Democratic Backsliding: Forms and Evolution

Democratic backsliding refers to the state-led debilitation or elimination of political institutions that sustain an existing democracy. It's a complex process that can lead to outright democratic breakdown or simply a serious weakening of democratic institutions. Understanding its forms and evolution is crucial for grasping contemporary challenges to democracy worldwide.

This article will unpack the concept of democratic backsliding, exploring its historical shifts and highlighting the forms most prevalent today. We'll see how blatant forms of backsliding have decreased, while more subtle, legally-sanctioned methods have become more common.

The Evolution of Democratic Backsliding: A Comprehensive Overview

Historically, democratic backsliding has manifested in various ways, but its most dramatic forms have seen a significant decline. This shift doesn't mean democracy is safer; rather, the challenges have become more insidious and difficult to confront.

Positive Trends: The Decline of Blatant Backsliding

The Cold War era saw more overt and violent forms of democratic backsliding. Thankfully, several of these types have declined in frequency.

• Classic Coups d'état: These are illegal attempts by military or state elites to remove a sitting executive. The probability of a democracy being targeted by any sort of coup has dropped dramatically, reaching a thirty-year low after 1995. The likelihood of a successful coup also declined, nearing zero in the early 2000s.
• Executive Coups: Also known as "self-coups" or autogolpes, these involve a freely elected chief executive suspending the constitution to amass power swiftly. Common during the Cold War (e.g., Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines), they were also seen in the 1990s (Peru under Alberto Fujimori, Armenia, Belarus, Zambia, Haiti). Since 2000, the number of executive coups in democracies has plummeted, with Niger being a rare exception.
• Blatant Election-Day Vote Fraud: While electoral malpractice hasn't disappeared, there's a near-consensus that open fraud on election day has decreased. Cheating has become "more subtle," with blatant manipulation at polling stations becoming less common. Today, election-related backsliding more often occurs before election day.

Continuing Challenges: The Rise of Subtle Backsliding

Despite the decline in overt forms, other varieties of democratic backsliding remain unchanged or are on the rise. These newer forms often exploit democratic mechanisms themselves, making them particularly vexing.

• Promissory Coups: Unlike Cold War coups that were often open-ended, promissory coups frame the removal of an elected government as a defense of democratic legality. They publicly promise to hold elections and restore democracy as soon as possible. The share of successful coups falling into this category has risen significantly, from 35% before 1990 to 85% afterward.
• Dismal Aftermath: The aftermath of promissory coups is often disappointing. Few lead to quick, competitive elections, and even fewer pave the way for improved democracies. Examples include Haiti (1991), Honduras (2009), Madagascar (2009), Mali (2012), and Fiji (2006).
• Coupmakers' Triumphs: Surprisingly, elections following promissory coups often favor the coup perpetrators or their allies. This was seen in Gambia (Yahya Jammeh, 2001), Honduras (Porfirio Lobo, 2009), Mali (Ibrahim Boubacar Keïta, 2013), and Fiji (Frank Bainimarama, 2014). The promised improvement of democracy after such events often remains elusive.
• Executive Aggrandizement: This form of backsliding takes place without executive replacement and at a slower pace. Elected executives weaken checks on their power incrementally, undertaking a series of institutional changes that hamper opposition forces. This is done through legal channels, often using newly elected constitutional assemblies or referenda, framing changes as democratic mandates.
• Turkey under Erdoğan: Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's Justice and Development Party (AKP) used its parliamentary strength after successive electoral victories to pass numerous laws that undercut accountability. This included revising the penal code to prosecute journalists for controversial subjects, enacting defamation laws, and blocking websites. The judicial system also saw changes, with the president gaining power to name Constitutional Court judges and the justice minister appointing members to the High Council of Judges.
• Ecuador under Correa: Rafael Correa, with strong electoral mandates, made profound changes to democratic institutions. He initiated elections for a Constitutional Assembly, which then forced the seated Congress into permanent recess. His government also changed rules for licensing parties and allocating seats, while passing redistributive programs that crippled legislative opposition. Term limits were eliminated, and new laws restricted media ownership, broadcast frequencies, and legal liability for journalists.
• Other Examples: Leaders of varied ideological hues engage in executive aggrandizement, such as Abdoulaye Wade in Senegal and Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine, who meddled with courts, police, and electoral rules.
• Strategic Election Manipulation: This form of backsliding is also on the rise and often combined with executive aggrandizement. It involves actions aimed at tilting the electoral playing field in favor of incumbents long before polling day, without obvious violations of the law. This includes:
• Hampering media access for the opposition.
• Using government funds for incumbent campaigns.
• Keeping opposition candidates off the ballot.
• Hampering voter registration.
• Packing electoral commissions.
• Changing electoral rules to favor incumbents.
• Harassing opponents.
• This strategic manipulation is harder for international observers to "catch or criticize," often emerging as an unintended consequence of increased election monitoring, forcing misconduct to become more subtle.

