Polarization versus Democracy by Milan W. Svolik
Milan W. Svolik, a distinguished political science professor at Yale University specializing in comparative politics and the study of authoritarian regimes, examines the complex dynamics of democratic backsliding. His influential article, "Polarization versus Democracy," was published in the reputable Journal of Democracy in July 2019, a key publication for analysis of democratic development and challenges worldwide.
Key Concepts
Svolik's article meticulously analyzes the rising trend of democracy subversion initiated by elected officials, a phenomenon he terms "executive takeovers." These takeovers have emerged as the most prevalent form of democratic breakdown globally since the conclusion of the Cold War. Svolik's research identifies two primary categories of democratic breakdown between and :
Executive takeovers: Documented in cases, these involve a gradual erosion of democratic institutions by leaders who initially came to power through legitimate elections.
Military coups: Accounted for cases, representing a more sudden and often violent overthrow of government.
A critical insight from Svolik is that the majority of these executive takeovers unfold gradually, utilizing ostensibly legal or constitutional means, rather than through overt, illegal violations of democratic norms. This incremental approach makes them harder to detect and resist. Prominent contemporary examples include leaders who have systematically consolidated power, such as Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela, Vladimir Putin in Russia, and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Turkey. These leaders often achieve this by manipulating electoral laws, weakening judicial independence, curtailing media freedom, and altering constitutional provisions to extend their terms or expand their authority.
Public Support and Polarization
A perplexing observation highlighted by Svolik is the paradox where societies exhibiting strong public support for democratic principles nonetheless frequently elect leaders who subsequently undermine these very principles. This seemingly contradictory behavior is primarily attributed to intense political polarization and deep-seated societal cleavages. In such environments, voters are often driven to prioritize their partisan interests and the perceived benefits for their ideological group above their abstract commitment to democratic norms.
Leaders adeptly exploit these pre-existing divisions. By framing political competition as an existential struggle against an opposing faction, they compel the electorate to be reluctant to remove them from power, even in the face of increasingly authoritarian actions. Voters face a difficult dilemma: endorsing democratic accountability by voting out an authoritarian-leaning leader might mean sacrificing their preferred policies, losing their party's control, or allowing a detested opposition to gain power. This fear creates a potent incentive to overlook or even justify a leader's undemocratic behavior, inadvertently enabling the process of democratic backsliding.
Electoral Dynamics
To empirically validate his hypotheses, Svolik's research incorporated rigorous experiments designed to simulate electoral choices in various political contexts. These experiments consistently demonstrated that while a foundational commitment to democracy generally exists among the populace, this commitment significantly attenuates when voters are confronted with highly polarized scenarios. Specifically, when forced to choose between a candidate exhibiting authoritarian tendencies from their own party and a democratic candidate from an opposing, often deeply disliked, partisan camp, voters' democratic resolve weakens.
A key finding from these experiments underscores the vital role of political centrists. Unlike strong partisans who are more likely to prioritize party loyalty, centrists, characterized by their lower partisan attachment, prove to be a crucial counterbalance. The experiments showed that centrists are often more willing to impose a greater electoral penalty on candidates who display undemocratic behavior, regardless of their partisan affiliation. Their willingness to prioritize democratic principles over partisan considerations makes them critical actors in potentially checking executive overreach and preventing backsliding.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Svolik's article powerfully argues that ordinary citizens, through their electoral decisions, play a fundamental and often inadvertent role in facilitating democratic backsliding. This dynamic is especially pronounced in highly polarized political environments where the perceived stakes of partisan loyalty and securing ideological victories eclipse the foundational values of democracy. The research implies that a robust defense of democracy requires not only strong institutions but also an electorate capable of prioritizing democratic principles even when faced with difficult partisan trade-offs.