Timeline of Events

Please note that the provided excerpts do not contain specific dates for most events. The following
timeline is therefore organized thematically and chronologically within each theme:
Early Autocratization Waves (Pre-1994)
​ First Wave:No specific events provided.
​ Second Wave:No specific events provided.
​ General Characteristics (First & Second Waves):Median autocratization rate of 31%
(sudden and radical democratic decline).
​ Examples of sudden breakdowns: Nazi Germany's invasion of Czechoslovakia and the
Netherlands during World War II.
Third Wave of Autocratization (1994-present)
​ 1993:The Third Wave of autocratization begins (Based on Lührmann and Lindberg's criteria).
​ 1994-2017:Multiple autocratization episodes, mainly affecting existing democracies.
​ Philippines (2001-2005): Extremely gradual autocratization.
​ Vanuatu (1988-1996): Gradual autocratization.
​ 2000-2014:Thailand: Period of reasonably democratic governance, followed by democratic
backsliding.
​ May 2000:Fiji: Coup against Mahendra Chaudhry's government.
​ September 2001: Elections held in Fiji after the coup, with victory for the military-backed
candidate.
​ October 2001:Gambia: Yahya Jammeh, who led the 1994 coup, wins elections deemed free
and fair by international observers.
​ 2002:Turkey: Recep Tayyip Erdo¢gan and his Justice and Development Party (AKP) win a
resounding victory in national elections.
​ 2006:Fiji: Coup led by Frank Bainimarama.
​ 2010:Turkey: Erdo¢gan passes constitutional amendments granting him power to appoint a
majority of Constitutional Court judges.
​ 2014:Fiji: Post-coup elections won by Frank Bainimarama.
​ Turkey: Legislation passed granting the justice minister greater control over judicial
appointments, leading to the removal of over 3,000 judges. Law passed granting the National
Intelligence Organization broad surveillance powers without judicial oversight.
​ 2015:Venezuela: Opposition forces win a supermajority in the National Assembly,
challenging the ruling party established by Hugo Chávez.
​ Ecuador: Rafael Correa announces he will not seek re-election, responding to mass
mobilizations and political setbacks.
​ 2016:USA: Donald Trump's election leads to a downgrade of the US's Polity IV score,
sparking debate about democratic backsliding.
​ 2019:USA: Polity IV score further downgraded.
​ 2020:USA: Polity IV score downgraded to 5, equivalent to Somalia and Haiti, signifying a
non-democratic regime according to this measure.
​ General Characteristics (Third Wave):Median autocratization rate of 8% (more gradual
and incremental decline compared to previous waves).
​ Autocratization often occurs through manipulation of existing democratic institutions rather
than outright coups.
​ Rise of "executive aggrandizement" as a key tactic.
​ Increased use of legal and electoral changes to undermine democratic norms.
 ​ Growing concern about the role of right-wing and anti-democratic movements in civil society
in fueling backsliding.
Cast of Characters
Academics
​ Nancy Bermeo: Scholar of democratic backsliding who argues that the current wave of
autocratization, though concerning, involves a less violent and more ambiguous form of
democratic decline, potentially offering more opportunities for reversal.
​ Anna Lührmann & Staffan I. Lindberg: Political scientists who have identified a "Third
Wave of Autocratization" starting in 1993, characterized by its focus on eroding existing
democracies.
​ Garry Rodan: Scholar of civil society in Southeast Asia who emphasizes the role of activists
and their influence on state power within the context of democratic decline.
​ Meredith L. Weiss: Scholar of civil society in Southeast Asia who advocates for a broad
definition of democratic backsliding and highlights the concerning trend of right-wing
tendencies within civil society that contribute to democratic decline.
​ Marco Bünte: Scholar who has studied the role of "uncivil society" in democratic decline,
specifically examining pro-military groups in Thailand and Buddhist ultra-nationalist monks in
Myanmar.
​ Ken Setiawan & Dirk Tomsa: Scholars who have studied civil society resilience in
Indonesia under President Joko Widodo, focusing on women's and environmental activism.
​ Cesi Cruz, Philip Keefer & Carlos Scartascini: Developers of the Database of Political
Institutions (DPI) used to analyze political systems and democratic trends.
​ Larry Diamond: Scholar of democracy who has written extensively on the global
"democratic recession."
​ Jessica Gottlieb et al.: Researchers who have compiled the Democratic Erosion Event
Dataset (DEED) used to track and analyze instances of democratic backsliding.
​ Edoardo Grillo & Carlo Prato: Scholars who study the role of "reference points" in shaping
responses to democratic backsliding.
​ Sergie Guriev & Daniel Treisman: Authors of a theory of "informational autocracy" which
analyzes how authoritarian regimes maintain control through information manipulation.
Political Leaders
​ Mahendra Chaudhry: Former Prime Minister of Fiji, overthrown in a 2000 coup.
​ Yahya Jammeh: Former President of Gambia who came to power through a 1994 coup and
later consolidated his rule through electoral manipulation.
​ Frank Bainimarama: Current Prime Minister of Fiji who initially seized power in a 2006 coup
and later won elections in 2014.
​ Recep Tayyip Erdo¢gan: President of Turkey who has overseen a process of democratic
backsliding and consolidation of executive power during his time in office as Prime Minister
and President.
​ Rafael Correa: Former President of Ecuador who implemented significant political and
economic reforms, but also faced criticism for his increasingly authoritarian tendencies.
​ Hugo Chávez: Former President of Venezuela who ushered in a period of leftist rule known
as "Bolivarianism," which has been criticized for its erosion of democratic institutions.
​ Donald Trump: Former President of the United States whose election and presidency have
sparked significant debate about democratic backsliding in the US.
This cast of characters represents the key figures and their roles in the broader narrative of
democratic decline presented in the source excerpts.

