Democratic backsliding: How it happens and how It can be countered

Democracy is in danger across much of the world, often due to the actions of elected leaders themselves.  In this new global study, we identify four distinct pathways that elected leaders have followed to undermine democracy from within. The 15 case studies illustrate how democratic “backsliding” occurs, and they suggest focal points of resistance and reform that may be helpful to policymakers and advocates working to defend democracy. 

Backsliding is a threat to democracy because it concentrates power in the hands of a dominant executive.  It involves weakening institutional checks and balances, limiting social dissent, and tilting the playing field to the president’s advantage. In the path we call executive power grab, power is shifted from the legislature, the courts, and bureaucratic agencies to the chief executive.  Leaders like Kais Saied in Tunisia and Vladimir Putin in Russia have shut down or curtailed the independence of parliament and the courts to concentrate powers in the presidency and limit opposition forces.

The second path is legislative capture, which uses the ruling party’s majority control in the legislature to limit rights and the rule of law, condoning and legitimating the executive’s agenda through its subservience. Leaders like Viktor Orban in Hungary and Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey have deferential legislatures to approve favorable legislation, weaken judicial independence, and provide political cover for unconstitutional or corrupt actions.

A third, plebiscitary¹ path combines populist appeal with a nationalist mobilizing strategy, and occurs when a leader with broad electoral support uses popular referendums to circumvent other checks (such as opposition-controlled legislatures or the judiciary).  Referenda can be used to elect a constitutional assembly, ratify a new constitution, and rebuild governing institutions from scratch, as seen in Venezuela under Hugo Chávez and Ecuador under Rafael Correa. 

Finally, under elite collusion, political elites from different parties or factions agree to power-sharing arrangements to protect their interests while limiting democracy’s responsiveness to citizens.  In Benin, for instance, the concentration of political and economic power contributed to dramatic backsliding under President Patrice Talon, favoring certain elite interests and limiting opposition voices.

Defending Democracy: Lessons from Abroad

To understand the routes for democratic defense, we identify six broad lessons from around the world.

First, early action is crucial – After two electoral cycles it often becomes too late to reverse the damage done, as space is closed for opposing voices.  Most backsliding is incremental over the course of several years, providing opportunities to fight back.

Second, defending democracy requires a collective effort with a division of labor, whereby different sectors of society have different roles to play in resisting an authoritarian threat. A multi-pronged defense can draw on different strategies and opposition strengths. Democracy defenders include business leaders resisting government pressures, lawyers and judges defending the rule of law, elected officials asserting their independence, universities and the media defending free speech, and everyday people overcoming deep partisan and policy differences to defend their rights by means of collective pressure. This occurs at the ballot box, in the workplace, in community associations, and in protests.

Third, real conditions matter - as well as public perceptions.  Opposition actors have more opportunities to challenge incumbents during economic downturns, corruption scandals, or other events that undermine a government’s support.  Since governments often respond by trying to control the narrative, factual reporting and data transparency become a key zone of contestation. When the political arena is sharply polarized, even factual information may fail to convince polarized voters. Democracy defenders thus need to frame information in ways that dispel these suspicions.

Fourth, crossing bright lines in backsliding generates opportunities for resistance. Presidents attempting to extend their term limits (Venezuela, Indonesia, Senegal), and chief executives ignoring court rulings (Turkey), seizing control of the judiciary (Tunisia), or instigating packed courts to make controversial rulings are examples of such bright lines. 

Fifth,  democracy defenders face an uncertainty dilemma that may paralyze and divide them. Political parties, civil society actors, and citizens opposed to backsliding actions are often uncertain about how to interpret the rapid-fire events.  Is this “normal” politics where norms and conventions should be followed, or is it extraordinary politics where civic dissent or even hardball tactics are required to protect the constitution and citizens’ rights? Identifying and forging a coalition that recognizes the larger process threatening the democratic rules themselves and requiring an urgent, strong response is critical.

Sixth, protests need to be coupled with other forms of pressure and institutional power. Mass protests as an expression of public discontent and even outrage can be effective, but alone they will not often lead to sustained democratic recovery. Broad-based peaceful protests with a specific demand can pressure governments to change course, and strongly expressed public opinion can also give courage to political parties, courts, universities, and corporations to stand up to authoritarian pressures and resist efforts to coopt or intimidate them.