Polarization versus Democracy: Milan W. Svolik

Definition: The subversion of democracy by democratically elected incumbents.
Recent Trends: Since the end of the Cold War, democratic breakdown has increasingly come from executive takeovers rather than military coups.

Executive Takeovers: 88 cases (majority form of breakdown).
Military Coups: 46 cases.
Deliberalization: 15 cases (non-elected executives).
Political Instability: 21 cases.
Escalating Civil Conflict: 14 cases.
Observation: Executive takeovers surged after the 1990s, making up 80% of breakdowns since 2000.

Characteristics:
- Conducted by incumbents with electoral legitimacy.
- Necessitates some level of popular support, typically controlling multiple branches of government.
- Often involves legal changes (e.g., abolition of term limits, changes to the judiciary).
Case Studies:
- Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela.
- Vladimir Putin in Russia.
- Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Turkey.

High Popularity: These leaders often maintain significant popular support, even as they erode democratic institutions. For instance:
- Chávez: Popular figures during and post his presidency.
- Orbán and Erdoğan continued to maintain high approval ratings across electoral cycles.
- Key Statistic: Putin was recorded at ~80% approval rating in 2015, accounting for reporting biases.
Public Perception Puzzle: Voters often support subverting leaders while professing commitment to democratic principles.

Perception Delay: Voters may not immediately recognize threats to democracy.
Democratic Disinterest: Voters prioritize other issues over democratic values.
Gradualism of Subversion: Executive takeovers modify the democratic framework incrementally, making it harder to perceive as a violation.
Lexical Shift: The terminology in democracy studies has shifted to "democratic backsliding" due to the gradual nature of these takeovers.

Electoral Choice Dilemma: Voters must choose between legitimate leaders with authoritarian tendencies vs. less favorable democratic alternatives.
Partisan Interests: This term includes both loyalty to political parties and alignment with specific policies.
- Example: Supporters may prefer leaders who promise economic benefits over those adhering strictly to democratic norms.

Historical Observations: Political scientists have long noted the dangers posed by deeply divided electorates.
- Lipset’s Warning: Group conflicts are crucial for democratic vitality but pose risks when they deepen.
- Dahl’s Concern: Polarization may threaten democracy when groups become highly antagonistic toward each other.
Emerging Scholarship: Recent studies underscore how social cleavages affect democratic processes, with polarization offering opportunities for authoritarian figures.

Surveys contrasting hypothetical candidates with varying adherence to democratic principles.
Countries Studied: Turkey, Venezuela, and the United States.
Experiment Structure: Candidates described with party affiliation and policy positions were evaluated for their democratic integrity.

General Support for Democracy: Voters express commitment to democratic principles but act according to partisan interests, especially when policy stakes are high.
Impact of Polarization: Voters are less likely to reject undemocratic candidates when entrenched party loyalties exist.
- Example: Voters prioritize partisan alignments over democratic integrity, particularly in polarized contexts.
Centrists as Key Figures: Centrist voters show a stronger inclination to punish undemocratic candidates, suggesting they can be crucial in preserving democracy.