In the past, democracies tended to be overturned suddenly with much fanfare and often violence, many in the form of military coups. Times have changed and democracies across globe, including long standing democracies are at the mercy of autocrats who will use democratic processes, norms and institutions to slowly and incrementally undermine democratic systems. (Shein & Emmons, Paths to Democratic Resilience in an Era of Backsliding, 2023). Over the past 18 years, there has been a decline in the number of nations globally that are considered democratic. At present, only 29% of the world’s population (2.3 billion people) live in liberal and electoral democracies. (Lindberg, Coppedge, Gerring, & Eorell, 2014) In this paper I propose to examine the state of democratic backsliding in the world today, identify causal factors that lead to the decline of democracy and offer possible strategies for halting or slowing down backsliding according to academic research on the topic.
Part 1 of the paper will focus on defining democratic backsliding and will define democratic backsliding present the current state of democracies and autocracies worldwide, drawing on data gathered and analyzed by Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem). Part 2 of the paper will look at the some of the cited causal factors which contribute to democratic backsliding. Special focus will be paid to the evidence that the United States is experiencing democratic backsliding. Part 3 of the paper will offer strategies to slow down democratic backsliding.
Part I
Given that most the world’s population is currently living under some form of autocratic rule, democracy is a system of government that is precious and rare. For those of us living under a liberal democratic regime, so much of how we live can easily be taken for granted. The stark reality is that democracy is not a given and it must be maintained and protected from the forces that push against it, both internal and external to the nation.
The primary characteristics of liberal democracy include free and fair elections, universal adult suffrage (or qualified suffrage as in the case of the United States), the rule of law, separation of powers including independent judiciary, freedom of expression, freedom of organization, pluralism and the protection of human rights and civil liberties.
Loosely defined, democratic backsliding refers to weakening or decline of democratic processes and norms in a governing system. It may take the form of democratic erosion, which happens incrementally and has the effect of slowly undermining democratic processes and norms and institutions. A second and more acute form of backsliding is referred to as democratic breakdown which results in the collapse of a democratic system leading it to some form of autocracy. A third form is autocratic deepening; it is the full entrenchment of autocratic rule and is extremely difficult to reverse.
The most recent wave of democratization globally, referred to as the third wave, took place in the final third of the 20th century and is considered to have crested around 2004. According to Political Scientist Samuel Huntington who popularized the term in his 1991 book The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century, the third wave began with Portugal’s turn to democracy after operating as a dictatorship for 50 years. (Plattner, 2024).
With the decline of the number of democratic countries globally and the corresponding rise in autocratic regimes, this topic is of considerable concern. Adding more attention on the subject is the fact that the United States of America appears to be experiencing democratic erosion. This is most troubling given the breadth and expanse of US power and influence globally. The Center for System Peace (CSP) is a US based organization founded in 1997 with the mandate to research and analyze global peace. CSP uses a variety of indicators to determine a country’s polity score: its position on the spectrum from democracy to autocracy. This three-part framework scores democracies on the scale from +6 to +10, autocracies -10 to -6 and anocracies -5 to +5. In 2020, the USA was downgraded falling below the democracy threshold for the first time giving the country the status of anocracy. The score was increased in 2021 but again downgraded in 2024 and now “the USA is no longer considered a democracy and lies at the cusp of autocracy; it has experienced a Presidential coup and an adverse egime Change event.” (The Polity Project, n.d.)
The Varieties of Democracy Project, and its V-Dem score is often cited in literature on the topic of democratic backsliding. The project is based out of the University of Gothenburg in Sweden and includes seven more regional centers across the globe. They look at six key principles to define democracy, namely (Lindberg, Coppedge, Gerring, & Eorell, 2014):
· Electoral component – rulers are responsive to citizens through competition in periodic elections.
· Liberal component – protection of individual and minority rights against majoritarian pressures.
· Participatory component – active participation by citizens in all political processes including non-electoral forms of organizing.
· Deliberative component – political decisions in the pursuit of the public good undertaken in a spirt of respectful and reasonable dialogue at all levels
· Egalitarian component – material and immaterial equality allows for the exercise of rights and liberties.
