What do you think?
Rate this book
Democracy and Its Crisis
Prompted by events in recent years in the UK and the USA, in Latin America, Russia and the Middle East, A. C. Grayling investigates why the institutions of representative democracy seem unable to sustain themselves against forces they were designed to manage, and why it matters. In each of five short chapters, he considers a moment in history in which the challenges we face today were first encountered, how they were overcome - or not - and with what consequences.
With the advent of authoritarian leaders and the simultaneous rise of populism, representative democracy appears to be caught between a rock and a hard place, yet it is this space that it must occupy, argues Grayling, if a civilized society, that looks after all its people, is to flourish.
With the advent of authoritarian leaders and the simultaneous rise of populism, representative democracy appears to be caught between a rock and a hard place, yet it is this space that it must occupy, argues Grayling, if a civilized society, that looks after all its people, is to flourish.
235 pages, Kindle Edition
Published September 7, 2017
71 people are currently reading
780 people want to read
About the author
A.C. Grayling
95 books666 followersAnthony Clifford "A. C." Grayling is a British philosopher. In 2011 he founded and became the first Master of New College of the Humanities, an independent undergraduate college in London. Until June 2011, he was Professor of Philosophy at Birkbeck, University of London, where he taught from 1991. He is also a supernumerary fellow of St Anne's College, Oxford.
He is a director and contributor at Prospect Magazine, as well as a Vice President of the British Humanist Association. His main academic interests lie in epistemology, metaphysics and philosophical logic. He has described himself as "a man of the left" and is associated in Britain with the new atheism movement, and is sometimes described as the 'Fifth Horseman of New Atheism'. He appears in the British media discussing philosophy.
He is a director and contributor at Prospect Magazine, as well as a Vice President of the British Humanist Association. His main academic interests lie in epistemology, metaphysics and philosophical logic. He has described himself as "a man of the left" and is associated in Britain with the new atheism movement, and is sometimes described as the 'Fifth Horseman of New Atheism'. He appears in the British media discussing philosophy.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 55 reviews
April 26, 2019
When he is in the mood, Grayling can be one of the most rational and eloquent writers plying his trade in the UK today. He covers the same terrain as the likes of Zizek and Chomsky et al. Like many others he throws in his ten cents re: Brexit and Trump without saying anything original or memorable about either. This book starts off showing much promise, but it’s not long before it gets bogged down and side tracked and quickly loses all flow and rhythm and to be honest it never really recovers.
I did a learn a new word in this book, the delightful, Ochlocracy: which apparently means, a mob rule driven in an unruly fashion by emotion, self-interest, prejudice, anger, ignorance leading to cruel, destructive and self-destructive action. Elsewhere he makes some really good points on the madness of using the First Past The Post system and makes a number of powerful analogies to prove the point.
Grayling has written some great articles and essays over the years, but it seems that any time he goes into the history of philosophy he becomes so damn dull and transforms into a long-winded bore, it’s like a totally different writer. It also makes me wonder who is editing him?...Like many prolific writers Grayling likes to recycle many of his arguments and theories, much of the subjects in here were covered at length in “In The Age of Genius”, which came out in 2016, the year before this did.
“Disenfranchising oneself is a sin that should be a crime.” So Grayling believes that the solution is to criminalise people instead. To choose not to choose is still a choice, to have the arrogance to believe that you have the right to force someone into limited choices that do not benefit them, and criminalising them for not doing so is something altogether darker.
Grayling uses the example of Australia where it is compulsory to vote. Where has that gotten them?...The Australian political system is far from something to aspire to and remains one of the most shambolic and laughable examples of on-going political farces in the western world today.
He claims that if people want to protest they can just spoil their ballot papers, which is such an ignorant, patronising, white male, middle-class thing to say. Millions of people around the world already protest by not wasting their time in voting, because the system has taught them and shown them, time and time again over generations how deeply flawed and unresponsive it is to their needs. They have seen how politicians at every level not only get away with lies, murder, theft and betrayal but get rewarded for it.
How do these systems and politicians choose to respond to that apathy?...By making meaningful change, try to make themselves more accountable?...Make the system more honest or transparent?...No, they ignore these people and pretend that they don’t matter. That Mr Grayling is the real crime and those are the real criminals.
Instead of making more laws to criminalise more people, attention should be paid to overhauling the deeply corrupt system and the politicians, those egotistic, self-serving individuals who are so untrustworthy and incompetent that so many don’t waste their time voting for them. Politicians have exempted themselves from responsibility and too often are allowed to act with impunity. They believe themselves above any critical self-examination. Validating them through voting is to validate their behaviour and that sends out the wrong signals and certainly is not improving the system.
September 25, 2017
Disappointing. This book promises a great deal, and delivers about half, and arguably the less useful half at that.
By this, I mean it promises to dissect the history of democracy as a concept, and the debates about how to overcome what the author describes as the fundamental dilemma of democracy - how to avoid the people making bad choices - and it also promises to dissect what’s wrong with democracy today and how we can fix it.
On the first point, the book is quite interesting, although it goes on. Probably about 100 pages longer than it needs to. But it is interesting to see how different people over the centuries confronted the spectre of mob rule that democracy presents, and how their various experiments have played out including to this very day.
But a mere few chapters are devoted to the problems with democracy today, and on the solutions he presents an idealised version of democracy, says “this is what we should have”, and has little to say about how we could get there given our dire current circumstances, which work in the complete opposite direction.
Any suggestions on alternative reads on this point welcome!
By this, I mean it promises to dissect the history of democracy as a concept, and the debates about how to overcome what the author describes as the fundamental dilemma of democracy - how to avoid the people making bad choices - and it also promises to dissect what’s wrong with democracy today and how we can fix it.
On the first point, the book is quite interesting, although it goes on. Probably about 100 pages longer than it needs to. But it is interesting to see how different people over the centuries confronted the spectre of mob rule that democracy presents, and how their various experiments have played out including to this very day.
But a mere few chapters are devoted to the problems with democracy today, and on the solutions he presents an idealised version of democracy, says “this is what we should have”, and has little to say about how we could get there given our dire current circumstances, which work in the complete opposite direction.
Any suggestions on alternative reads on this point welcome!
January 20, 2018
DEMOCRACY AND ITS CRISIS OR CIVILISATION AND ITS DISCONTENTS?
This is a wise and thought-provoking read, whatever position on the political spectrum you inhabit – apart from the far extremes, of course. I enjoy reading A.C. Grayling’s books much as I enjoy George Orwell’s essays – I would happily read them on a beach rather than a page-turner novel.
The book starts with Plato’s oft-quoted worry about democracy – that it can be controlled by a hidden oligarchy, or, worse, descend into mob rule with order being restored by a strongman ruler who eventually becomes a tyrant. In Plato’s view too many voters were too ignorant, selfish and prejudiced to make a rational decision. Plato’s solution was rule by an aristocracy of philosopher kings. Aristotle argued that this was impractical as it ignored human nature. He had a point. One can only imagine what would happen if this country was ruled by the likes of Prince Philip and Prince Charles. Though Harry isn’t that bad. Come to think of it, they might do better than the current lot. Aristotle’s solution was to nurture the virtuous citizen, reasonable and informed, and encourage a polity in which no single order of citizens can override the interests of others.
Grayling takes us from Plato and Aristotle, through the peasant revolts, Machiavelli, the English civil war, Locke, Hobbes, Spinoza, Rousseau, and the American and French revolutions to arrive at the present day with Boris, Farage and Trump. A bit of a come down that. Sometimes you have to concentrate to follow the arguments but that can only be a good thing if you want to be an informed voter.
I liked the section on the English civil war and especially the description of the Putney debates when the Levellers (men who had just risked their lives in a brutal war) debated their idea of democracy with representatives of the propertied class. And there was me thinking that the Levellers were a rock group. Only joking. This reminds me of my dad’s descriptions of the debates that were held in the British army towards the end of the Second World War. The soldiers had risked their lives and were fed up with the ruling system. They wanted change. And they got it with a Labour landslide and the creation of the Welfare State.
Grayling reaches the present day and wonders where everything went wrong. He points to the steady erosion of the checks on the power of the executive in the UK, the lack of a written constitution, the practice of whipping MPs to vote against their real wishes, the iniquities of the First Past the Post electoral system and the fake news and propaganda dispensed by certain newspapers.
I was taken by his quote of Hannah Arendt’s distinction between the ‘masses’ and the ‘people’. The latter wish to see their views and wishes make a difference; the former hate the society which has marginalised and excluded them. Now what does that remind you of? Any televised interview with a redneck Trump supporter or with one of the ‘left behind’ pro-brexit voters in northern English towns such as Stoke-on-Trent. It’s not so much ‘Democracy and its Crisis’, more ‘Civilisation and its Discontents’.
Finally, Grayling summarises his own remedies, which include; compulsory voting, rigorous probity in election funding and media reporting and lobbying, avoiding referenda and separating the legislature from the executive. Two appendeces cover brexit and Trump. Even if you disagree with some of Grayling’s solutions, it is important that you know why you disagree.
And my final thoughts? It’s a fine mess we’ve got ourselves into. Many will be familiar with Churchill’s comment that ‘democracy is the worst form of government except for all other forms that have been tried from time to time.’ Fewer will know of Churchill’s other comment that ‘the strongest argument against democracy is a few minutes’ conversation with any voter.’
But, it’s the best we’ve got and we’ll just have to keep trying to make it better. And a careful read of this book might help us along the way.
