Freiheit, Gleichheit, Ungewissheit

by Jan-Werner Müller

A much-anticipated guide to saving democracy, from one of our most essential political thinkers. Everyone knows that democracy is in trouble, but do we know what democracy actually is? Jan-Werner M�ller, author of the widely translated and acclaimed What Is Populism?, takes us back to basics in Democracy Rules. In this short, elegant volume, he explains how democracy is founded not just on liberty and equality, but also on uncertainty. The latter will sound unattractive at a time when the pandemic has created unbearable uncertainty for so many. But it is crucial for ensuring democracy's dynamic and creative character, which remains one of its signal advantages over authoritarian alternatives that seek to render politics (and individual citizens) completely predictable. M�ller shows that we need to re-invigorate the intermediary institutions that have been deemed essential for democracy's success ever since the nineteenth century: political parties and free media. Contrary to conventional wisdom, these are not spent forces in a supposed age of post-party populist leadership and post-truth. M�ller suggests concretely how democracy's critical infrastructure of intermediary institutions could be renovated, re-empowering citizens while also preserving a place for professionals such as journalists and judges.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Philosophy, Political Science, History, Government

270 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2021

About the author

Jan-Werner Müller is a professor of politics at Princeton University, where he also directs the Project in the History of Political Thought. His previous books include What is Populism? (2016) and Contesting Democracy: Political Ideas in Twentieth-Century Europe (2011). He writes for the Guardian, the London Review of Books, and The New York Review of Books.

Reviews

[Robert Morris · Rating 2 out of 5]

Maybe political theory isn't for me. I mostly read history, and I found this book to be a profitless slog, even at just 185 pages. The author is clearly very knowledgeable, but I found the approach to be needlessly meandering. This is frustrating, because my sense is that he had some fairly clear and useful principles he wanted to express about democracy and its proper use. But the style of the book got in the way of delivering that message. Instead of multiple countries and dynamics being name checked on a given page, maybe a little more structure would have been useful. Perhaps a statement of one of his principles, and then a more in depth case study of how a single country illustrated that principle. I often found myself mid-chapter, or even mid-paragraph, wondering "what's the point of this again?". Interesting ideas, poorly written. Or maybe that's just philosophy. I'll stick to my doorstop histories going forward.

[Andrew]

Democracy Rules is a solid book which aims to explicate the vital principles that enable democracy to function. Muller calls this the hard border of democracy.

The book is particularly strong on summarising what populism is in Jan-Werner Muller's formulation. An explanation of the logic undergirding populism is established before he discusses largely the same cases as he did in his 2016 book What is Populism. Trump, Orban, Modi, Erdogan, Farage, Wilders, Chavez, Kaczynski.

I would have liked him to discuss why left wing populism seems to struggle so much in high income countries relative to right wing populists. Nevertheless, his arguments are convincing about what populism actually is.

He also covers the work of political philosophers like Rousseau and Mill to examine the questions thrown up by democracy. Concepts like militant democracy and lottocracy are explored well.

He covers the importance of maintaining pluralism in political parties, the media and ideologies like populism and technocracy.
There is an interesting discussion on how professionalism is seen by some as simply a form of elitism. This insight could be linked with the potency of anti-intellectualism.

One of the tensions in Muller's argument is related to the role of intermediary institutions like political parties. He seems unable to decide how they should in practice operate: should they be gatekeepers maintaining their identity and excluding undesirable members or should they be open and allow predominatly unfettered access to the public. He seems to lean in the latter direction. Yet he also says they can exclude others. Can these institutions in practice really be both accessible and autonomous? A political party like the UK Labour Party or the US republican party shows how this tension in practice is very hard to deal with.

The book would have benefited from more discussion of political systems and democratic satisfaction. This is discussed here and there but a systematic look at majoritarian democracy and more proportional systems would have given his arguments extra credibility. Sometimes he makes offhanded claims without backing them up which is a bit annoying. The book also seems to be trying very hard to feel contemporary and this is a little distracting at times.

In short, Muller is surely correct that anti-pluralism is a major danger to the functioning of democracy and this book does contain interesting evaluations of a variety of topics like civil disobedience, populism, pluralism, equality and freedom.