· Electoral component – comprising aspects of all previous components, the electoral component is a foundational element that must be present for any regime to be considered a democracy.
V-Dem measures democracy in terms of four types of regimes: closed and electoral autocracies, and electoral and liberal democracies. Closed democracy is at one end of the scale and is characterized by no multiparty elections, the absence of democratic components such as free and fair elections, freedom of expression and freedom of association. The opposite end of the spectrum lies liberal democracy which is characterized by judicial and legislative constraints on the executive, the protection of civil liberties and equality before the law.
According to the latest V-Dem report on democracy for 2024, “the level of democracy enjoyed by the average person in the world in 2023 is down to 1985-levels” (Democracy Winning and Losing at the Ballot, 2024). Other highlights of the 2024 report include: Israel has fallen out of the liberal democratic category for the first time in 50 years; almost all components of democracy are worsening compared to ten years ago; freedom of expression continues to be the most affected category of democracy; 42 countries are currently experiencing “episodes of autocratization” (Democracy Winning and Losing at the Ballot, 2024).
Democratic backsliding takes a variety of forms. Nancy Bermeo makes a critical distinction between how democratic backsliding took place in the cold war era compared to how we see it unfolding today. In years previous, democratic backsliding was seen largely through coup d’etats and election day fraud. By the start of the 21st century, these forms of democratic backsliding were on the decline. These traditional forms of democratic backsliding were often more sudden than what we have seen in the years since. More recent examples of de-democratization are incremental, declining “piece by piece instead of falling to one blow.” (Bermeo, 2016). Backsliding can be seen to take the following forms:
Promissory coups– Incumbents use the excuse of protecting or restoring democracy as justification for the illegal ouster of opposition forces. They “emphasize the temporary nature of their intervention and frame it as a necessary step toward a new and improved democratic order.” (Bermeo, 2016)
Executive aggrandizement– Elected executives use legal means to weaken the checks and balances on executive power. An example of this in the US context is the appointment of unqualified cabinet secretaries by President Trump whose loyalty appears to be more to the man than the office including Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth, FBI Director Kash Patel and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Junior (to name a few). Supporting this aggrandizement by the judicial branch is the Supreme Court decision, Trump v. United States (2024), which grants presidential immunity thereby giving the President nearly limitless power without consequence. Another example is the broad use of executive orders. In the first two months of the current Trump administration, the President has signed 83 executive orders. Prior to today, the highest number of executive orders signed by an American president within 100 days in office occurred under Franklin D. Roosevelt at 93. More disturbing than the number of orders themselves is the content of many orders which legal and political analysts decry as potentially illegal in terms of federal and constitutional law. (Greenhouse, 2025)
Manipulating elections strategically– The goal of this form of backsliding is to manipulate the election process to tilt benefit in favour of the incumbent. An example of this type of backsliding is gerrymandering and has been happening in the United States for several years primarily by (but not exclusively) Republican Party to shore up decreasing popular support to change electoral districting in their favour. Of course this is only possible with the Republican governors and the GOP apparatus.
Part II
There are a number of causal factors that contribute to democratic backsliding many of which are not separate and distinct but rather interwoven.
Populism can be seen today as a significant causal factor in the decline of democracy. There is a rise of the right-wing, nationalist form of populism affecting industrialized nations across the globe. There are many varieties of populism found on both the left and the right. What they all share is a weak regard for the individual freedoms and minority rights that are essential to liberal democracy. Populists are hostile to liberalism (Plattner, 2024). Populist leaders can effectively use public dissatisfaction with traditional political leadership and institutions to engender support. They may claim that institutions in support of democracy are “broken”, not able to meet the needs of the populace and worse, are self-serving or at the mercy of the conspiratorial notion of the “deep state.” Populism can be used as the impetus to dismantle structures which ultimately may erode or breakdown democratic processes and norms. Ginsburg and Huq define this phenomenon more specifically as ‘charismatic populism’ where the leader has the unique ability to convince followers that they alone can save the nation, implying democratic processes, norms and institutions cannot.