This is a wise and thought-provoking read, whatever position on the political spectrum you inhabit – apart from the far extremes, of course. I enjoy reading A.C. Grayling’s books much as I enjoy George Orwell’s essays – I would happily read them on a beach rather than a page-turner novel.
The book starts with Plato’s oft-quoted worry about democracy – that it can be controlled by a hidden oligarchy, or, worse, descend into mob rule with order being restored by a strongman ruler who eventually becomes a tyrant. In Plato’s view too many voters were too ignorant, selfish and prejudiced to make a rational decision. Plato’s solution was rule by an aristocracy of philosopher kings. Aristotle argued that this was impractical as it ignored human nature. He had a point. One can only imagine what would happen if this country was ruled by the likes of Prince Philip and Prince Charles. Though Harry isn’t that bad. Come to think of it, they might do better than the current lot. Aristotle’s solution was to nurture the virtuous citizen, reasonable and informed, and encourage a polity in which no single order of citizens can override the interests of others.
Grayling takes us from Plato and Aristotle, through the peasant revolts, Machiavelli, the English civil war, Locke, Hobbes, Spinoza, Rousseau, and the American and French revolutions to arrive at the present day with Boris, Farage and Trump. A bit of a come down that. Sometimes you have to concentrate to follow the arguments but that can only be a good thing if you want to be an informed voter.
I liked the section on the English civil war and especially the description of the Putney debates when the Levellers (men who had just risked their lives in a brutal war) debated their idea of democracy with representatives of the propertied class. And there was me thinking that the Levellers were a rock group. Only joking. This reminds me of my dad’s descriptions of the debates that were held in the British army towards the end of the Second World War. The soldiers had risked their lives and were fed up with the ruling system. They wanted change. And they got it with a Labour landslide and the creation of the Welfare State.
Grayling reaches the present day and wonders where everything went wrong. He points to the steady erosion of the checks on the power of the executive in the UK, the lack of a written constitution, the practice of whipping MPs to vote against their real wishes, the iniquities of the First Past the Post electoral system and the fake news and propaganda dispensed by certain newspapers.
I was taken by his quote of Hannah Arendt’s distinction between the ‘masses’ and the ‘people’. The latter wish to see their views and wishes make a difference; the former hate the society which has marginalised and excluded them. Now what does that remind you of? Any televised interview with a redneck Trump supporter or with one of the ‘left behind’ pro-brexit voters in northern English towns such as Stoke-on-Trent. It’s not so much ‘Democracy and its Crisis’, more ‘Civilisation and its Discontents’.
Finally, Grayling summarises his own remedies, which include; compulsory voting, rigorous probity in election funding and media reporting and lobbying, avoiding referenda and separating the legislature from the executive. Two appendeces cover brexit and Trump. Even if you disagree with some of Grayling’s solutions, it is important that you know why you disagree.
And my final thoughts? It’s a fine mess we’ve got ourselves into. Many will be familiar with Churchill’s comment that ‘democracy is the worst form of government except for all other forms that have been tried from time to time.’ Fewer will know of Churchill’s other comment that ‘the strongest argument against democracy is a few minutes’ conversation with any voter.’
But, it’s the best we’ve got and we’ll just have to keep trying to make it better. And a careful read of this book might help us along the way.
October 7, 2017
Representative democracy is broken!
Having grown under a military dictatorship, I have always craved democracy for myself and my country. But also having been exposed in my adult life to the "best" democracies- The UK, the United States, France, and Switzerland; I couldn't help but think that they leave much to be desired. Is this really the best governance system the world could come up with? Does it translate the will of "the people"? Or does it only create a delusion of consent while advancing the interests of the kleptocratic elite and their business benefactors?
Obviously, the recent events from Trump to Brexit to the near miss with the Front Nationale to the presence of the AfD in the latest elections in Germany leave little hope. "The people", the source of all power and legitimacy, are making choices that are neither rational nor clever; and the democratic institutions are telling lies and letting money and special interest control the fate of those people.
A.C. Grayline, whom I read first in his brilliant book "War" confronted me with those very questions and gave a sweeping view on the history and potential future of democracy. Part one is the history from Plato who despised democracy to J.S.Mills who wrote about representative democracy. Grayling explains what democracy is and what is asked of it, how do representatives take their legitimacy and how are they to act with it, how democracy in the United States and the UK is a compromise that was supposed to prevent factionalism and other diseases it currently suffers from.
He then goes in part 2 to describe the current crisis that gave us Trump and Brexit, what has gone wrong and how the practice of democracy now is a misinterpretation, and likely a malicious one, of the original intended theory.
To be clear, Grayling is a believer in representative democracy as the best possible model and he thrives to find ways it could work. I would have love to get more than a hint on why he thinks "unqualified" direct democracy, or other democratic possibilities like the absence of state and sovereignty are not more desirable options. I, however, understand that he has not intended a sweeping expose in his book but an urgent "first-aid" approach to the crisis we are in that might, along with other lines of thought and action, lead to the reversal of the doomed path we are taking.
The book is written beautifully and is going to be a prized item on my shelf.
Having grown under a military dictatorship, I have always craved democracy for myself and my country. But also having been exposed in my adult life to the "best" democracies- The UK, the United States, France, and Switzerland; I couldn't help but think that they leave much to be desired. Is this really the best governance system the world could come up with? Does it translate the will of "the people"? Or does it only create a delusion of consent while advancing the interests of the kleptocratic elite and their business benefactors?
Obviously, the recent events from Trump to Brexit to the near miss with the Front Nationale to the presence of the AfD in the latest elections in Germany leave little hope. "The people", the source of all power and legitimacy, are making choices that are neither rational nor clever; and the democratic institutions are telling lies and letting money and special interest control the fate of those people.
A.C. Grayline, whom I read first in his brilliant book "War" confronted me with those very questions and gave a sweeping view on the history and potential future of democracy. Part one is the history from Plato who despised democracy to J.S.Mills who wrote about representative democracy. Grayling explains what democracy is and what is asked of it, how do representatives take their legitimacy and how are they to act with it, how democracy in the United States and the UK is a compromise that was supposed to prevent factionalism and other diseases it currently suffers from.
He then goes in part 2 to describe the current crisis that gave us Trump and Brexit, what has gone wrong and how the practice of democracy now is a misinterpretation, and likely a malicious one, of the original intended theory.
To be clear, Grayling is a believer in representative democracy as the best possible model and he thrives to find ways it could work. I would have love to get more than a hint on why he thinks "unqualified" direct democracy, or other democratic possibilities like the absence of state and sovereignty are not more desirable options. I, however, understand that he has not intended a sweeping expose in his book but an urgent "first-aid" approach to the crisis we are in that might, along with other lines of thought and action, lead to the reversal of the doomed path we are taking.
The book is written beautifully and is going to be a prized item on my shelf.
August 21, 2019
Perhaps the most relevant book you can read at the moment.
Grayling argues that democracy, as applied in our modern world, is failing, and that Brexit and Trump's election are proof of this. In Democracy and Its Crisis, therefore, he describes the progress of democracy through time, and sets out a surprisingly detailed and pleasantly realistic solution to our current crisis of democracy. I would highly recommend this thought-provoking book, which has the added bonus of being a relatively short read, to anyone watching current events unfold with horror. If nothing else, it will lead to some fascinating conversations.
Grayling argues that democracy, as applied in our modern world, is failing, and that Brexit and Trump's election are proof of this. In Democracy and Its Crisis, therefore, he describes the progress of democracy through time, and sets out a surprisingly detailed and pleasantly realistic solution to our current crisis of democracy. I would highly recommend this thought-provoking book, which has the added bonus of being a relatively short read, to anyone watching current events unfold with horror. If nothing else, it will lead to some fascinating conversations.
July 29, 2018
As an introduction to democratic theory, AC Grayling's 'Democracy and its Crisis' is superb. Grayling draws links between the concerns of its greatest theorists, from Plato to Jefferson to JS Mill, with the same challenges we face in the modern West - showing the reader that democracy is not, and may never be, fully mastered. However, his policy prescriptions to improve democracy in the West today are not fully formed, and with its explicit focus on Trump and Brexit, the text is sure to date quickly.
The first half of the text is a pleasurable read through the history of democratic thought. Grayling shows that the mechanics of a democracy matter: Who gets the vote? (Based on age, sex, race or property holdings); How are these votes counted? (First-past-the-post or proportional voting); Are the elected free from external influence? (Of electoral finance and party politics); Are the electors fully informed? (Is there a free press, an accurate press?).
The second half looks at the state of affairs in western democracies in 2017 and explores solutions to the 'crisis' Grayling sees. He ties the crisis back into the broader philosophical concerns of democracy's fore-fathers which were discussed in part 1, and shows the reader that democracy is a work in progress - not something we had mastered by the time the wall came down in 1989.
However, with its explicit focus on Trump and Brexit, parts of the text are sure to date quickly and might seem quaint in 5 years. Grayling also purports to provide a set of practical solutions which we might implement in the US or the UK to put those democratic systems back on track. Long policy shopping lists are provided, but only a few of those proposals are discussed at any length. Compulsory civic education (a topic I am fascinated by), for instance, is proferred twice as a solution, but receives no analysis at all.
So, as an introduction to democratic though, history and design, this is a great read. It starts a conversation about what democratic reform in the US and the UK might look like at a time when the people might actually be paying attention. It is not, however, a policy manual on how those solutions might be implemented, and part 2 is unlikely to remain relevant as we move further from 2016.