[Anna · Rating 3 out of 5]

Fine, but nothing new

[Jeffrey Thomas · Rating 4 out of 5]

The unofficial subtitle of this book is Liberty Equality Uncertainty (as printed on the intriguing cover design). That summarizes the primary concept of the book: democracy requires liberty and equality, and we should expect uncertainty! Human nature, and the mixture of so many opinions and ideas will naturally produce unexpected results. This author, unlike most other political writers, is unabashedly partisan liberal. I bridled a bit at his occasional direct jabs at Trumpists and Bolsonaro and Beppe Grillo and Hungary and Poland. But then it illustrates his continued point that partisanship is natural, and fine as long as it is transparent and civil. He describes "hard borders" that should define democracy -- primarily an equal access to voting and discussing the issues. He stresses the point that the term democracy now has such a universal appeal that would-be autocrats claim the mantle for themselves, thereby making it easier to expose their illiberal attempts to restrict access to voting or opinion (as has happened in recent moves in Hungary, Poland, India, and republican states in the US). This is a great book for a book club, as it by its nature promotes discussion and uncertainty! Similarly it would be good for a college course. The writing is occasionally a bit tautological and hedged about with qualifiers -- but again, that is his point: democracy is not certain; there are always other cases, newer ideas, more people to engage. Keep hope alive!

[Félix Tremblay · Rating 1 out of 5]

The most ordinary political analysis for the most ordinary "thinkers" who watch a lot of TV. It's incredibly unbalanced. The author has a very, very strong bias, so I don't know how it's possible to take anything he says seriously after that. That is then no surprise that when he wants an example of an ideological bubble, Fox News is the culprit. Trump and Orban are used a lot to make a point sometimes about populism, other times about authoritarianism. And I do not like those people per say, but if you make a political analysis aimed at hitting on one side of the aisle without even touching the other side, you are an ideologically possessed idiot.

[Stina Dewes · Rating 4 out of 5]

These days, checking the news feels like bracing for impact. Will today bring another assault on voting rights? Another norm shattered? Another lie treated as truth? It’s hard to ignore the sense that American democracy is under attack. Trust in institutions is eroding, and the basic norms that once seemed unshakable now feel fragile. If you’ve found yourself worrying about where this is all heading, or simply wishing for a clearer understanding of what’s at stake, Jan-Werner Müller’s Democracy Rules offers a thoughtful run-through of the basic principles of democracy—principles that are being tested like never before.

Müller argues that democracy stands on three non-negotiable pillars. The first is inclusion: a democracy dies when it starts excluding groups from participation. We see this in voter suppression tactics targeting minority communities or laws that make it harder for certain populations to cast ballots. When a democracy picks and chooses who gets to belong, it ceases to be a democracy at all.
The second pillar is the peaceful transfer of power. Democracy requires losers—parties and leaders who accept defeat and step aside. When this norm breaks down, as it did with Trump’s refusal to concede in 2020 or Orbán’s manipulation of Hungary’s electoral system, the system itself is in danger. Müller reminds us that democracy isn’t just about winning; it’s about losing gracefully.
The third pillar is a fact-based public square. Democracy can’t function without shared facts, yet today, media ecosystems thrive on propaganda and outrage. From Fox News’ promotion of the "Big Lie" to social media algorithms that reward disinformation, the erosion of truth is one of the most insidious threats to democracy. Without a common foundation of reality, debates turn into shouting matches, and compromise becomes impossible. These pillars aren’t abstract ideals—they’re practical necessities. And right now, all three are under siege.

One of the strengths of Democracy Rules is its accessibility. Müller’s writing is academic but never dense; he breaks down complex ideas into clear, memorable concepts. The three-pillar framework, for example, makes it easy to grasp what’s at stake and why certain actions—like restricting voting rights or rejecting election results—are so destructive. He also provides a vocabulary for understanding democracy’s vulnerabilities, from "institutionalized uncertainty" (the idea that no one party should hold power indefinitely) to "militant democracy" (the use of legal safeguards to protect the system from those who would undermine it).

