Daniel Ziblatt’s thoughtful and generous review raises a key question. Why focus on hegemonic influences if domestic factors so often shape democracy’s chances of survival? If hegemonic shocks are short-lived and democratic waves are doomed to fail, can they really help explain institutional outcomes?
There are three reasons why I think the answer must be yes. First, unsuccessful transitions act as critical junctures that set institutional precedents and shape the trajectories of future reforms. Failed waves like Europe’s brief attempt at democratization after the Great War still left a deep imprint on the evolution of European regimes. Understanding failed transitions is useful even when it does not help explain regime consolidation.
Second, the linkages between domestic and external forces are often subtle and indirect. Domestic factors that ostensibly “determine” the final outcome may themselves come from changing systemic forces. Party coalitions in postwar Latin America, for instance, often reflected shifting great-power alignments as much as internal dynamics. And even where domestic factors take precedence, they rarely operate in isolation from outside influences. The neat separation of domestic and systemic influences becomes untenable in times of global upheaval.
Third, a focus on hegemonic shocks highlights the broad underlying forces that have shaped the evolution of domestic regimes. In Aftershocks, I argued that the sudden rise and fall of powerful states has been responsible for intense bursts of domestic reforms, both toward and away from democracy. Here, an emphasis on the key but often contradictory role played by great powers lets us view modern regime evolution from a different perspective. It helps explain, for instance, why two seemingly incompatible things can both be true: that U.S. power has been crucial for global democracy, and that U.S. attempts to spread its power have been detrimental to global democracy.
One of the lessons that emerges from this story is that a great power’s strength is closely tied to its ability to serve as an example. As I argue in the book, America’s most important role in shaping the spread of democracy has been through its status as a model worth following and a side worth joining. We do not need to get high-minded here; an example can be followed for selfish or instrumental reasons, but is followed nevertheless. Seeing regime change through the prism of hegemonic shocks highlights how the decline of American unipolarity will help shape institutional reforms around the world.
Victor Hugo said that no army can stop an idea whose time has come. But the same works in reverse: No military budget can revive an idea whose time is gone. The lessons of past hegemonic shocks are becoming especially important as we consider America’s changing role in an uncertain global order.
Both Ziblatt and I did something predictable in our reviews: I critiqued his book for not having enough international relations, and he critiqued mine for not having enough comparative politics. Both of us, however, seem to recognize the merits of each other’s perspective, and I do not think it is just a case of reviewer politeness. Given the increased entanglement of local reforms with global forces, the task ahead is not battles over domestic versus systemic explanations but closer studies of how they interact. Here’s to synthesis!