The first half of the text is a pleasurable read through the history of democratic thought. Grayling shows that the mechanics of a democracy matter: Who gets the vote? (Based on age, sex, race or property holdings); How are these votes counted? (First-past-the-post or proportional voting); Are the elected free from external influence? (Of electoral finance and party politics); Are the electors fully informed? (Is there a free press, an accurate press?).
The second half looks at the state of affairs in western democracies in 2017 and explores solutions to the 'crisis' Grayling sees. He ties the crisis back into the broader philosophical concerns of democracy's fore-fathers which were discussed in part 1, and shows the reader that democracy is a work in progress - not something we had mastered by the time the wall came down in 1989.
However, with its explicit focus on Trump and Brexit, parts of the text are sure to date quickly and might seem quaint in 5 years. Grayling also purports to provide a set of practical solutions which we might implement in the US or the UK to put those democratic systems back on track. Long policy shopping lists are provided, but only a few of those proposals are discussed at any length. Compulsory civic education (a topic I am fascinated by), for instance, is proferred twice as a solution, but receives no analysis at all.
So, as an introduction to democratic though, history and design, this is a great read. It starts a conversation about what democratic reform in the US and the UK might look like at a time when the people might actually be paying attention. It is not, however, a policy manual on how those solutions might be implemented, and part 2 is unlikely to remain relevant as we move further from 2016.
October 28, 2017
Democracy is broken. Grayling posits that it has always been tough to do democracy, even during Greek days. The tension is between real democracy and ohlocracy (mob rule). So what is the difference? Isn't the mob also the 'people'? The ancient thinkers think that the mob will not be able to think through issues, debate the appropriateness and the trade-offs between different policies. Thus the ancients restricted suffrage to men who owned properties, not slaves, women or foreigners.
The other tension is between giving everyone a voice vs effective governance. Various thinkers along the way tried to build a system in which elected people will do the thinking and debating, always keeping the welfare of their electorate at heart.
However, that system is broken in the US and U.K. He thinks that the election of Trump and Brexit show it. In America there is too much checks and no balance. Entrenched party positions are getting further and further from each other, and the executive cannot accomplish anything because of the political deadlock. He suggested giving the executive (i.e. the President) more power... In the U.K., however, the executive, or the Parliament, is too powerful. It therefore acts with impunity and forced a vote on Brexit where only 37% of all voters wanted 'out'. He suggests having more checks and balances.
He also disagree with the 'first past the pole' way of election. He much prefers the European style proportional representation in which parliamentary seats are allocated to parties according to the votes.
He also thinks that voting should be compulsory, the press must be penalised for publishing fake news, a cooling period of 1 week before the vote, complete transparency about financial contribution, big data use etc.
It is a good primer on the principles of democratic systems in the US and U.K. However, representative government a la continental Europe has its own problems: namely the danger that populist and nationalistic parties be admitted to governments.
So I guess there will never be a perfect democracy.
The other tension is between giving everyone a voice vs effective governance. Various thinkers along the way tried to build a system in which elected people will do the thinking and debating, always keeping the welfare of their electorate at heart.
However, that system is broken in the US and U.K. He thinks that the election of Trump and Brexit show it. In America there is too much checks and no balance. Entrenched party positions are getting further and further from each other, and the executive cannot accomplish anything because of the political deadlock. He suggested giving the executive (i.e. the President) more power... In the U.K., however, the executive, or the Parliament, is too powerful. It therefore acts with impunity and forced a vote on Brexit where only 37% of all voters wanted 'out'. He suggests having more checks and balances.
He also disagree with the 'first past the pole' way of election. He much prefers the European style proportional representation in which parliamentary seats are allocated to parties according to the votes.
He also thinks that voting should be compulsory, the press must be penalised for publishing fake news, a cooling period of 1 week before the vote, complete transparency about financial contribution, big data use etc.
It is a good primer on the principles of democratic systems in the US and U.K. However, representative government a la continental Europe has its own problems: namely the danger that populist and nationalistic parties be admitted to governments.
So I guess there will never be a perfect democracy.
May 5, 2018
A scholarly, well written and timely book, summarizing the theory and practice of democracy in its many forms throughout history, and the problems which democracy faces today. The author is British, an academic, and has written extensively on history, philosophy, and politics, but this one was inspired (if that’s the word) by the Brexit vote and the Trump presidency. Solutions are given toward the end, which help to clarify the dilemma we are in today (transparency, more participation by the people, rooting out of lies and dissembling) but it is clear that any solution may be slow in coming. I had a difficult time engaging with this book at first, written in a distinctly British scholarly style. But, it would not do the author justice to dismiss these writings quickly: I found the section on the ‘Putney Debates’ of 1647, as the English Civil War was brewing, by far the most interesting part of the book (strangely, for an American): this was essentially a series of written exchanges between those who took up the cause of the Levellers, who argued for the inborn right to participate directly in government versus the idea that the most qualified, the landowners and aristocrats should (minus the king) make the important decisions in government. I found myself drawn toward the latter position, almost against my will. The ideas of both sides of the Putney Debates were further nurtured and elaborated by Locke and Hobbs in the next century as well as the American Founding Fathers, and greatly influenced the course of history in England and the new government of the United States: ‘all men are created equal’ and have ‘certain inalienable rights’ seem to come straight from the Levellers, while the separation of governmental powers (which seems severely eroded these days) spring from the remarkable development of ideas which followed the Debates.
November 17, 2017
I'm really interested in democracy and how political systems work so I expected to like this more than I did. While I found some parts interesting and mostly agreed with Grayling's recommendations at the end, I found it difficult to maintain my concentration and stay engaged and it took me quite sometime to finish the 200 odd pages (it's not a big book). In summary, I spent too much time feeling like I was wading through treacle for me to award it any more than two stars.
(Disclaimer: I received this book for free as part of GoodReads Giveaways in return for my review.)
(Disclaimer: I received this book for free as part of GoodReads Giveaways in return for my review.)
April 5, 2019
This book was thought-provoking and as a piece of scholarly literature, it was relatively accessible. However, the focus seemed to be slightly different from what I expected, and in many ways, I believe it failed to provide a workable solution besides simply extending the franchise to include 16-year-olds and making voting mandatory, which I don't believe will truly address the issue. Despite that, it was interesting and is an important part of a wider debate that is essential during such turbulent political times.
June 6, 2018
Grayling was prompted to write this book following the election of Trump in the US and the Brexit vote in the UK. He argues that these shocks happened because representative democracy has been subverted in both those countries and puts forward recommendations for change based on the development and history of representative democracy. A worthwhile and thought-provoking read.
January 22, 2025
Really excellent summary of democracy, the issues with it as a concept, and how it’s implemented currently. Demands your full attention as a read - I had to read multiple sentences more than once and google more than a few words. Having said that, I learnt a lot and it’s good occasionally to stretch yourself. Would recommend if anyone wants to learn more about the arguments about best ways (and worst ways) to govern, particularly in light of the US/UK situations.
September 27, 2020
It’s Grayling and the beginning is fantastic. But it quickly loses all flow and it becomes evident that Grayling has nothing new to say. His strategy to face populism is very weak. An incredibly disappointing read.
March 4, 2025
Review in English (not my mother tongue) and Spanish (below).
ENGLISH
Rather disappointing.
First, Grayling says that the broad historical survey that constitutes the first part of the book is necessary to understand the current problems of democracy and its solutions. And that is false. He could have skipped the first part of the book altogether (Plato, Aristotle, Montesquieu, Spinoza, Machiavelli, the Putney debates, and all the rest), and nothing would have happened. At least Jason Brennan, when arguing against democracy, gets to the point.
Second, when he talks about solutions, Grayling seems to be overconfident. He does not argue his position well, nor does he warn about the side effects that his measures would have, nor does he counterargue the opposing positions. Sometimes this has almost comical effects, as when he argues in favor of compulsory voting in elections, as happens in Australia. He says that voting should be a duty, comparable to obeying the law, or paying taxes. I think that's pretty silly, to put it mildly. I don't see why the freedom to vote, which also includes the option not to vote, should be restricted. Grayling basically offers three arguments.
One of them is that the non-voter favours the winning option in a first-past-the-post system. "Suppose you have a group of one hundred people who belong to a certain club, and they are asked whether as a group they should leave the club or remain in it. [The club he is thinking about is the European Union, by the way]. The question on the ballot paper is: ‘Should our group leave the club, Yes or No?’ Suppose thirty of them do not vote, thirty-seven of them vote Yes, and the remaining thirty-three vote No. The Yes vote wins, despite being just a little over a third of the members of the group. In effect the thirty non-voters have supported the Yes vote".
And that is simply false. Obviously, the thirty who did not vote did not support either Yes or No. They were simply indifferent to the result. Or they were so indifferent that it was not worth the energy of going to the polling station. So what they did was the most rational thing they could have done.
Another argument is that if you are indifferent to the result or want to protest, you can vote blank or spoil. He does not realize that if not voting is, according to him, like voting for the winner, and that is bad, then voting blank or spoiled is also bad, and should be equally bad.
And the third argument is that the vote is something that cost centuries and a lot of blood to achieve, and it is not a trivial possession. "Disenfranchising oneself is a sin that should be a crime" It is incredible nonsense. For a start, not voting once is not "disenfranchising oneself." You can always vote in the next election, if you are better informed or motivated to do so. And just because achieving a valuable right had a high cost in the past, you are not obliged to exercise it: that is why it is called a "right." It also cost a lot to achieve that women could get a divorce, but that does not oblige any woman to divorce. Thank goodness he is a professional philosopher...
