The Democracy Delusion: Confronting the Reality of Democratic Backsliding
Elected autocrats exploit loopholes, eroding checks on power. This global pattern threatens liberties — can coordinated civic action reverse institutional decay before it’s too late?
Our democracies are being hollowed out from within, not with tanks and troops, but with legal paperwork and partisan appointments. The attack is underway in plain sight, yet we fumble about, debating definitions while the foundations crumble. Democratic backsliding — that gradual erosion of democratic norms and institutions — presents us with a fundamental challenge precisely because it operates in the grey zones of constitutional legitimacy. It wears the clothes of democracy while steadily strangling its spirit.
The Definitional Dilemma: What Exactly Are We Losing?
Let’s be clear: democratic backsliding is “a process of regime change toward autocracy in which the exercise of political power becomes more arbitrary and repressive”. But this clinical definition hardly captures the insidious nature of what’s happening.
The first obstacle to confronting backsliding is definitional. How do we distinguish between normal democratic fluctuations and genuine decline? When does reform become regression? The answer isn’t academic — it’s existential. Without clarity on what constitutes backsliding, we cannot effectively combat it.
Some scholars focus on institutional decay — the hollowing out of courts, election bodies, and oversight mechanisms. Others emphasise the erosion of democratic norms — those unwritten rules that keep the system functioning. Still others point to the rise of populist leaders who use democratic platforms to achieve autocratic ends.
These aren’t merely theoretical distinctions. They determine where we draw the line between democratic variation and democratic violation. The definitional challenge represents our first failure in addressing backsliding — we cannot treat what we cannot diagnose.
Measuring Democratic Decay: The Numbers Game
How do you measure something as complex as democratic health? This question divides researchers and confounds policymakers. Some rely on expert assessments — subjective judgments about the quality of elections or judicial independence. Others prefer objective indicators — countable phenomena like journalist arrests or constitutional amendments.
The measurement debate isn’t merely methodological pedantry. It determines which countries we identify as backsliding and which interventions we deem necessary. When the V-Dem Institute tells us that 42 countries are currently autocratising and that 71 percent of the world’s population now lives under autocratic rule, should we take their word for it?
The truth is that each measurement approach has blind spots. Subjective measures risk bias; objective measures often miss the subtle ways democracy can be undermined. Meanwhile, the ideological preferences of those doing the measuring inevitably influence which aspects of democracy they prioritise. This isn’t just an academic problem — it’s a practical one that leaves us second-guessing when to sound the alarm.
Global Trend or Western Panic?
Are we witnessing a worldwide democratic recession, or merely a realignment of power in a handful of countries? The evidence points decisively to the former.
Democratic backsliding has become a global phenomenon, affecting countries rich and poor, established democracies and newer ones alike. The myth that wealthy Western nations possess some immunity to autocratic tendencies has been thoroughly debunked.
Yet this global trend manifests differently across contexts. In some countries, backsliding stems from “grievance-fueled illiberalism” — leaders exploiting genuine social divisions and economic anxieties. In others, we see “opportunistic authoritarianism” — cynical power grabs dressed up in democratic rhetoric. The common thread is the use of democratic institutions to undermine democracy itself.
Those who downplay the global nature of democratic erosion are either willfully blind or strategically naïve. The pattern is clear: executives consolidating power, courts being captured, media freedom being constrained, and civil society being squeezed — all under the veneer of democratic legitimacy.
Illiberal Democracy: The Contradiction at Democracy’s Heart
Can a system be democratic yet illiberal? This question sits at the heart of current debates.
Fareed Zakaria defined illiberal democracies as “democratically elected regimes… routinely ignoring constitutional limits on their power and depriving their citizens of basic rights and freedoms”. These regimes maintain the façade of democracy — primarily through elections — while systematically dismantling the liberal rights and institutional constraints that make democracy meaningful.
The uncomfortable truth is that elections alone do not a democracy make. When leaders consolidate power in the executive, erode judicial independence, and restrict civil liberties, they’re not creating an alternative form of democracy — they’re creating a non-democracy with democratic aesthetics.
Those who defend illiberal regimes as legitimate democracies misunderstand democracy’s essence. Democracy requires not just the right to vote, but the freedoms of speech, assembly, and press that make that vote meaningful. It requires independent courts, effective legislative oversight, and protection of minority rights. Without these elements, democracy becomes a theatrical performance with predictable outcomes.
Is Democratic Decline Reversible?
Can countries recover from democratic backsliding? This question offers a rare glimmer of hope.
The evidence suggests that democratic decline isn’t necessarily a one-way street. Recent research reveals that 48% of all episodes of autocratisation become “democratic turnarounds,” with this figure rising to 70% when focusing on the last 30 years. Poland, Brazil, Zambia, and Senegal provide encouraging examples of countries where citizens have rejected backsliding leaders at the ballot box.
These turnarounds follow different patterns — some restore democracy to previous levels (U-shaped), others achieve even stronger democracies than before (J-shaped), while a minority result in diminished democratic quality (L-shaped). Remarkably, 93% of turnarounds lead to either restored or improved levels of democracy.
The key factors enabling these recoveries? The resilience of civil society and the strategic savvy of opposition forces who forge broad coalitions rather than fragmenting into ineffectual factions. Democratic institutions, once hollowed out, can be rebuilt — but only through coordinated civic action and strategic political opposition.
The Democratic Imperative
The stakes of this debate couldn’t be higher. Democratic backsliding threatens not just abstract principles but the concrete freedoms and protections that underpin decent societies. When democracy decays, it’s not political scientists who suffer most — it’s ordinary citizens whose voices are silenced and whose rights are trampled.
We must move beyond semantic quibbles and methodological disputes to confront backsliding head-on. This means recognising early warning signs: executive power grabs, judicial interference, media harassment, and civil society restrictions. It means supporting democratic forces within backsliding countries. And it means strengthening our own democratic institutions against potential erosion.
Democracy has never been a permanent achievement — it’s always been a work in progress, requiring constant vigilance and renewal. The current wave of backsliding reminds us that democratic institutions, however venerable, remain vulnerable to those who would use them as stepping stones to autocracy.
The path forward is clear: we must defend democracy not just in principle but in practice, not just through rhetoric but through reform, not just for today but for generations to come. Nothing less than the future of self-government is at stake.
Bob Lynn / 21-May-2025