Müller’s most unsettling insight is that democracies rarely fall overnight. Instead, they erode gradually, often in ways that are easy to miss until it’s too late. He traces how anti-democratic movements exploit weaknesses in the system—polarizing the media, stacking courts, or rewriting election laws—to consolidate power while maintaining a veneer of legitimacy. His examples, drawn from the U.S., Hungary, Turkey, and elsewhere, feel uncomfortably familiar. The playbook is the same: target the pillars one by one, and democracy crumbles.

But Müller isn’t just diagnosing the problem—he’s also exploring solutions. One provocative idea is "militant democracy," the notion that democracies must sometimes defend themselves by restricting certain rights (like banning extremist parties or regulating disinformation). Germany serves as a case study here, where constitutional safeguards have (so far) prevented democratic backsliding. Yet Müller is careful to warn against overreach: silencing dissent can backfire, turning defenders of democracy into authoritarians themselves.

His ultimate answer, though, lies not in legal technicalities but in citizen action. Democracy, he argues, isn’t a machine that runs on autopilot; it requires constant effort from ordinary people. From protests to civil disobedience, it’s up to citizens to hold leaders accountable and defend democratic norms. This feels especially relevant today, as grassroots movements push back against voter suppression, book bans, and attacks on marginalized communities.

In his closing chapter, Müller offers a "CODA"—five reasons for hope amid the chaos. First, most people still believe in democracy, even if they’re frustrated with how it’s working. Second, democracy remains an ideal even in authoritarian regimes, which often go to great lengths to fake democratic processes. Third, polarization isn’t inevitable; it depends on how conflicts are framed and fought. Fourth, new tools are emerging to foster unity and better leadership. And finally, public debate is more accessible than ever, offering opportunities to reclaim the narrative.
These points aren’t naive optimism. They’re a reminder that democracy’s fate isn’t sealed—it’s in our hands.

Democracy Rules doesn’t offer easy solutions. What it provides is something far more valuable: clarity. In a moment of overwhelming noise and fear, Müller cuts through the chaos, giving readers the tools to understand what’s happening and why it matters. The book’s greatest strength is its insistence that democracy isn’t about trusting institutions or leaders—it’s about effort. It’s a system that demands participation, vigilance, and, above all, a commitment to those three fragile pillars.
If you’re looking for a roadmap to navigate this precarious moment, Democracy Rules is an essential guide. It won’t reassure you, but it will arm you with something better: the knowledge to fight back.

[Patricia · Rating 3 out of 5]

A bit out side of my comfort zone... which made it hard to follow a lot of the through lines the book was tracing. So much good content in the footnotes, though! A whole world of interesting points about Athenian democracy & odd statistics! BTG #7

[Jake B-Y · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good enough book by a good political philosopher. Müller’s book “What Is Populism?” was an excellent read for scholars and the public alike, so I was excited to see that he had a book billed as a “return to the first principles” of democracy. What is democracy, and what rules govern a democracy that works properly? I was somewhat disappointed by the answer—partly due to Müller’s organizational choices, and partly because his 2021 concerns look quaint in 2025–but there is still substance here.

This short book (under 200 pages) has four chapters. In Chapter 1, Müller describes “fake democracy,” the kind of authoritarian democracy currently sweeping the world. He retreads some of his earlier work on populism here, defining it here, as he does previously, as a movement where a charismatic leader seeks to speak for “the people” while deliberately excluding many residents from the “true” people. He also describes the dangers of polarization and the double secession: the withdrawal of the wealthy from being tied to the success or failure of democracy, and the withdrawal of the poor and working class from democratic participation altogether. Both need to be invested in “the people.” Even as he rejects the definition of “the people” proffered by the populist, Müller recognizes that the boundary of “the people” that govern in a democracy needs certain boundaries. First, a democratic people should not expel or disenfranchise other citizens against their will, and second, a democratic people cannot put forward a self-evident conception of “the people.” (For example, saying that only white Christians represent “true Americans,” thus putting the question of who is American and what that means outside of the realm of debate.)