The same is true for much more important issues. For example, Grayling is an opponent of the first-past-the-post system in elections, the system whereby whoever obtains a simple majority gets the position. He says that the political-electoral system should be one of proportional representation, which is a very common belief for many people. But he believes that the goodness of his position is so obvious that he hardly needs to argue for it. And I am afraid that he does. For example, David Deutsch, in his excellent book "The Beginning of Infinity", takes a position in favour of first-past-the-post, and makes a convincing and very profound argument against proportional representation, not only because it tends to give completely disproportionate power to the third or fourth most voted party, which acts as "kingmaker", but for much deeper reasons, which have to do with the ease of correcting political errors over time. At least, he argues his position and counterargues the opposite. Grayling seems to believe that he does not have to.
In short, this book is a review of the history of political thought, which is not very useful when it comes to understanding the current crisis of democracy. It explains the current crisis without too many original thoughts, and then gives solutions that are sometimes silly (such as extending suffrage to young people over 16 or making voting compulsory), other times hackneyed (such as demanding transparency in party financing), which in general seem insufficient. Perhaps the most useful thing for a non-British reader is its final rant against Brexit, which is only an appendix to the book, but contains interesting information that did not reach Spain news.
ESPAÑOL
Bastante decepcionante.
En primer lugar, Grayling dice que el amplio repaso histórico que constituye la primera parte del libro es necesario para entender los problemas actuales de la democracia y sus soluciones. Y eso es falso. Podría haberse ahorrado totalmente la primera parte del libro (Platón, Aristóteles, Montesquieu, Spinoza, Maquiavelo, los debates de Putney, y todo lo demás), y no habría pasado nada. Al menos Jason Brennan, cuando arguye en contra de la democracia, va al grano.
En segundo lugar, cuando habla de las soluciones, parece que Grayling tiene demasiada confianza en sí mismo. No argumenta bien su posición, ni advierte sobre los efectos secundarios que sus medidas tendrían, ni contraargumenta las posiciones contrarias. A veces eso llega a tener efectos casi cómicos, como cuando se posiciona a favor de la obligatoriedad del voto en las elecciones, como sucede en Australia. Dice que votar debería ser un deber, comparable a obedecer a la Ley, o a pagar los impuestos. Yo opino que eso es algo bastante tonto, por decirlo suavemente. No veo por qué hay que coartar la libertad de voto, que incluye también la opción de no votar. Grayling ofrece básicamente tres argumentos.
Uno de ellos es que el que no vota favorece a la opción ganadora en un sistema first-past-the-post. "Suppose you have a group of one hundred people who belong to a certain club, and they are asked whether as a group they should leave the club or remain in it. [Este club, por cierto, es un trasunto de la Unión Europea]. The question on the ballot paper is: ‘Should our group leave the club, Yes or No?’ Suppose thirty of them do not vote, thirty-seven of them vote Yes, and the remaining thirty-three vote No. The Yes vote wins, despite being just a little over a third of the members of the group. In effect the thirty non-voters have supported the Yes vote".
Y eso es sencillamente falso. Evidentemente, los treinta que no votaron no han apoyado ni el sí ni el no. Simplemente les era indiferente el resultado. O les era tan indiferente que no merecía la energía de ir hasta el colegio electoral. Con lo cual lo que hicieron era lo más racional que podían haber hecho.
Otro argumento es que si el resultado te es indiferente o quieres protestar, puedes votar en blanco o votar nulo. No se da cuenta de que si no votar es, según el, como votar al ganador, y eso es malo, entonces votar en blanco o nulo también lo es, y debería ser igualmente malo.
Y el tercer argumento es que el voto es algo que costó siglos y mucha sangre conseguir, y no es una posesión baladí. "Quitarse el sufragio a uno mismo es un pecado que debería ser un crimen." Es increíble la tontería. Para empezar, porque no votar una vez no es "quitarse el sufragio a uno mismo". Siempre puedes votar en las siguientes elecciones, si estás más informado o motivado para hacerlo. Y que haya costado mucho conseguir un derecho valioso no obliga a ejercerlo: por eso se llama "derecho". También costó conseguir que las mujeres pudieran divorciarse, pero eso no obliga a ninguna mujer al divorcio. Menos mal que es filósofo profesional...
Lo mismo sucede con temas mucho más importantes. Por ejemplo, Grayling es un adversario del sistema first-past-the-post en las elecciones, el sistema mediante el cual el que obtiene la mayoría simple, obtiene el puesto. Dice que el sistema político-electoral debe ser de representación proporcional, que es una posición muy habitual en mucha gente. Pero cree que la bondad de su posición es tan obvia que casi no necesita argumentarla. Y me temo que sí es necesario. Por ejemplo, David Deutsch, en su excelente libro "The Beginning of Infinity", se posiciona a favor del first-past-the-post, y elabora un argumento convincente y muy profundo en contra de la representación proporcional, no sólo porque tiende a dar un poder completamente desproporcionado al tercer o cuarto partido más votado, que hace de "kingmaker", sino por razones mucho más profundas, que tienen que ver con la facilidad para ir corrigiendo los errores políticos con el tiempo. Por lo menos, argumenta su posición y contraargumenta la contraria. Grayling parece creer que no tiene por qué.
En resumen, este libro hace un repaso de la historia del pensamiento político, que no sirve de mucho a la hora de entender la crisis actual de la democracia. Explica la crisis actual sin demasiados pensamientos originales, y luego da soluciones a veces tontas (como extender el sufragio a los jóvenes de más de 16 años o hacer el voto obligatorio), otras veces manidas (como exigir transparencia en la financiación de los partidos), que en general parecen insuficientes. Quizá lo más aprovechable para un lector no británico sea su despotrique final en contra del Brexit, que es sólo un apéndice del libro, pero contiene información interesante que no llegó mucho a España.
ENGLISH
Rather disappointing.
First, Grayling says that the broad historical survey that constitutes the first part of the book is necessary to understand the current problems of democracy and its solutions. And that is false. He could have skipped the first part of the book altogether (Plato, Aristotle, Montesquieu, Spinoza, Machiavelli, the Putney debates, and all the rest), and nothing would have happened. At least Jason Brennan, when arguing against democracy, gets to the point.
Second, when he talks about solutions, Grayling seems to be overconfident. He does not argue his position well, nor does he warn about the side effects that his measures would have, nor does he counterargue the opposing positions. Sometimes this has almost comical effects, as when he argues in favor of compulsory voting in elections, as happens in Australia. He says that voting should be a duty, comparable to obeying the law, or paying taxes. I think that's pretty silly, to put it mildly. I don't see why the freedom to vote, which also includes the option not to vote, should be restricted. Grayling basically offers three arguments.
One of them is that the non-voter favours the winning option in a first-past-the-post system. "Suppose you have a group of one hundred people who belong to a certain club, and they are asked whether as a group they should leave the club or remain in it. [The club he is thinking about is the European Union, by the way]. The question on the ballot paper is: ‘Should our group leave the club, Yes or No?’ Suppose thirty of them do not vote, thirty-seven of them vote Yes, and the remaining thirty-three vote No. The Yes vote wins, despite being just a little over a third of the members of the group. In effect the thirty non-voters have supported the Yes vote".
And that is simply false. Obviously, the thirty who did not vote did not support either Yes or No. They were simply indifferent to the result. Or they were so indifferent that it was not worth the energy of going to the polling station. So what they did was the most rational thing they could have done.
Another argument is that if you are indifferent to the result or want to protest, you can vote blank or spoil. He does not realize that if not voting is, according to him, like voting for the winner, and that is bad, then voting blank or spoiled is also bad, and should be equally bad.
And the third argument is that the vote is something that cost centuries and a lot of blood to achieve, and it is not a trivial possession. "Disenfranchising oneself is a sin that should be a crime" It is incredible nonsense. For a start, not voting once is not "disenfranchising oneself." You can always vote in the next election, if you are better informed or motivated to do so. And just because achieving a valuable right had a high cost in the past, you are not obliged to exercise it: that is why it is called a "right." It also cost a lot to achieve that women could get a divorce, but that does not oblige any woman to divorce. Thank goodness he is a professional philosopher...
The same is true for much more important issues. For example, Grayling is an opponent of the first-past-the-post system in elections, the system whereby whoever obtains a simple majority gets the position. He says that the political-electoral system should be one of proportional representation, which is a very common belief for many people. But he believes that the goodness of his position is so obvious that he hardly needs to argue for it. And I am afraid that he does. For example, David Deutsch, in his excellent book "The Beginning of Infinity", takes a position in favour of first-past-the-post, and makes a convincing and very profound argument against proportional representation, not only because it tends to give completely disproportionate power to the third or fourth most voted party, which acts as "kingmaker", but for much deeper reasons, which have to do with the ease of correcting political errors over time. At least, he argues his position and counterargues the opposite. Grayling seems to believe that he does not have to.
In short, this book is a review of the history of political thought, which is not very useful when it comes to understanding the current crisis of democracy. It explains the current crisis without too many original thoughts, and then gives solutions that are sometimes silly (such as extending suffrage to young people over 16 or making voting compulsory), other times hackneyed (such as demanding transparency in party financing), which in general seem insufficient. Perhaps the most useful thing for a non-British reader is its final rant against Brexit, which is only an appendix to the book, but contains interesting information that did not reach Spain news.
ESPAÑOL
Bastante decepcionante.
