Setting the Stage for Autocracy

Democratic backsliding is nothing if not the gradual death of democracy. Democracy is eroded through incremental steps taken by the dominant political party to consolidate power into their own hands. The specific means of doing this is often varied, although the general symptoms of working in the legal framework and popular consent remain constant. First, institutions which impose checks on the leader’s power are often either packed with supporters, dismantled, or greatly limited in the reach of their power. This process almost always falls heavily on the courts and judiciary system, such as when the previously dominant party of Viktor Orban, Fidesz, “expanded the size of the country’s constitutional court, which decides whether laws passed by parliament are constitutional. Conveniently, the Prime Minister and the then-party head, Viktor Orbán, filled the new seats with Fidesz loyalists. To coincide with this process, legislation that limits the powers of the leader and its ability to ensure reelection is changed or repealed. Common forms of this would be abolishing or extending term limits, heavy gerrymandering, and changing the electoral system, just as Benin did when they changed the preexisting electoral rules to a winner-takes-all system in a single national district. Not all measures are reductive; countries such as Hungary sought to favorably expand the voting pool by granting privileges to Hungarians in nearby countries like Romania, including the ability to vote and to access Hungarian social benefit payments. The remaining oppositional forces must also be dealt with, which happens in a variety of ways. Often, the leader vies for control of the tax authorities, which makes this problem a simple matter of thinly veiled financial extortion. Other means, such as discrediting moral and professional authorities, can be used in great effect to limit the popularity of oppositional forces. Often, new laws are passed targeting oppositional tendencies and socialization. In total, these efforts are used to restrict the public space so that it only includes those who already support the government, and in turn, those who are targeted are excluded. This causes a desirable scenario for vying autocrats, as when the out-group does something “illegal,” it is easy for the government to justify punitive actions, often out of scale.

Speed, Power, and Entrenchment

Democratic backsliding is as sinister in its machination as it is crafty in its implementation. Among experts and the wider population, it is hard to detect and resist, and when it slides too far it is often much too late to do either. This is because democratic backsliding is often done more or less within the legal framework of a government, and it is often done with immense popular support. The American South during Jim Crow was built on this principle of working within legality, as seen in how “legal” or “neutral-sounding” measures were used to ensure that the Southern Electorate would be almost all white. In addition to legality, democratic backsliding also requires the offending party to have a dominant role where they are in a position to make vital legislative changes that consolidate power. Even when the legal framework is challenged, popular support of the leader and party makes their actions more legitimate, even if the legality of the process may be suspect. What makes this all even more difficult to combat is the fact that democratic backsliding can be a very slow and gradual process. Instead of the overtly authoritarian move of dissolving the judiciary system, a state suffering from democratic backsliding would likely see these courts lose bipartisan judges by lowering the mandatory retirement age and then be packed with supporters. Instead of happening in one controversial swoop it is carried out through the slog of bureaucratic process, yet still results in a stifled, ineffective judiciary. This is the archetypal approach of democratic backsliding, devastating blows to institutions that guard and facilitate democracy in a slow or subtle manner with a seemingly innocuous piece of legislation passed by a group of people with popular support, done in the slow but legal confines of their constitution.

Triggers of Backsliding

Despite the difficulties in detection, three identifiable triggers of democratic backsliding exist in the forms of populism, personalism, and polarization. Populism is a further development of the popular support that democratic backsliding needs. It divides and pits the population against each other into social castes such as “elites”, “the people”, and “others”. When the dominant party is able to cultivate a sense of identity within their base that puts them into conflict with the “others” and “elites”,  the population is more likely to be anti-media, anti-institution, and anti-opposition. This disposition of the population creates the perfect landscape for anti-democratic legislation which targets these fabricated groups. This blends with the concept of political polarization. They both focus on dividing the population, however polarization results in an environment where the fear of protecting your own side is more important than upholding democratic values. Personalism deals with the internal dynamics of the dominant party and the party leader. It is the process of a single leader eliminating the institutional constraints on their rule, which in turn leads to authoritarian tendencies as, greater personalism in democracies brings with it an elevated risk of political polarization, incumbent power grabs, and ultimately democratic decline and collapse. While all aforementioned factors are important, personalism appears to be a trigger that universally increases the risk of democratic backsliding, while the others are already early symptoms of the process in motion. It is imperative that societies increase their observance of these symptoms, as without sufficiently addressing them, democratic backsliding can soon occur.