Armed with a rejection of populism in favor of a contested definition of “the people,” Müller’s second chapter defines “real democracy” quite simply: real democracy is founded in liberty and sustained by equality. The two are in tension, because freedom often leads to unequal outcomes and influence. (There is a long aside here about Athenian democracy that I found very interesting, but is mostly irrelevant to the argument.) Democracy is a method for processing conflicting goals and policies between free equals. As Müller says, “elections serve conclusively to process conflict: they generate winners and losers in an unambiguous manner” (p. 51). But here Müller introduces a third fundamental concept for democracy (to liberty and equality): uncertainty. The uncertainty of elections allows losers to believe they may one day win, and vice versa. As a result, in a healthy democracy, losers ought to be against the winners but not against the system. (In Britain, this idea was coined in 1826 as “Her Majesty’s Opposition.”) For a democracy to work, there should always be a “systematic but not anti-system alternative” (p. 69). Democracy, Müller concludes, is a form of institutionalized uncertainty, where rules both enable and contain conflict and representatives create majorities by staging those conflicts strategically.

In Chapter 3, Müller examines two “intermediary institutions” that create the critical infrastructure for liberty, equality, and uncertainty. Those institutions are political parties and professional journalism (freedom of association and freedom of the press, respectively). If democracy is about institutionalizing uncertainty by regularly marking winners and losers via elections, there needs to be a place for the formation of opinions and judgments in the interim (p. 94). Put another way, the press helps form public opinion, and parties structure public conflicts. These institutions have similar rules: they both ought to have external pluralism (a diversity options and opinions in a society) and internal pluralism (a diversity of opinion within the camps). Müller says both the press and parties can be partisan, but not so partisan that there cannot be internal conflict over the principles that they subscribe to. Both parties and the press, in other words, should help citizens associate with one another and also encounter conflict.

In Chapter 4, Müller attempts to get more concrete about what makes parties and the press work. He argues that our intermediary institutions should be accessible (both to start one and to transparently detect its partisan commitments); they should be accurate, constrained by facts; they should be autonomous, where there is no one pulling the strings behind the curtain; and by doing all of these things, they should be assessable and accountable to the people. On the macro level, Müller ponders whether particular parties should be banned (only if they seek to exclude other members of the polity, he says), and whether and how conscientious resistance or incivility should be used. (Carefully, he says, and in a way that is targeted to the specific law or principle that is unjust.)

There is much to think about here, but my opinion of the book was negatively impacted in two respects. First: the organization was unintuitive, and the structure I have laid out above was mostly implicit and hard to follow. (It only became clear in the epilogue.) Second: at several points, Müller’s perspective was clearly grounded in 2021 and the assumption that Trump would go away. Trump did not go away, and as a result, some of Müller’s ideas are dated and occasionally undermined. So, while I wouldn’t necessarily recommend this book to everyone (go read Danielle Allen!), it is still a thought-provoking overview of the major conflicts in structuring democracy and its intermediary institutions.

[Niko Jaakkola · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read Jan-Werner Müller's 'Democracy Rules', a follow-up to his acclaimed 'What is Populism?' of 2016.

These short books are about the crisis of democracy that we are (supposedly?) living through. Müller's interest is not in the obviously fake democracies: autocratic regimes which still -- revealingly -- insist they are supposedly democratic. Instead, Müller is interested in Western liberal democracies, under assault from 'populists' of various political persuasions. But is the threat real? Is the success of populists such as Trump a sign of a democracy failing -- or succeeding?

Müller does not give us clear answers, because such answers cannot be given. The reason is the hall-of-mirrors-like nature of democracy. The fundamental questions -- what is democracy, who are the people, what are the rules -- are themselves fair game for democratic politics. Put differently, democratic politics is a constant tussle over the definition of what is it supposed and allowed to be about; over who gets to legitimately have a say; over what the valid and salient substantive issues are which elections are fought over. To take but one example, immigration was not a substantive motivating issue for large fractions of the electorate, until it was made to be such by 'political entrepreneurs'. In the British context, worries over the European Union were of marginal concern, until Nigel Farage's successful campaign to pressure the Tories worked; the UK-EU relationship then became *the* central issue, for years after the referendum.