En primer lugar, Grayling dice que el amplio repaso histórico que constituye la primera parte del libro es necesario para entender los problemas actuales de la democracia y sus soluciones. Y eso es falso. Podría haberse ahorrado totalmente la primera parte del libro (Platón, Aristóteles, Montesquieu, Spinoza, Maquiavelo, los debates de Putney, y todo lo demás), y no habría pasado nada. Al menos Jason Brennan, cuando arguye en contra de la democracia, va al grano.
En segundo lugar, cuando habla de las soluciones, parece que Grayling tiene demasiada confianza en sí mismo. No argumenta bien su posición, ni advierte sobre los efectos secundarios que sus medidas tendrían, ni contraargumenta las posiciones contrarias. A veces eso llega a tener efectos casi cómicos, como cuando se posiciona a favor de la obligatoriedad del voto en las elecciones, como sucede en Australia. Dice que votar debería ser un deber, comparable a obedecer a la Ley, o a pagar los impuestos. Yo opino que eso es algo bastante tonto, por decirlo suavemente. No veo por qué hay que coartar la libertad de voto, que incluye también la opción de no votar. Grayling ofrece básicamente tres argumentos.
Uno de ellos es que el que no vota favorece a la opción ganadora en un sistema first-past-the-post. "Suppose you have a group of one hundred people who belong to a certain club, and they are asked whether as a group they should leave the club or remain in it. [Este club, por cierto, es un trasunto de la Unión Europea]. The question on the ballot paper is: ‘Should our group leave the club, Yes or No?’ Suppose thirty of them do not vote, thirty-seven of them vote Yes, and the remaining thirty-three vote No. The Yes vote wins, despite being just a little over a third of the members of the group. In effect the thirty non-voters have supported the Yes vote".
Y eso es sencillamente falso. Evidentemente, los treinta que no votaron no han apoyado ni el sí ni el no. Simplemente les era indiferente el resultado. O les era tan indiferente que no merecía la energía de ir hasta el colegio electoral. Con lo cual lo que hicieron era lo más racional que podían haber hecho.
Otro argumento es que si el resultado te es indiferente o quieres protestar, puedes votar en blanco o votar nulo. No se da cuenta de que si no votar es, según el, como votar al ganador, y eso es malo, entonces votar en blanco o nulo también lo es, y debería ser igualmente malo.
Y el tercer argumento es que el voto es algo que costó siglos y mucha sangre conseguir, y no es una posesión baladí. "Quitarse el sufragio a uno mismo es un pecado que debería ser un crimen." Es increíble la tontería. Para empezar, porque no votar una vez no es "quitarse el sufragio a uno mismo". Siempre puedes votar en las siguientes elecciones, si estás más informado o motivado para hacerlo. Y que haya costado mucho conseguir un derecho valioso no obliga a ejercerlo: por eso se llama "derecho". También costó conseguir que las mujeres pudieran divorciarse, pero eso no obliga a ninguna mujer al divorcio. Menos mal que es filósofo profesional...
Lo mismo sucede con temas mucho más importantes. Por ejemplo, Grayling es un adversario del sistema first-past-the-post en las elecciones, el sistema mediante el cual el que obtiene la mayoría simple, obtiene el puesto. Dice que el sistema político-electoral debe ser de representación proporcional, que es una posición muy habitual en mucha gente. Pero cree que la bondad de su posición es tan obvia que casi no necesita argumentarla. Y me temo que sí es necesario. Por ejemplo, David Deutsch, en su excelente libro "The Beginning of Infinity", se posiciona a favor del first-past-the-post, y elabora un argumento convincente y muy profundo en contra de la representación proporcional, no sólo porque tiende a dar un poder completamente desproporcionado al tercer o cuarto partido más votado, que hace de "kingmaker", sino por razones mucho más profundas, que tienen que ver con la facilidad para ir corrigiendo los errores políticos con el tiempo. Por lo menos, argumenta su posición y contraargumenta la contraria. Grayling parece creer que no tiene por qué.
En resumen, este libro hace un repaso de la historia del pensamiento político, que no sirve de mucho a la hora de entender la crisis actual de la democracia. Explica la crisis actual sin demasiados pensamientos originales, y luego da soluciones a veces tontas (como extender el sufragio a los jóvenes de más de 16 años o hacer el voto obligatorio), otras veces manidas (como exigir transparencia en la financiación de los partidos), que en general parecen insuficientes. Quizá lo más aprovechable para un lector no británico sea su despotrique final en contra del Brexit, que es sólo un apéndice del libro, pero contiene información interesante que no llegó mucho a España.
August 1, 2018
Excellent layperson's introduction to how democracy evolved, how it has been subverted by partisan interests in the UK and US, and how matters could be improved.
Only weakness is that it is very Anglo-Saxon: No mention, for example, of how France or Germany has solved some of the problems currently faced by the UK.
Only weakness is that it is very Anglo-Saxon: No mention, for example, of how France or Germany has solved some of the problems currently faced by the UK.
January 21, 2022
An ultimately disappointing and biased rant by AC Grayling against Brexit and Trump.
Part I of the book is interesting, in its own way; Grayling gives his potted history version of the development of ideas around democracy and representative Government from the Greeks up to the present day. He details how the idea of who is represented and how they are represented has changed throughout the ages but also how those same conundrums have faced political thinkers from then until now.
There is a massive hole in his biased history, not unsurprisingly given how vehemently anti-Christian his views are; he ignores how the idea of 'demos' in the West was broadened as a result of the strong influence of Christian thinking. Grayling pretends that it just naturally widened to include more and more people by some unseen 'liberally progressive' osmotic force. However the development, or more correctly the lack of development, of human rights in other parts of the civilized world shows that 'democracy' as known today is due in large parts to Christian influence that recognised the worth of every individual in society.
In Part II he grapples with his conscience of how best to exclude the great unwashed from actual democracy. He seems to favour a Constitution to protect people from their mercenary selves and would like a benign detached parliamentary system creating laws in the national interest where parliamentarians consider legislation in a broad sense and ignore the wishes of their constituents. Grayling never details how the greater good is determined yet expects that parliamentarians would still be rewarded by the electorate for their singular approach to issues.
Grayling is clearly of the Remainer opinion that the British electorate were hoodwinked into Brexit. He rails against the money that was spent by Brexiteers to fool the unsuspecting public yet he totally ignores that the whole gamut of the British establishment was on the Remain side. His patronising tone fails to acknowledge that sometimes votes don't go the way you want and that is democracy! He notes how few voters turned out and how the non-binding decision was accepted by the British Government on a simple majority for such a momentous change. Grayling believes that the 52% of voters who actually bothered to vote don't represent the country as a whole because the turnout was 72%, so technically according to Grayling only 37% of the registered voters chose to leave. He ignores the obvious point that the other 28% just didn't bother to vote, disenfranchised themselves, were entitled to hold that position and a tight Remain vote would have been equally as unrepresentative of the population. He neglects to inform readers that although a resounding 67% voted for the UK to join the EEC by referendum in 1975, with a turnout out of 63%; the actual mandate then only amounted to 43% of the registered voters for such a momentous decision. For some unexplained reason Grayling thinks that 16and 17 year old should have had the right to vote in the referendum. Clearly he assumes that they would have voted overwhelmingly in their own self interest to stay within the EU or would have been more easily swayed in that direction. Yet elsewhere in his tract he regales the lack of education of the masses; surely 16 and 17 year olds are excluded from voting for that very reason, that they don't have sufficient life experience and education to make informed choices.
I won't bother to mention his rant against Trump since Trump has been democratically voted from office and Grayling falls for the known Democrat lie that there was Russian collusion in Trump's election. It's a pretty obvious bias that the author can't hide. The passage only serves to undermine Grayling's credibility.
While his discussion of Plato, Locke, Spinoza and Rousseau among others gives it a sheen of academic respectability the nasty underlying anti-democratic undercurrent running through this book is that the electorate can be broken into two camps; the educated and politically astute who should have the vote, like himself, and the great unwashed who shouldn't, like Brexiteers.
A poor book.
Part I of the book is interesting, in its own way; Grayling gives his potted history version of the development of ideas around democracy and representative Government from the Greeks up to the present day. He details how the idea of who is represented and how they are represented has changed throughout the ages but also how those same conundrums have faced political thinkers from then until now.
There is a massive hole in his biased history, not unsurprisingly given how vehemently anti-Christian his views are; he ignores how the idea of 'demos' in the West was broadened as a result of the strong influence of Christian thinking. Grayling pretends that it just naturally widened to include more and more people by some unseen 'liberally progressive' osmotic force. However the development, or more correctly the lack of development, of human rights in other parts of the civilized world shows that 'democracy' as known today is due in large parts to Christian influence that recognised the worth of every individual in society.
In Part II he grapples with his conscience of how best to exclude the great unwashed from actual democracy. He seems to favour a Constitution to protect people from their mercenary selves and would like a benign detached parliamentary system creating laws in the national interest where parliamentarians consider legislation in a broad sense and ignore the wishes of their constituents. Grayling never details how the greater good is determined yet expects that parliamentarians would still be rewarded by the electorate for their singular approach to issues.
