was always expected to remain a small but influential group. The dominance of the middle class today transforms the dynamics of political governance. It makes democracy possible. But Lipset also sees it as responsible for the emergence of Fascism which he defines as the radicalism of the political center. This is possibly the most intriguing chapter within a landmark book on political science. Academia is surprisingly fickle. Publications focus on recent trends and ideas. They continue to move on as new challenges emerge. Because fascism remains a distant memory, very little political science has focused on its place within political development. Perhaps some believe enough has been written on this phenomenon. But it seems like everyone has simply moved on. Populism is among the topics of the day. But Fascism and Nazism are discussed only in passing. This seems like a mistake. Its essential to understand how these ideas fit into the universe of political possibilities in order to avoid their reemergence.

 So what will we have in America?

sch 7/23/22

Updated 7/28

From The Bulwark: Is the American Myth Unraveling? offers an alternative, and maybe hope:

But journalist and historian Colin Woodard offers another interpretation: He sees the disruptions less as the result of an evolution of myths and more the consequence of the nation’s central, enduring conflict—the battle between an ethnonationalist narrative and a civic nationalist one, the former a modern-day version of the covenant myth and the latter a liberal democracy grounded in the creed myth.

 But The Indiana Capital Chronicle's Democracy is like a Lake Michigan beach provides provides another reason for doubt, especially for Indiana - gerrymandering (although gerrymandering is a nation-wide problem) - and offers this solution:

The only way to make progress happen is through comprehensive reform of the redistricting process. We’ve got to follow the lead of a growing number of states and put a balanced and bipartisan group of citizens in charge of redistricting. We’ve also got to put strong rules in place that prohibit drawing districts to benefit any party or individual and that require the entire process be conducted transparently and to enhance public participation.  

I would add proportional representation as a solution.

sch