The reflexive nature of democratic politics makes the concept itself very slippery. As soon as you lay down a marker delineating a supposed bounding line of democracy, somebody will contest it. And so does Müller, presenting suggestion after another on how to define, or set rules for, democracy; and demolishing these each in turn. The arguments are often convincing, but the reader is easily left feeling like he is grappling with a cloud of fog.

In Müller's telling democracy is, at heart, about political equality and respect of the citizens vis-a-vis one another; about the losers of a political contest feeling like they still have a stake in the system; and about the ongoing conversation over the rules of the game, which itself is what legitimises democracy. These ideas crystallise into what Müller argues should be the 'hard border' of democracy: democratic politics should never allow disenfrancising citizens against their will; and it should not be allowed to shut down the debate over who 'the people' are and what their interests might be. The latter is what in Müller's view defines populism: a political approach which implies the existence of 'the real people', a (symbolic) category of people whose identity is supposedly beyond question, and whose wishes the populist claims to channel (in fact a rhetorical trope used to further the populist politician's own professional or political interests). In Müller's view, there cannot be a definite 'the people': we all have multiple, intersecting identities and roles, always up for grabs as politicians try to find new ways of slicing up 'the people' and making different identities salient in a manner which produces a winning coalition.

Müller does offer some sharper pieces of diagnosis. He argues that democracy is currently suffering because of a "dual secession". The first secession is that of the economic elites from society, and their successful (if partial) capture of at least some aspects of the policymaking process. The second secession is the opposite: the withdrawal altogether of a substantial section of people, many of them at the lower end of the income spectrum, from democratic politics. Such a withdrawal becomes self-fulfilling: if a section of the electorate chooses not to vote, politicians have little incentive to cater to them, and thus there indeed is nobody to vote for (until the populist turns up).

This is the failure of the two intermediating institutions of democracy: political parties and the media. Müller discusses these in turn, pointing out problems -- the closed-shop nature of the incumbent parties, the commercial decline of traditional media, the invasive snooping and personalisation of social media. Müller's solution to both is to treat these institutions as part of the crucial infrastructure of democracy, and to thus put them under firmer democratic control: reforming the system of party financing, and setting up publicly supported media, especially in local markets which are increasingly starved of the high quality journalism which is necessary for citizens to engage in politics from an informed position.

These two short books are well-written, at times even funny, but the subject matter -- a system of governance being about, and even legitimised by, a discussion of itself and its very sources of legitimacy -- can induce a sense of analytical vertigo. Democracy, and democratic politics, is a process ultimately about itself; an endless debate over what matters and what the camps are. Müller's books make that complexity more apparent; although at the end of them I feel that perhaps I understand less than when I started.

[Joseph Stieb · Rating 3 out of 5]

I liked parts of this book, but I had trouble grasping the larger point of it or the overall argument. The idea seemed to be to explore the rules of democracy: what institutions, rules, norms, etc define democracy and keep it healthy. However, the book was oddly structured, just jumping from topic to topic without much of a sense of flow or core argument. One theme developed early on is that one of the indisputable rules of democracy is that you shouldn't exclude people from the circle of citizenship. THis is great, but there weren't enough threads like this for me to really grasp the whole argument.

One of my larger beefs with the book is that Muller is very technocratic in his approach to the contemporary crisis of democracy. Social media, for example, is only a problem insofar as it is poorly regulated or structured; ditto for establishment media. Right-wing populist revolts aren't signs of a loss of belief in democracy but in the establishment, which is true, but only partially true. He drastically underrates that many people's attachment to democracy is conditional (and that their attachment to liberalism are often paper-thin) and that if they feel essential moral/cultural/political/economic goals are being jeopardized, they will scrap democracy or undermine it. The modern GOP in the US exactly fits this dynamic: it feels that its idea of America is slipping away under cultural/political/demographic change, and its loyalty to democracy has become highly contingent.