Grayling is clearly of the Remainer opinion that the British electorate were hoodwinked into Brexit. He rails against the money that was spent by Brexiteers to fool the unsuspecting public yet he totally ignores that the whole gamut of the British establishment was on the Remain side. His patronising tone fails to acknowledge that sometimes votes don't go the way you want and that is democracy! He notes how few voters turned out and how the non-binding decision was accepted by the British Government on a simple majority for such a momentous change. Grayling believes that the 52% of voters who actually bothered to vote don't represent the country as a whole because the turnout was 72%, so technically according to Grayling only 37% of the registered voters chose to leave. He ignores the obvious point that the other 28% just didn't bother to vote, disenfranchised themselves, were entitled to hold that position and a tight Remain vote would have been equally as unrepresentative of the population. He neglects to inform readers that although a resounding 67% voted for the UK to join the EEC by referendum in 1975, with a turnout out of 63%; the actual mandate then only amounted to 43% of the registered voters for such a momentous decision. For some unexplained reason Grayling thinks that 16and 17 year old should have had the right to vote in the referendum. Clearly he assumes that they would have voted overwhelmingly in their own self interest to stay within the EU or would have been more easily swayed in that direction. Yet elsewhere in his tract he regales the lack of education of the masses; surely 16 and 17 year olds are excluded from voting for that very reason, that they don't have sufficient life experience and education to make informed choices.
I won't bother to mention his rant against Trump since Trump has been democratically voted from office and Grayling falls for the known Democrat lie that there was Russian collusion in Trump's election. It's a pretty obvious bias that the author can't hide. The passage only serves to undermine Grayling's credibility.
While his discussion of Plato, Locke, Spinoza and Rousseau among others gives it a sheen of academic respectability the nasty underlying anti-democratic undercurrent running through this book is that the electorate can be broken into two camps; the educated and politically astute who should have the vote, like himself, and the great unwashed who shouldn't, like Brexiteers.
A poor book.
September 22, 2024
In Democracy and Its Crisis, A. C. Grayling offers a timely and thought-provoking exploration of the challenges facing modern democratic systems. Written in the wake of events such as Brexit and the election of Donald Trump, Grayling's book is both a critique of the failings of contemporary democracies and a call for reform to safeguard democratic principles in an increasingly polarized world.
Grayling begins by tracing the historical roots of democracy, examining its evolution from ancient Greece to modern representative governments. He explains how democracy has always been seen as a fragile system, vulnerable to manipulation and corruption. Through a detailed historical account, Grayling shows how early philosophers like Plato and Aristotle, as well as Enlightenment thinkers like Locke and Rousseau, influenced the development of democratic ideals. This historical context is important, as it allows the reader to see how far democracy has come and, simultaneously, how precarious it remains.
One of the book’s key arguments is that the current crisis in democracy stems from a disconnect between representative institutions and the will of the people. Grayling argues that many modern democracies have become oligarchic, where political elites and vested interests dominate decision-making processes at the expense of ordinary citizens. This, he suggests, has led to widespread disillusionment and distrust in political institutions, opening the door to populist movements that exploit public dissatisfaction without offering genuine solutions.
A significant portion of the book is dedicated to analyzing specific crises, such as the Brexit referendum and the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Grayling critiques both processes, arguing that they reflect the dangers of poorly designed democratic mechanisms—particularly the reliance on referenda and electoral systems that can be easily manipulated by misinformation, emotion, and media influence. He expresses particular concern over the rise of “post-truth” politics, where facts and reason take a back seat to populist rhetoric and divisive narratives.
Grayling’s writing is lucid and accessible, making complex political theory digestible for a general audience. He strikes a balance between academic rigor and clear argumentation, using examples from contemporary events to illustrate broader philosophical points. His critique of democracy’s vulnerabilities is sharp but not fatalistic; rather than calling for the abandonment of democracy, Grayling advocates for reforms that would make it more accountable and responsive. He suggests practical measures such as improving civic education, reforming electoral systems, and increasing transparency in governance to revitalize democratic engagement.
What makes Democracy and Its Crisis particularly compelling is Grayling’s passion for democratic ideals. While he is deeply critical of current democratic practices, his underlying message is one of hope. He believes in the potential of democracy to adapt and improve, provided that citizens and leaders alike are willing to confront its flaws and work towards meaningful change.
Overall, Democracy and Its Crisis is an insightful and timely analysis of the threats facing modern democracies. Grayling’s call for reform is both urgent and necessary, making the book a valuable read for anyone concerned about the future of democratic governance. It is not just a diagnosis of the problems but also a roadmap for how democracy might be strengthened in the face of contemporary challenges.
Grayling begins by tracing the historical roots of democracy, examining its evolution from ancient Greece to modern representative governments. He explains how democracy has always been seen as a fragile system, vulnerable to manipulation and corruption. Through a detailed historical account, Grayling shows how early philosophers like Plato and Aristotle, as well as Enlightenment thinkers like Locke and Rousseau, influenced the development of democratic ideals. This historical context is important, as it allows the reader to see how far democracy has come and, simultaneously, how precarious it remains.
One of the book’s key arguments is that the current crisis in democracy stems from a disconnect between representative institutions and the will of the people. Grayling argues that many modern democracies have become oligarchic, where political elites and vested interests dominate decision-making processes at the expense of ordinary citizens. This, he suggests, has led to widespread disillusionment and distrust in political institutions, opening the door to populist movements that exploit public dissatisfaction without offering genuine solutions.
A significant portion of the book is dedicated to analyzing specific crises, such as the Brexit referendum and the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Grayling critiques both processes, arguing that they reflect the dangers of poorly designed democratic mechanisms—particularly the reliance on referenda and electoral systems that can be easily manipulated by misinformation, emotion, and media influence. He expresses particular concern over the rise of “post-truth” politics, where facts and reason take a back seat to populist rhetoric and divisive narratives.
Grayling’s writing is lucid and accessible, making complex political theory digestible for a general audience. He strikes a balance between academic rigor and clear argumentation, using examples from contemporary events to illustrate broader philosophical points. His critique of democracy’s vulnerabilities is sharp but not fatalistic; rather than calling for the abandonment of democracy, Grayling advocates for reforms that would make it more accountable and responsive. He suggests practical measures such as improving civic education, reforming electoral systems, and increasing transparency in governance to revitalize democratic engagement.
What makes Democracy and Its Crisis particularly compelling is Grayling’s passion for democratic ideals. While he is deeply critical of current democratic practices, his underlying message is one of hope. He believes in the potential of democracy to adapt and improve, provided that citizens and leaders alike are willing to confront its flaws and work towards meaningful change.
Overall, Democracy and Its Crisis is an insightful and timely analysis of the threats facing modern democracies. Grayling’s call for reform is both urgent and necessary, making the book a valuable read for anyone concerned about the future of democratic governance. It is not just a diagnosis of the problems but also a roadmap for how democracy might be strengthened in the face of contemporary challenges.
October 16, 2017
A.C. Grayling is what would probably be known as a public intellectual, notably in that curious realm where people write about atheism and religion, not an area I delve into as I think the arguments presented are usually poor, judgemental and could be much better, so these authors aren't doing themselves any favours.
So why buy this book? Well, Grayling has reputations elsewhere and I thought this kind of topic would be more or less home ground for him. He doesn't let me down, with a well-reasoned excursion through the history of democracy, both as a term (there are many definitions) and in practice. His main concern is the current state of affairs in the US and the UK, and he examines their history of government, and their approach to democracy per se.
As any person interested in this area would know, neither country comes out well, which may surprise some, but even now distinctions are being made by people in public between a democracy, which implies certain things, and a republic, which doesn't imply a democracy. The word itself has been largely pejorative throughout history anyway, and in general a democratic franchise is a recent phenomenon, and even in that period up to today, attempts have been made to exclude minorities and others from casting a vote, or to gerrymander electorates in favour of one party.
Grayling makes a distinction between direct democracy and representative democracy, favouring the latter for reasons that coincide with mine. This kind of democracy, he thinks, requires education (something touted in the late 19th century with the introduction to the franchise of all adult males) and also compulsory voting, which he puts forward, more or less as a citizen's duty that also has the benefit of the corruptions that can be associated with getting the vote out.
I think the latter is quite obvious, but it seems that there are groups on the notional left (GetUp for example) who favour voluntary voting, on the basis that the people that will vote will do so according to a value orientation, a view perhaps related to the personality orientations of group members. Yet the data available shows that the people who do turn out under these conditions tend to favour a conservative perspective. A friend of mine, aligned with this kind of group, philosophically anyway, was surprised when I said this to her in a discussion on this book (which I had just bought and was showing to her), but then, notwithstanding her general intelligence she has difficulty in understanding other people's values, including those of her adult children.
At any rate, Grayling examines and analyses the recent Brexit referendum and US presidential election to demonstrate that these events were decided by a small minority of the electorate.
Grayling also advocates the vote for 16 year olds, which has always sounded dubious to me, even though I wanted to vote at around that age, but he recommends this because these voters will still be at school and so any education program will be of direct relevance. I can't argue with that, other than to point out the uneven and dubious nature of education in the US in particular. But who knows?
This book is intelligently and clearly written. Although Grayling has a view and isn't averse to some sharp comments and witticisms, it's not a polemic but an articulate and accessible slim volume on the topic objectively argued.
Representative not direct
So why buy this book? Well, Grayling has reputations elsewhere and I thought this kind of topic would be more or less home ground for him. He doesn't let me down, with a well-reasoned excursion through the history of democracy, both as a term (there are many definitions) and in practice. His main concern is the current state of affairs in the US and the UK, and he examines their history of government, and their approach to democracy per se.
As any person interested in this area would know, neither country comes out well, which may surprise some, but even now distinctions are being made by people in public between a democracy, which implies certain things, and a republic, which doesn't imply a democracy. The word itself has been largely pejorative throughout history anyway, and in general a democratic franchise is a recent phenomenon, and even in that period up to today, attempts have been made to exclude minorities and others from casting a vote, or to gerrymander electorates in favour of one party.