Confronting Modern Democratic Backsliding

The changing nature of backsliding presents new challenges and requires different responses.

A Change in Pace: Erosion vs. Cataclysm

The decline of coups means de-democratization today is more likely to be incremental erosion rather than a sudden, violent cataclysm. This slow, piece-by-piece decline, while less violent, creates profound political and scholarly challenges. It's harder to mobilize mass action against arcane alterations in electoral laws or judicial appointments.

Rational Responses to Incentives

Opponents of backsliding are more likely to succeed if they recognize that current trends are rational responses to local and international incentives. State actors often restructure institutions defensively, preventing past assaults (as seen with Correa and Erdoğan reacting to previous instability). International emphasis on elections, rule of law, and civil society has pushed backsliding to be more subtle and framed within legal channels.

The Vexing Ambiguity of Contemporary Backsliding

Modern forms of backsliding are profoundly ambiguous because they are often legitimized through the very institutions democracy promoters prioritize: national elections, legislative majorities, and the "rule" of laws produced by those majorities. This makes external intervention difficult, as challenging such laws can be seen as an affront to sovereignty.

Furthermore, proving nefarious intent behind institutional changes is hard, and sometimes the targets of backsliding (e.g., corrupt politicians, ruthless media) are not unambiguously democratic themselves. Promissory coups, often backed by jurists and citizens and promising a "better" democracy, also contribute to this ambiguity.

Despite these challenges, the current mix of backsliding is arguably preferable to the past. Incremental change preserves space for countermobilization and correction. When backsliding does lead to regime change, the resulting autocracies are, on average, less authoritarian and shorter-lived than their predecessors, suggesting that democracy's prospects, while challenged, are still good.

Democratic Backsliding FAQ

What are the main forms of democratic backsliding?

The main forms of democratic backsliding include classic coups d'état, executive coups (self-coups), blatant election-day vote fraud, promissory coups, executive aggrandizement, and strategic election manipulation. The first three have declined, while the latter three are more prevalent today.

How has democratic backsliding changed since the Cold War?

Since the Cold War, democratic backsliding has shifted from overt, sudden changes like classic military coups and executive coups to more subtle, incremental, and legally framed processes. Blatant election-day fraud has decreased, replaced by strategic manipulation. Promissory coups and executive aggrandizement have become more common, often using democratic institutions to weaken checks and balances.

What is executive aggrandizement and how does it affect democracy?

Executive aggrandizement is a form of democratic backsliding where elected executives gradually weaken checks on their power, one institution at a time, often using legal channels or popular referenda. This process can erode media freedoms, judicial autonomy, and legislative oversight, making it harder for opposition forces to challenge the executive's preferences, leading to a hybrid or less democratic system.

What are promissory coups and why are they concerning?

Promissory coups are when military or state elites remove an elected government, claiming it's to defend democratic legality, and promise to hold elections and restore democracy quickly. They are concerning because, despite their democratic promises, they rarely lead to genuinely improved democracies, and often result in the coup perpetrators or their allies winning subsequent elections, consolidating their power rather than restoring true democracy. You can learn more about coups on Wikipedia.