At the 11th hour of the 2024 election many Republican politicians and members of congress took a stance against Republican candidate, Donald Trump. Through the “Republicans for Harris” tagline, they urged their supporters through various forms of appeals to vote instead for Democratic candidate Kamala Harris. Although this cross-party endorsement has happened before in U.S. politics, it shocked supporters of both candidates. Ultimately unsuccessful, this effort was an example of a practice that other democracies across the world have executed- what authors Levitsky and Ziblatt in their book “How Democracies Die” define as democratic gatekeeping. A successful episode of democratic gatekeeping occurred in Sweden against the right ethnonationalist Sweden Democrats party. The issues up for debate in the U.S. and Sweden were similar however there were a few key differences, including lower polarization, more homogenous views on welfare and lack of prominent media outlets. I propose that one critical difference, running under the title of an established party versus a newly formed party, could have been the pivotal puzzle piece that separated the course of these two countries. 

Democratic Gatekeeping

Levitsky and Ziblatt’s book “How Democracies Die” outlines democratic backsliding that does not occur through dramatic military coups, rather subtle long-term attacks to the system. They offer four characteristics of these democratic backsliding leaders and analyze how they have occurred in different democracies in the 21st century. However, many of these democracies have been able to save themselves and reverse the backsliding, done through a practice they call “democratic gatekeeping”. This is typically done through keeping the would-be authoritarian leader off the ballot, driving out the extremists in the grassroots of the party, avoiding all alliances with antidemocratic parties and candidates, isolating the extremists or forging a united front/coalition against them. 

The trend of democratic erosion in the 21st century is unfortunately not restricted to the United States. Democracies in many countries across the world have seen the rise of democracy-threatening demagogues. The setting is similar- in the 1980-90s as a result of globalization, changes in economies occurred and left wing parties shifted, ultimately leaving a space for a right-wing ethno-nationalist faction appealing to the “left behind man”. However, some of these countries, such as Sweden and Austria, have been successful in democratic gatekeeping and others, The United States, have not. The question arises as to why these different outcomes occurred and what specific cultural factors may have contributed? 

Sweden

Sweden’s government was controlled by the Social Democrats from 1920-1991. However, the tide changed in the 1970s as policies failed under the Social Democrats rule and the party’s stances changed the right wing parties stayed committed to their position, creating an opening for the rise of an ethno-nationalist party (the Sweden Democrats). Due to an immigration boom at the end of the 20th century and increased welfare chauvinism the Sweden Democrats rose to become the 2nd largest political party. In 2014, the December Agreement was signed which would allow a minority coalition to govern without gaining an individual parliamentary majority. This was an act of democratic gatekeeping- aimed at keeping the Sweden Democrats out of the government. Although at the time 34% of respondents called this “undemocratic”,  it marginalized the Sweden Democrats, keeping the party out of power and contributed to rescuing democracy. 

In her book “The Backsliders: Why Leaders Undermine Their Own Democracies” political scientist Susan Stokes analyzes this episode of democratic gatekeeping in Sweden. At the time, Sweden was experiencing the similar key issues as the United States, such as debates on immigration, the environment and women’s rights, however there were key differences between Sweden and the U.S. that contributed to the successful democratic gatekeeping in the former. First, Sweden has lower polarization rates than the U.S., partially due to the lower levels of income inequality. Second, Swedish citizens tend to have more homogenous views about the value of the welfare state. Third, Sweden lacked a prominent populist media outlet. Additionally, Sweden has experienced successful democratic gatekeeping before, in 1930 the Swedish Nationalist Youth Organization was expelled by political parties after openly supporting Hitler. 

Most likely a combination of these factors contributed to successful democratic gatekeeping. However, there is one key difference that  has made democratic gatekeeping seemingly impossible in the United States. In Sweden and many other countries that have experienced democratic backsliders, the individual typically does not gain power within one of the historically most influential parties. They were a part of a separate ethno-nationalist third party, making it easier for the two parties in power to form a coalition. In the United States, Trump has always run with the Republican party, even if he has shifted its stances he still held the title of Republican candidate. This key difference gave him legitimacy, prevented politicians from being alarmed until it was too late and made it too difficult for them to create an official coalition against him. 

Hopefully American politicians can examine other democracies where democratic gatekeeping was successful, such as Sweden, acknowledging the key elements that led to its success and learn to apply democratic gatekeeping to save the United States.