Grayling makes a distinction between direct democracy and representative democracy, favouring the latter for reasons that coincide with mine. This kind of democracy, he thinks, requires education (something touted in the late 19th century with the introduction to the franchise of all adult males) and also compulsory voting, which he puts forward, more or less as a citizen's duty that also has the benefit of the corruptions that can be associated with getting the vote out.
I think the latter is quite obvious, but it seems that there are groups on the notional left (GetUp for example) who favour voluntary voting, on the basis that the people that will vote will do so according to a value orientation, a view perhaps related to the personality orientations of group members. Yet the data available shows that the people who do turn out under these conditions tend to favour a conservative perspective. A friend of mine, aligned with this kind of group, philosophically anyway, was surprised when I said this to her in a discussion on this book (which I had just bought and was showing to her), but then, notwithstanding her general intelligence she has difficulty in understanding other people's values, including those of her adult children.
At any rate, Grayling examines and analyses the recent Brexit referendum and US presidential election to demonstrate that these events were decided by a small minority of the electorate.
Grayling also advocates the vote for 16 year olds, which has always sounded dubious to me, even though I wanted to vote at around that age, but he recommends this because these voters will still be at school and so any education program will be of direct relevance. I can't argue with that, other than to point out the uneven and dubious nature of education in the US in particular. But who knows?
This book is intelligently and clearly written. Although Grayling has a view and isn't averse to some sharp comments and witticisms, it's not a polemic but an articulate and accessible slim volume on the topic objectively argued.
Representative not direct
November 8, 2020
Grayling is unhappy with the outcomes of the Brexit referendum and the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. From this, he concludes that democracy is in "crisis" and that these electoral outcomes reflect the failure of key counterdemocratic safeguards built into the U.S. and U.K. political systems to prevent "mob rule."
While I share his feelings about the outcomes of those elections, I find his conclusions unconvincing. Grayling never really explains why either election suggests that "mob rule" has prevailed, for example--he takes it for granted. Moreover, the outcomes of both the 2016 U.S. election and the Brexit referendum are more easily explained by insufficient democracy rather than an excess of democracy. Hillary Clinton notably won millions more votes than did Donald Trump; it was use of the counterdemocratic electoral college in lieu of the popular vote that led to Trump prevailing. Grayling objects that the Electoral College malfunctioned because it was designed to, but did not, disregard the popular vote in instances where the people picked an ill-qualified president--even though this has never been done in the history of the country.
Similarly, the Brexit referendum similarly passed due to lack of democracy, not an excess of it. Even Grayling admits this: he objects to the referendum on the grounds that, in contrast to the 2015 Scottish independence referendum, for example, the Brexit referendum did not allow 16- and 17-year-olds to vote on it, nor did it allow British expatriates to vote, nor did it allow E.U. citizens resident in the U.K. to vote. Considering polling trends, had these groups been included in the referendum, the outcome almost certainly would have been a strong mandate for Remain. But Grayling says the U.K. political system failed because Members of Parliament voted to trigger Article 50 (to initiate the process to leave the EU) due to party whipping, despite their personal opposition to it.
Yet Grayling's preferred political outcome would have just as easily been obtainable under conditions of greater democracy. The Conservative Party which finally pushed Brexit through Parliament never represented more than 50% of voters in the U.K. elections. (Even in 2019, when the Conservatives won a "major" victory, they received only 43.6% of votes cast.) And indeed, Grayling even calls for an end to the first-past-the-post electoral system that produced this phenomenon.
Ultimately, Grayling fails to make his case convincingly.
While I share his feelings about the outcomes of those elections, I find his conclusions unconvincing. Grayling never really explains why either election suggests that "mob rule" has prevailed, for example--he takes it for granted. Moreover, the outcomes of both the 2016 U.S. election and the Brexit referendum are more easily explained by insufficient democracy rather than an excess of democracy. Hillary Clinton notably won millions more votes than did Donald Trump; it was use of the counterdemocratic electoral college in lieu of the popular vote that led to Trump prevailing. Grayling objects that the Electoral College malfunctioned because it was designed to, but did not, disregard the popular vote in instances where the people picked an ill-qualified president--even though this has never been done in the history of the country.
Similarly, the Brexit referendum similarly passed due to lack of democracy, not an excess of it. Even Grayling admits this: he objects to the referendum on the grounds that, in contrast to the 2015 Scottish independence referendum, for example, the Brexit referendum did not allow 16- and 17-year-olds to vote on it, nor did it allow British expatriates to vote, nor did it allow E.U. citizens resident in the U.K. to vote. Considering polling trends, had these groups been included in the referendum, the outcome almost certainly would have been a strong mandate for Remain. But Grayling says the U.K. political system failed because Members of Parliament voted to trigger Article 50 (to initiate the process to leave the EU) due to party whipping, despite their personal opposition to it.
Yet Grayling's preferred political outcome would have just as easily been obtainable under conditions of greater democracy. The Conservative Party which finally pushed Brexit through Parliament never represented more than 50% of voters in the U.K. elections. (Even in 2019, when the Conservatives won a "major" victory, they received only 43.6% of votes cast.) And indeed, Grayling even calls for an end to the first-past-the-post electoral system that produced this phenomenon.
Ultimately, Grayling fails to make his case convincingly.
December 29, 2018
I bought this book after hearing Grayling speak at the Wordplay festival in Shetland. It's a very brief history of key points of the development of democracy from Plato and Aristotle through to modern incarnations of representative democracy in the UK (and the US to a lesser degree). It is, at only 200 pages, and very readable account and doesn't dwell overly long on any particulars.
Written in 2016, he makes a case for the election of Trump and Brexit as being in-part the result of the less than ideal functioning of representative democracy, but these examples are vehicles to wider descriptions rather than soapboxing.
Refreshingly, the summary includes some hope in the form of (relatively) straightforward ways in which the health of democracies could be improved.
I spoke to Grayling briefly at Wordplay and asked him what an individual can do to help democracy, and his advice was to write to your MP. So there you go!
Written in 2016, he makes a case for the election of Trump and Brexit as being in-part the result of the less than ideal functioning of representative democracy, but these examples are vehicles to wider descriptions rather than soapboxing.
Refreshingly, the summary includes some hope in the form of (relatively) straightforward ways in which the health of democracies could be improved.
I spoke to Grayling briefly at Wordplay and asked him what an individual can do to help democracy, and his advice was to write to your MP. So there you go!
March 23, 2018
This book is divided into two parts: First, history and theory of democracy (Plato, Aristotle, etc.), and, Second, what has gone wrong with it in the UK and the U.S. and "how to put it right." (Those not interested in the history and theory . . . can go straight to Part II," Grayling advises. That fits me, thus I scanned, Part I). He makes some interesting points, but nothing really new to anyone who is knowledgeable about civics. Democratic "theory" is good, but in practice there are problems: tendency for collective mediocrity, uninformed electorate, nonvoters, no appetite for consensus on the part of legislators. As I read the part about demagogues I thought you know who. Person of simple slogans? Yes. One who cares only for his own enthusiasms? Yes. In all, this book offers readable basic civics lessons, one that the uninformed might well read and heed.
January 4, 2021
All this book provided were half-baked centrist opinions from an author who seemed to be bored with the topic. It was bland, failed to offer any new or unique insight, and spent little time on making its points. Rather, the first half is the dullest history of democracy I have ever read (and I love history... it's the sort of thing I should have enjoyed) and the second half is just jammed up with opinions that seem not to have been fully formed or at least, if they are, certainly were not fully explained or defended. I give it two stars because it certainly could have been much worse but it's far from good at the same time.
Since A.C. Grayling seems somewhat well-liked, I'll probably give him another chance at some point maybe with one of his more popular books but this one was a huge bore and disappointment.
Since A.C. Grayling seems somewhat well-liked, I'll probably give him another chance at some point maybe with one of his more popular books but this one was a huge bore and disappointment.
November 19, 2017
While Grayling's historical overview of the idea of democracy is superb, I found his prescription for democracy's rehabilitation underwhelming. To simply declare, for example, that "There should be complete transparency about the funding involved in an election campaign" strikes one as so self-evident as to be of little use to anyone. Other proposals, such as mandatory voting and lowering the age of voting to sixteen-- while intriguing, and certainly worthy of further study --are political non-starters in the two democracies that receive the bulk of his attention, the US and UK.
As a historical review of democracy, "Democracy and Its Crisis" succeeds. But as a pragmatic guide of how the US and UK can move forward after Trump and Brexit, its value is less certain.
As a historical review of democracy, "Democracy and Its Crisis" succeeds. But as a pragmatic guide of how the US and UK can move forward after Trump and Brexit, its value is less certain.
December 28, 2021
The beginning was incredibly interesting and the end was engaging to read, but the 75ish pages in the middle were insanely difficult to get through. This book took me literally more than a year to read even though it's 200 pages because it was so much effort to read. In terms of actual content, I really liked the history he provided on democracy but Grayling's solutions seemed either obvious or counterintuitive- that it would've been more democratic for an elector to betray their voters in the Electoral College than simply abolish the whole thing? Anyway, I'm glad I read it but I'm sure there are better books I could've read to learn more about democracy.
January 30, 2019
This good gives a brilliant development of democracy in the West, and what it has been viewed as throughout history. It can be argued that the length of the historical part is too long as it does take up half the book, but in my opinion it only adds to the arguments presented. The reforms proposed areon the whole, enlightening and open minded, especially the reforms the whipping system and the Lords. Could of done with a more rigorous analysis of his arguments as there are plenty of flaws, but as this book is targeted for the masses I understand why the author may not have included it.