This book felt a little blase about what I would call a serious crisis. It's often interesting (there's a great section on the idea of "militant democracies" that outlaw certain forms of extremist political organization and speech) but not as compelling, organized, or insightful as Ziblatt and Levitsky, Applebaum, Kagan, or other analysts of the travails of modern liberal democracy.

[Oranje · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book puzzled me. At points interesting, at points confusing, it concerns democracy, an ill-defined concept of a political system that has been constantly transforming through the ages.

The book tries to suggest what is essential for democracy and what are the vehicles for its functioning. It talks about the role of elections, the role of opposition and even the definition of equality and of uncertainty (under a positive lense) in a democracy.

In general, the book injects some kind of hope (i.e. acknowledging the fact that even non-democratic leaders try to be elected with a democratic cover, hypocritically pretending that they do believe in it) for the future. It also places a very important role on media for being part of the critical infrastructure of democracy - and while this is accurate in my view, he does not acknowledge (or not enough at least) the unsuccessful role they have played in defending it.

I did also read for the first time about the Citizens’ Initiative Review, extremely interesting one.

- In no Western country has a right wing populist authoritarian party or politician come to power without the collaboration of established conservative elites. […] their art of governance is based on nationalism(often with racist overtones), on hijacking the state for partisan loyalists and less obviously, on weaponising the economy to secure political power: a combination of culture war, patronage and mass clientelism.

- What democracy requires is public debate, not information.

- Optimism is not the same as hope. The former is about probabilities, the latter about finding paths forward, irrespective of how likely it is that someone will take these paths. Democracy is not about trust, it is about effort.

[Johanna Lander · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you are not into politics, you may skips this review. Spoiler alert: it may bore you.

"Democracy is not about trust. It’s about effort."
In Democracy Rules, Jan-Werner Müller argues about populists claim to be the only legitimate voice of “the people” and in doing so, suffocate the pluralism that democracy needs to breathe. Populism’s key strategy? Polarization—splitting society into “the pure” and “the corrupt.”

“Democratic principle,” Müller writes, “is enjoying a sense of fundamental political equality and freedom.” But when elites only engage with those who ‘count’, and citizens waste their rights, we drift far from that ideal. In such a system, “poor citizens and political elites grow further apart”—geographically, socially, and emotionally.
Müller offers a compelling metaphor: the infrastructure of democracy is not just voting booths and parliaments, but media and political parties—institutions that shape, frame, and sometimes distort political behavior in ways that are “perhaps predictable” but no less dangerous.

Especially recommended for those who still believe democracy deserves defending.
It's a piece that not only reminded me of all the hours I tried to get behind the ideas of political philosophers but it puts fundemental ideas into the contemporary democracy phenomenons worldwide.

[Peter Vegel · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is a missed opportunity. No doubt the author had some interesting things to say but they kinda got lost in the meandering writing style. Also, the final argument seems to be: we have to trust in the political status quo but just enforce the rules better ... such as by way of peers (politicians) checking on each other and citizens keeping everybody accountable .... Yes, this way of doing has served us really well ... So the author does not really acknowledge some fundamental flaws in the representative system and dismisses things like the Athenian system of sortition without giving clear arguments.

[Ben Butin · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interest book on the need to revisit our principles of democracy in response to the rising populist threats not just in the US but abroad as well. He harps on the need for diverse voices and that everyone has a change as winning an election. This uncertainty keeps democracy alive and allows for diverse voices to be heard. However, the structure of the book was at often times hard to read and I often found myself reading paragraphs asking “wait what is he saying again. What is his point?” But overall interesting read

[AB Freeman · Rating 4 out of 5]

In an age of encroaching authoritarianism, an understanding of the optimism of democratic principles (as opposed to hope) remains more relevant than ever.

4 stars. A precise and cogent examination of the fundamentals of democracy, with suggestions for how to best preserve it. A useful perspective.

[Ietrio · Rating 1 out of 5]

Democracy is whatever this Governmental bureaucrat wants it to be. And by god, everybody should vote his way, or that is not Democracy.

[Tuğba Bayar · Rating 5 out of 5]

Eine wertvolle Quelle für diejenige sich mit gegenwärtigen Konzepten sowie Autoritarismus, Populismus, Polarisierungspolitik, Machtkonzentration beschäftigen.