Citizen dissatisfaction is another key contributing factor to the erosion of democracy. After more than forty years of neoliberal policies in industrialized nations including privatization, financialization, austerity measures, off-shoring of jobs and de-industrialization, voters across many democracies in the global north do not feel that their governments are responsive to their needs. Further, rising inequality contributes to this unease but has the added advantage of the wealth class having far more resources at their disposal to manipulate and massage democratic institutions, processes and norms that favor their needs over those of the working class. This unrest may not directly affect democracy, but it does have the effect of creating a populist following building up the power of a leader that may ultimately use authoritarian measures to erode democracy from the inside.
Political polarization is yet another contributing factor because it creates cleavages within the polity that become so vast that democratic institutions are weakened. This can lead to vilifying the opposition to the extent that they are characterized as an existential threat. Levitsky and Ziblatt speak to the norms critical to the ongoing survival of democracy: mutual toleration and institutional forbearance (Levitsky & Ziblatt, 2019).
Mutual toleration is what allows for parties and candidates to be on the losing side of an election while respecting the legitimacy of their rivals. US elections are notorious for dark, menacing political ads which characterize the opponent as morally corrupt and ineffective. Nonetheless, typically the losing candidate will acknowledge their opponent’s win. Even before Donald Trump’s big lie that the 2020 presidential election was stolen, he set the stage as early as 2016 by vilifying his opponent (“Crooked Hillary, Lock Her Up”) and preparing to reject the outcome of the election if he was not the victor. Knowing his history, it should not have come to a surprise that he and his supported did claim that the 2020 election was rigged in favour of the Democrats. While the rhetoric continued on both sides in the 2024 presidential election, there has been no claim on the part of the Democrats or the Harris campaign that Trump’s victory was not legitimate.
Institutional forbearance refers to the restraint exercised by incumbents in terms of their use of legitimate tools against their opponents. An example of such was the two term limit for US presidents before the passage of the 22nd amendment and the compliance with congressional oversight investigations. Institutional forbearance can be seen in the refusal to respect democratic norms. In the US congressional investigation into the January 6 insurrection, several members of the Trump administration refused to attend depositions in spite of congressional subpoenas. Similarly, in 2016 Senate Republicans refused to even hold hearings on President Obama’s proposed supreme court pick Merrick Garland because the nomination was within months of the upcoming election. Yet, the same body voted to confirm Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett two weeks out from the 2020 presidential election.
Not all academics agree that populism, polarization and citizen dissatisfaction as leading causes of democratic backsliding. Carothers and Press challenge these causes largely because they assert, they are applied too generally. Instead, they suggest that focus should be on the political actors driving the backsliding as it produces more effective analyses. These are grievance-fueled illiberalism, opportunistic authoritarianism, and entrenched-interest revanchism (Carothers & Press, 2022).
Grievance-fueled illiberalism is a strategy used by backsliding leaders to amplify cultural, religious, economic, or racial grievances either by exploiting existing frustrations or fabricating new ones. For example, Victor Orban and the Fidesz party won the 2010 Hungarian election by sowing discontent on the basis of economic grievances that could be blamed on the incumbent socialist government. Similarly, Jair Bolsonaro’s government in Brazil capitalized on citizen outrage over corruption. Immigration has become a commonplace source of grievance leveraged by political parties in the US and across western Europe. Grievance-fueled illiberal politicians will link these grievances to democratic norms and institutions thereby rendering them ineffective or even worse, complicit in the very grievance they claim to address. The use of social media as a tool to disseminate mis- and disinformation has been very effective in promoting grievances, many without base and leaning heavily in the realm of conspiracy theories.
Opportunistic authoritarians do not campaign on grievances or make promises to fix a broken system. Instead, they move to undermine democratic processes, norms and institutions while in office. They take actions that run counter to democracy to stay in power, enrich themselves or avoid legal consequences of illegal behaviours. An example is Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega’s crackdown on protestors and arrest of political opponents in 2018. These actions are attributed to his need to protect business interests, wealth and position of power. Opportunistic authoritarianism is more common in countries with relatively weak democratic institutions.
