Democracy (review)

Charles Tilly is an amazingly productive scholar. Since the late 1990s, he has published so many books that it has become difficult for even the most committed political sociologist to keep up. Considering that he is so prolific, sceptics might believe that Tilly has put quantity ahead of quality. Fortunately, my reading of his newest book, Democracy, suggests that this is not the case. Over the years, Tilly has accumulated impressive historical and theoretical knowledge, and this new book is yet another testimony of his lasting contribution to the fields of historical, comparative, and political sociology.

Democracy is an ambitious book that sketches a comprehensive sociological theory of democratization across time and space. For Tilly, democratization is not a linear and irreversible process but “a dynamic process that always remains incomplete and perpetually runs the risk of reversal — of de-democratization” (p. xi). He describes de-democratization as a common occurrence, even in countries with well-established democratic traditions. Overall, Tilly depicts democratization as a dynamic and changing process that creates complex and reversible paths to democracy, which he defines as the “broad, equal, protected, binding consultation of citizens with respect to state actions” (p. 34).

According to Tilly, democratization is triggered by changes in three major areas: trust networks, categorical inequality, and autonomous power centers. First, the emergence of politically integrated trust networks and the decline or the political integration of segregated networks to the polity can stimulate democratization. Second, although genuine democracies like Brazil and the United States can feature high levels of inequality, democratization remains impossible when ethnicity, race, gender, and religion “translate directly into categorical differences in political rights and obligations” (p. 75). Third, another “essential alteration behind democratization consists of reducing autonomous power clusters within the regime’s operating territory, especially clusters that dispose of their own concentrated coercive means” (p. 137). Tilly’s analysis of the interaction between these three factors offers a coherent and genuinely sociological perspective on democratization. In this analysis, he also stresses the crucial and under-explored relationship between state strength and democratization. Distinguishing between weak, medium, and strong state trajectories to democracy, he suggests that weak states have less chance than strong ones “of ever making their way into democratic territory” (p. 175), an explicit rebuttal of traditional anarchist views on democratization. Finally, Tilly’s book emphasizes the impact of popular protest and of shocks, such as foreign invasions, on democratization and de-democratization.

Tilly formulates complex arguments about democratization and de-democratization that are difficult to summarize in such a short review. Furthermore, the analysis is enriched by discussion of an impressive number of cases ranging from Kazakhstan, South Africa, and Venezuela to France, Switzerland, and the United States, among others. Although the cases are used mainly to back the author’s theoretical claims, they are often fascinating in themselves. Tilly knows how to tell a good story and to make seemingly random cases not only relevant but genuinely interesting. For example, the discussion of ethnic strife in 19th century US society, and the analysis of the decline of democracy in Venezuela under Hugo Chávez are both fascinating. This is what makes this book so special: it discusses numerous relevant stories in support of insightful arguments that one can later apply to an even greater range of cases. Overall, the balance between the theoretical material and the case studies is excellent, and the book never feels too abstract or fragmented. As a result, Democracy is an accessible book that could be used with profit in both graduate and advanced undergraduate seminars.

Democracy has only a few limitations. First, Tilly himself acknowledges that about 20 percent of the manuscript is adapted from some of his other books, such as Trust and Rule. Thus, readers of Tilly’s other recent books will find that some sections of Democracy have a taste of déjà vu. Fortunately, by drawing on previous work to say something new about democracy, he avoids being repetitive. Second, Tilly does not always systematically review the existing...