PS 400 Democratic Backsliding

Haggard & Kaufman define democratic backsliding as:

The incremental erosion of institutions, rules, and norms by duly elected governments

Haggard & Kaufman argue that polarization is dangerous for democracy primarily because it:

Causes mainstream parties to be captured by extremists or displaced by populist movements

What does Haggard & Kaufman's "collapse of the separation of powers" describe?

Legislatures supporting executive aggrandizement, often complicit in weakening their own institutional powers

Why do Haggard & Kaufman emphasize the gap between vote share and legislative seat share in backsliding cases?

Plurality-level support often converts into legislative supermajorities, granting constitutional powers actual support did not warrant

Haggard & Kaufman argue that the incrementalism of backsliding has causal effects, not just descriptive ones. One key causal effect is:

Institutions are mutually constitutive — attacking one weakens the others, a slippery slope

Why do Haggard & Kaufman argue that "salami-slicing" tactics succeed even when opposition forces are paying attention?

Each derogation appears minor and citizens anchor expectations in shifting baselines, missing the cumulative tilt

What is Haggard & Kaufman's distinction between "erosion" and "reversion" in their sixteen-case sample?

In erosion, democratic quality declines but the system holds; reversion is the tip into authoritarianism

Svolik's central empirical observation about the changing form of democratic breakdown since the Cold War is that:

Executive takeovers have become modal — about four of every five breakdowns since the 2000s

What is the central puzzle Svolik sets out to explain?

Why incumbents who subvert democracy retain support from voters who profess to value democracy

Svolik proposes that voters in polarized societies face a structural tradeoff. Between what?

Adherence to democratic principles versus partisan and policy interests

Svolik describes polarization as a "structural opportunity" for aspiring authoritarians. What does he mean?

In polarized societies, punishing an authoritarian incumbent means voting for the opposing side — a price many won't pay

Svolik argues that centrists or moderates play a particular role in democratic resilience. What is it?

Weaker partisan attachments let moderates prioritize democratic principles — the structural check polarized societies lack

Svolik argues that conventional "support for democracy" survey measures may overstate citizens' real willingness to defend democracy. Why?

They invite socially desirable answers and miss the tradeoffs between democratic principles and partisan goals

Svolik's central reframing concerns the role of ordinary people in democratic backsliding. What is the argument?

Ordinary people are indispensable accomplices — autocrats succeed only when given an opportunity by a factious public

Levitsky & Ziblatt argue that contemporary democracies tend to die differently than during the Cold War. What is the core distinction?

Cold War democracies died by military coup — sudden and visible; contemporary democracies die slowly under elected leaders

Levitsky & Ziblatt's concept of the "fateful alliance" describes:

Establishment elites inviting an authoritarian outsider into mainstream politics, believing they can control or benefit from him

According to Levitsky & Ziblatt, what makes mainstream political parties uniquely important to democratic survival?

They serve as democracy's gatekeepers — keeping extremists off ballots and forming united fronts against them

Levitsky & Ziblatt argue that constitutional checks alone are insufficient to safeguard democracy. What else is necessary?

Two unwritten norms — mutual toleration (rivals as legitimate) and forbearance (restraint in deploying institutional powers)

Levitsky & Ziblatt use a soccer metaphor to describe how elected autocrats subvert democracy. The three moves are:

Capture the referees, sideline key players, rewrite the rules

Why do Levitsky & Ziblatt argue that authoritarian moves often appear legal — and why does this matter?

Such acts are typically approved by parliament or upheld by captured courts — a veneer of legality that sows public confusion

What role do crises play in democratic erosion, according to Levitsky & Ziblatt?

Crises trigger "rally round the flag" support that justifies power grabs autocrats exploit and sometimes manufacture