Entrenched-interest revanchism military take over and sidelining of democratic institutions to elevate the military’s position on the political scene. “If militaries retain such power and come to feel that the nation is under a threat that democratically elected authorities cannot address, they may take undemocratic measures to restore their central role” (Carothers & Press, 2022)
A discussion on democratic backsliding would not be complete without consideration of illiberal actors including autocratic leaders partaking in actions to weaken democracy worldwide. Russia and China are often accused of engaging in election meddling in democratic elections. The Robert Mueller special counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election concluded that election interference did take place and suggested links between the Trump campaign and Russia (although the report failed to establish the existence of a coordinated effort). China has been accused of meddling in the 2019 and 2021 Canadian federal elections, but the results were not affected. (Reuters, 2024)
Part III
There are several organizations across the globe committed to analyzing, assessing and promoting democracy. One such organization is the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES). In November of 2023 IFES produced a report proposing measures to counter democratic backsliding in democracies. The report defines democratic resilience as “the ability to maintain democratic governance functions and principles, despite attempts by illiberal actors to damage or diminish vertical, horizontal, or diagonal accountability mechanisms that are core to democracy (Shein & Emmons, Paths to Democratic Resilience in an Era of Backsliding, 2023). The authors reinforce the idea that democratic systems need ongoing attention and maintenance and that episodes of backsliding can be minimized through a three-phase cycle involving preparation, response and recovery / transformation.
Preparation involves the need to build resilience through anticipating and monitoring potential threats and to be aware of the system’s vulnerabilities. Some strategies employed under preparation include:
· Encourage robust policy dialogue and debate
· Campaign finance limitations
· Support local government officials
· Increase representation and inclusion of diverse groups
· Engage in efforts to educate the public to build and cement a prodemocracy culture
Anticipating potential threats to democracy is only part of the picture. There must also be mechanisms in place to respond to present threats. Once an indicator of democratic erosion is signalled, some potential responses can be:
· Protect and defend independent institutions
· Support timely sanctions against perpetrators of anti-democratic actions
· Support political parties to respond to citizens and reduce the impact of populist movements
· Provide legal defense resources for journalists and civil society
· Sponsor communication innovations to increase the sharing of threat intelligence
In the recovery and transformation phase, after which could have been a long period of democratic backsliding, the authors suggest that there are opportunities to gain some of the democratic ground lost.
· Strengthen existing institutions by identifying oversight gaps and reinforcing both autonomy and accountability
· Develop regulations, laws and sanctions against corruption by public officials
· Educate civil servants on the legal, regulatory and sanction measures to build consistency and limit bias
· Revise politically compromised selection processes for independent institutions
· Address corruption in the judiciary by building mechanisms such as codes of conduct, training and independent budgets.
While state institutions need to stay nimble enough to be able to adapt to changing domestic and international conditions, there still needs to be enough rigour in how they carry out their mandates to be free from manipulation by a would-be autocrat within a democratic system. Leadership, staffing and funding of such institutions should be apolitical, and mechanisms established to ensure they are not easily coopted for nefarious purposes.
Ensuring judicial independence is critical to a well-functioning democracy. The judicial branch fulfills a critical role in democratic systems as the arbiter in disputes at all levels. If the judiciary can no longer maintain allegiance to the rule of law, deciding instead on the basis of politics or to meet the needs of wealthy donors, democracy will be at risk. In 2023, ProPublica published a series of articles on the close relationship between billionaire Harlan Crowe and US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Similarly Justice Samuel Alito took part in luxury trips along with and gifted by Republican billionaire Paul Singer and did not recuse himself from decisions made concerning Singer’s interests (Elliott, Kaplan, & Mierjeski, 2023).
Elections need to be free and fair and be seen by the electorate as free and fair. How elections are carried out as well as how redistricting is undertaken should be managed by politically neutral institutions that ensure consistent application across levels of government.
Investments should be made in educating the electorate about the structure of government, historical context, issues being debated and the building and strengthening of critical thinking skills.