[Mohamed Osman · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very good treatment of populist authoritarian leaders and the way they try to manipulate democratic institutions for their own goals. Author didn't really offer any real ways to address it.

[Claudia · Rating 4 out of 5]

Solid thesis read that took me way too long to finish

[Scott · Rating 4 out of 5]

Readable but gets bogged down about 3/4 of the way into it. Pulls it out with a nice little road map to restore democracy at the end.

[Mesoscope · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book is a real surprise - I've previously read and very much enjoyed two of Müller's other books: Another Country, a study of pre-unification conceptions of Germany and German identity by German public intellectuals, and What is Populism?, his useful analysis of contemporary populist movements.

This book really put me off almost immediately, and I eventually gave up on it. There are pressing questions about democracy, its nature, and its viability facing the modern world, and Müller focuses on none of them, instead pouring attention into minor matters that are generally obvious as well as fairly unimportant. I have never taken a political science class, but it is obvious to me that there are different concepts of democracy and one needs a certain precision in what exactly one means by the term - for example, the direct democracy represented by, say, a referendum, has a different character than the act of electing a representative.

This is the kind of issue that Müller focuses on, seeking to give us a better and more rigorous concept of democracy so that we can more effectively discuss what exactly it is that we're supposed to be trying to save. The problem is that he sets his bar far too low for formulating a concept of democracy, and honestly, I felt that he insults the reader's intelligence.

Speaking of insulting the reader, this book is bound to irritate readers of any political affiliation. He heaps derisive scorn on Trump, but also takes cheap potshots at "liberals" throughout, such as when he tells us that liberals "love to be scared."

My theory is that two things went badly wrong with this book. The first is that after the attention and acclaim his book on populism received, Müller has shifted his writing energies into writing "popular" instead of academic books, but does not really have a knack for it. The second is that a lot of what he's essentially doing here is getting some long-standing gripes about popular discourse off his chest. My guess is he hears a lot of imprecise terminology and muddy thinking thrown about, and he's accumulated a long list of misusages and canards that just bug him, and this book is his attempt to set the record straight, much as you can imagine a climate scientist writing with scorn about people who say global warming can't be real because some areas are experiencing more severe winters.

The problem here is one of tone, which one reviewer charitably calls "brio," but which showed up for me as a kind of shrill and somewhat contemptuous impatience.

Also to the matter of tone is the degree to which Müller asserts without arguing in many cases, such as when he dismisses the "folk notion" that partisanship is rooted in the fundamentally-tribal nature of human beings, which he attributes caustically to "liberals" (seriously, the 1990s called, they want their term for the political left back). On what basis does he dismiss this claim? What is his evidence? The research I've seen in social psychology suggests to me that there is at least a prima facie plausibility to this notion - people have been experimentally shown to form in-group preferences very quickly, even on the basis of very superficial social distinctions, as in an experiment which divided participants between those who preferred a painting by Kandinsky they were shown, and those who preferred a painting by Klee.

I don't think Müller has a good handle on how to write popular works. You can clear up common misconceptions without constantly deprecating common views and the people who hold them, and you can present information in an accessible way while still using carefully reasoned arguments.

Most of all, I don't need him to tell me that if one of two major political parties disregards the fundamental tenets of democracy as such, then that's a problem - that much is obvious. What I need is conceptual tools that actually help with the situation.

[K C · Rating 2 out of 5]

I bought this book with the hope that it might help explain what has happened to liberal democracy and what can be done to rectify the current situation. It may even do that but it is so anti-Trump, however justifiably, that there is no possibility of anything this author says being acceptable to anyone who supports Trump and this makes it basically useless. And just about all of his recommendations are too unrealistic and rely too heavily on a consensus of what are democratic values, which is what is missing in today's political configuration. About the only idea I came away with from this book is that democracy requires political uncertainty. Perhaps an obvious idea, but one that I hadn't fully comprehended before.

[Nicholas Gordon · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is like raw broccoli. If you're into that sort of thing give it a go.