January 28, 2021
Why The Economist's celebrated Liberal thinker's book disappoints:
Such huge a claim that democracy is the best of all political systems was never fully substantiated, appearing as, thus, quite ironically, nothing more than an empty rhetoric.
Proposed solutions to make democracy work weren't really new. Meanwhile the crisis that democracy nurtures, capitalism, was seldomly, if at all, mentioned--except for inequality, the closest thing to cap to be alluded to in the book.
A succinct discussion, tho, of the historical underpinnings of Western liberal democracy.
Such huge a claim that democracy is the best of all political systems was never fully substantiated, appearing as, thus, quite ironically, nothing more than an empty rhetoric.
Proposed solutions to make democracy work weren't really new. Meanwhile the crisis that democracy nurtures, capitalism, was seldomly, if at all, mentioned--except for inequality, the closest thing to cap to be alluded to in the book.
A succinct discussion, tho, of the historical underpinnings of Western liberal democracy.
June 11, 2019
This was a book in two parts for me; the first part, on the history of democracy, I really enjoyed. The second part, on the evils of Brexit and Trump, I could have done without. Grayling should trust the demos more and the experts less ... after all, we are by far the most educated electorate in history! And experts have no monopoly on wisdom, truth, or even idiocy. And that is the beauty of democracy; we are all in it togetehr, whether or not we like or agree with the result.
May 24, 2024
A great analysis of the historical thought and development of democracy to better understand the crises facing many contemporary democracies. Grayling strikes again with his inimitable ability to translate thousands of years of philosophical thought into easy to understand descriptions. Would like a final page where he just stops trying to be polite and tells us what he really thinks about the Tories
December 31, 2024
Democracy and Its Moderation
I advocate moderation in the application of democracy because we seem to expect too much from politics and governance. In a complex pluralistic society with competing needs, the most we should expect, or desire, is stability, consistency, coherence, competency and predictability. The last thing that should be expected or desired is the implementation of an agenda, an ideology or a philosophy or anything smelling of an ‘-ism. By this, I am not advocating weak government or even smaller or less government necessarily, but a government that is strong and active in performing those essential public roles that only government can fulfill which I hope are obvious enough to require no further reiteration here. For example, property is a private good, but property rights are a public good and without a strong and competent government, there will no property rights and thus no private property. It is too often the case that under our current neo-liberal paradigm, political issues reduce to the problems of the individual and private fantasy becomes public currency.
Most often, political change comes from elites with democracy being a form of regime change without violence. It is fantasy to believe that with democracy we are selecting the best qualified leaders and administrators. The true crisis of democracy occurs when the citizens stop trusting the elites, not when there is voter apathy or lack of participation. Democracy does not empower individuals, it empowers collectives of which individuals are only the smallest part thereby dis-empowering individuals. The problem is that democracy is premised upon empowering an electorate to govern which is itself unfit to govern thus opening the system to manipulation and corruption which renders the entire system self-defeating. The electorate is unfit to govern or even give informed consent to be governed for a variety of reasons, not the least of which are its uninformed, uncritical, self-interested and myopic nature. This is essentially the Platonic critique of democracy and it is still valid. The Platonic critique is still valid because the electorate is nothing other than it can be and no amount of enfranchisement, participation or civic education will change it because of who and what we are and remain as human beings as observed by Plato. Given that we accept that democracy is still the least bad system of governance yet tried, the solution lies not in eliminating the current system, not in finding a new system or even in improving the current system. The solution is to limit the scope of the current system and apply it with moderation to those essential tasks to which it is best suited. But is this possible? The political order in any manner conceived will be, will become and will remain distorted and dysfunctional. This why the liberal-capitalist- humanitarian-democratic order is just a mask for the brutal reality of power.
Democracy and aristocracy, for that matter capitalism and socialism are all just abstractions. It does no good to say that democracy is fair and aristocracy unfair or that capitalism is rapacious but efficient and that socialism is benevolent but inefficient. These are just labels; abstractions from reality. The reality is us. If we want more humane politics, more rational economics, and a more sensible civil order then we must become more humane, more rational and more sensible people. The method of political, economic or social organization is just beside the point. We can have any so called ‘system’ we desire but its outcomes will be governed by who we are as human beings. For example, China seems to be making a form of ‘authoritarian capitalism’ work, this we are told is theoretically impossible based on ‘system’ logic. Socialism, for all its theoretical flaws, seems to work in Denmark, etc. However, in the case of both, history still has time to make a judgement. For example, China is a great replicator, but can it become an innovator as is the U.S.? That is, can China become an innovator in science, medicine and technology without political plurality, strong property right and a reliable rule of law? We must ask ourselves, is capitalist economic organization entering a new phase where political liberty and representation are no longer needed? Is the economy becoming incompatible with the social structure? That is, there is no guarantee that a successor system to capitalism will be more progressive or conducive to human flourishing.
In any case, the answers are to be found where the problems are to be found, with us and within us. What gets translated into governance via the ‘system’ will depend entirely upon the character of the people that comprise the ‘system’. This is a matter of social and cultural evolution, or devolution as the case may be. The ‘system’ of governance is emergent from the underlying social consensus and complexity. Is the social consensus headed in the right direction? Is the social consensus itself the product of manipulation? The key question being, can we evolve fast enough to head off our own shortsighted foolishness. We cannot keep politics out of governance, or can we? In any case, it is not from our sinfulness, but our foolishness that we need to be saved. But we must save ourselves, is this possible?
I advocate moderation in the application of democracy because we seem to expect too much from politics and governance. In a complex pluralistic society with competing needs, the most we should expect, or desire, is stability, consistency, coherence, competency and predictability. The last thing that should be expected or desired is the implementation of an agenda, an ideology or a philosophy or anything smelling of an ‘-ism. By this, I am not advocating weak government or even smaller or less government necessarily, but a government that is strong and active in performing those essential public roles that only government can fulfill which I hope are obvious enough to require no further reiteration here. For example, property is a private good, but property rights are a public good and without a strong and competent government, there will no property rights and thus no private property. It is too often the case that under our current neo-liberal paradigm, political issues reduce to the problems of the individual and private fantasy becomes public currency.
Most often, political change comes from elites with democracy being a form of regime change without violence. It is fantasy to believe that with democracy we are selecting the best qualified leaders and administrators. The true crisis of democracy occurs when the citizens stop trusting the elites, not when there is voter apathy or lack of participation. Democracy does not empower individuals, it empowers collectives of which individuals are only the smallest part thereby dis-empowering individuals. The problem is that democracy is premised upon empowering an electorate to govern which is itself unfit to govern thus opening the system to manipulation and corruption which renders the entire system self-defeating. The electorate is unfit to govern or even give informed consent to be governed for a variety of reasons, not the least of which are its uninformed, uncritical, self-interested and myopic nature. This is essentially the Platonic critique of democracy and it is still valid. The Platonic critique is still valid because the electorate is nothing other than it can be and no amount of enfranchisement, participation or civic education will change it because of who and what we are and remain as human beings as observed by Plato. Given that we accept that democracy is still the least bad system of governance yet tried, the solution lies not in eliminating the current system, not in finding a new system or even in improving the current system. The solution is to limit the scope of the current system and apply it with moderation to those essential tasks to which it is best suited. But is this possible? The political order in any manner conceived will be, will become and will remain distorted and dysfunctional. This why the liberal-capitalist- humanitarian-democratic order is just a mask for the brutal reality of power.
Democracy and aristocracy, for that matter capitalism and socialism are all just abstractions. It does no good to say that democracy is fair and aristocracy unfair or that capitalism is rapacious but efficient and that socialism is benevolent but inefficient. These are just labels; abstractions from reality. The reality is us. If we want more humane politics, more rational economics, and a more sensible civil order then we must become more humane, more rational and more sensible people. The method of political, economic or social organization is just beside the point. We can have any so called ‘system’ we desire but its outcomes will be governed by who we are as human beings. For example, China seems to be making a form of ‘authoritarian capitalism’ work, this we are told is theoretically impossible based on ‘system’ logic. Socialism, for all its theoretical flaws, seems to work in Denmark, etc. However, in the case of both, history still has time to make a judgement. For example, China is a great replicator, but can it become an innovator as is the U.S.? That is, can China become an innovator in science, medicine and technology without political plurality, strong property right and a reliable rule of law? We must ask ourselves, is capitalist economic organization entering a new phase where political liberty and representation are no longer needed? Is the economy becoming incompatible with the social structure? That is, there is no guarantee that a successor system to capitalism will be more progressive or conducive to human flourishing.
In any case, the answers are to be found where the problems are to be found, with us and within us. What gets translated into governance via the ‘system’ will depend entirely upon the character of the people that comprise the ‘system’. This is a matter of social and cultural evolution, or devolution as the case may be. The ‘system’ of governance is emergent from the underlying social consensus and complexity. Is the social consensus headed in the right direction? Is the social consensus itself the product of manipulation? The key question being, can we evolve fast enough to head off our own shortsighted foolishness. We cannot keep politics out of governance, or can we? In any case, it is not from our sinfulness, but our foolishness that we need to be saved. But we must save ourselves, is this possible?
November 1, 2017
Disappointing. The first half of the book is stuck in debates from centuries ago about democracy with no connection or relevance to modern day. The second half is too vague and general to actually say anything.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 55 reviews