Freedom of expression must be protected such that citizens are able to voice dissent and hold their government accountable without fear of reprisal. A robust protection of free speech can be effective at countering authoritarian tendencies and revealing corrupt practices. This includes the role of the media. Democratic governments must safeguard independent journalism. While the Trump administration has shown hostility towards members of the media previously, this second administration seems to have increased that hostility. For refusing to refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the ‘Gulf of America’ journalists from some news organizations were barred from participating as part of the White House press pool. The move emanated from Reuters’ refusal to refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the ‘Gulf of America’.
Conclusion
The threat of democratic backsliding has become a pressing concern globally. Democratic backsliding takes many forms and what starts as some instances of democratic erosion can lead to full autocratization of a democracy. Democratic backsliding often happens from within the system at the hands of democratically elected officials. The declining number of democracies worldwide is concerning. Causal factors including populism, political polarization and citizen dissatisfaction, weakening institutions and exploitation by authoritarian leaders. Strategic efforts to shore up the key facets of liberal democracy are essential for its continuation including free and fair elections, universal adult suffrage (or qualified suffrage as in the case of the United States), the rule of law, separation of powers including independent judiciary, freedom of expression, freedom of organization, pluralism and the protection of human rights and civil liberties. It is only through concerted efforts that democratic systems may build resilience and withstand authoritarian challenges worldwide. As it has been said, the solution to the ills of democracy is more democracy.
References
(n.d.). Retrieved from Varieties of Democracy: https://www.v-dem.net/
Benson, R. (2023, November). Poland's Democratic Resurgence: From Backsliding to Beacon. Retrieved from American Progress.org: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/polands-democratic-resurgence-from-backsliding-to-beacon/
Bermeo, N. (2016). On Democratic Backsliding. Journal of Democracy, 5 - 19.
Carothers, T., & Press, B. (2022, October 20). Understanding and Responding to Global Democratic Backsliding. Retrieved from Carnegie Endowment for International Piece: https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2022/10/understanding-and-responding-to-global-democratic-backsliding?lang=en
(2024). Democracy Winning and Losing at the Ballot. Gothenburg, Sweden: V-Dem Institute.
Elliott, J., Kaplan, J., & Mierjeski, A. (2023, June 20). Justice Samuel Alito Took Luxury Fishing Vacation With GOP Billionaire Who Later Had Cases Before the Court. Retrieved from ProPublica.Com: https://www.propublica.org/article/samuel-alito-luxury-fishing-trip-paul-singer-scotus-supreme-court
Ginsburg, T., & Huq, A. Z. (2022). The Pragmatics of Democratic Backsliding. Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs.
Gorokhovskaia, Y., & Grothe, C. (2024). Freedom in the World 2024.
Greenhouse, S. (2025, February 1). Trump's Disregard for US Constitution a Blitzkrieg on the Law, Legal Experts Say. Retrieved from The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/01/trump-executive-orders-constitution-law
Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2019). How Democracies Die. New York: Penguin Random House LLC.
Lindberg, S. I., Coppedge, M., Gerring, J., & Eorell, J. (2014). V-Dem: A New Way to Measure Democracy. Journal of Democracy, 159-169.
Plattner, M. (2024). Getting over the Third Wave. Journal of Democracy.
Repucci, S., & Slipowitz, A. (n.d.). Retrieved from Freedom House: https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2022/global-expansion-authoritarian-rule
Reuters. (2024, April 11). China Meddled in the Past Two Canada Elections, Says Justin Trudeau. Retrieved from The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/11/china-election-interference-canada-justin-trudeau
Shein, E., & Emmons, C. (2023). Paths to Democratic Resilience in an Era of Backsliding. Arlington, VA: International Foundation for Electoral Systems.
Shein, E., Emmons, C., & Buril, F. (2023, December). Retrieved from International Foundation for Electoral Systems: https://www.ifes.org/publications/paths-democratic-resilience-era-backsliding
The Polity Project. (n.d.). Retrieved from Center for Systemic Peace: https://www.systemicpeace.org/polityproject.htm