Democratic Backsliding: An FAQ

What is democratic backsliding?
Democratic backsliding refers to the gradual weakening or dismantling of democratic institutions,
norms, and practices within a state, regardless of its formal regime type. It is a decline in the de facto
level of democracy, meaning it goes beyond the mere existence of democratic institutions on paper
and considers their actual functioning in practice. This can manifest in various ways, such as
restrictions on freedom of speech, manipulation of electoral processes, weakening of checks and
balances, and undermining the rule of law.

How is the current wave of autocratization different from

previous waves?
Unlike previous waves, which primarily involved dramatic regime changes like coups, the current
wave, beginning around 1993, predominantly affects existing democracies. It is characterized by
more subtle and incremental erosion of democratic norms and institutions, often carried out by
elected officials themselves. This poses a greater challenge as it can be harder to identify and
counter than overt authoritarian takeovers.

How is the speed of autocratization measured?

One way to measure the speed of autocratization is through the "autocratization rate." This metric,
calculated as a percentage change in the V-Dem Electoral Democracy Index (EDI), reflects how
quickly a regime loses its democratic quality year on year. A high rate suggests a rapid and drastic
decline, while a low rate indicates a gradual erosion.

Has the speed of autocratization changed?

Yes, research suggests that autocratization has become significantly more gradual. The median
autocratization rate has dropped from around 31% in previous waves to about 8% in the current
wave. This shift towards incrementalism is likely linked to the increased global prevalence of
democratic norms, making outright authoritarian power grabs less palatable.

What role does civil society play in democratic

backsliding?
Civil society can both hinder and, concerningly, accelerate democratic backsliding. While a vibrant
civil society can serve as a bulwark against authoritarian encroachment by holding power
accountable, illiberal or right-wing elements within civil society can be co-opted or even actively
contribute to democratic decline. This can manifest through polarizing rhetoric, supporting
undemocratic actors, or undermining democratic processes.

What are some examples of executive aggrandizement

during democratic backsliding?
Executive aggrandizement, a key feature of backsliding, involves the expansion of executive power
at the expense of other branches of government. Examples include:
​ Turkey: President Erdogan's AKP used its parliamentary majority to push through numerous
laws and constitutional amendments that consolidated executive control over the judiciary
and weakened checks and balances.
​ Ecuador: President Correa implemented legal changes restricting media freedom and
allowing for the dissolution of citizens' organizations deemed contrary to state interests,
thereby curtailing dissent and independent scrutiny.
Are there any positive examples of coupmakers
contributing to democracy?
While some coup leaders might initially promise democratic improvements, there are no documented
cases where they have actually led to democratic deepening. Often, these leaders hold elections
that appear free and fair but subsequently fail to uphold democratic principles and institutions,
ultimately diminishing the overall level of freedom.

Is there hope for reversing democratic backsliding?

Yes, despite the daunting challenges, backsliding can be reversed. Since it is driven by incentives
and power dynamics, changing those dynamics can shift the trajectory. Examples include:
​ Venezuela: In 2015, a combination of citizen mobilization, strategic campaigning by the
opposition, and economic pressures led to the defeat of the ruling party, demonstrating the
potential for reclaiming democratic space.
​ Ecuador: President Correa's decision not to seek re-election in 2017, influenced by public
protests, electoral setbacks, and a desire to avoid being seen as clinging to power, highlights
how internal and external pressures can curb authoritarian tendencies.
Democracy Under Threat: A Briefing on Democratic
Backsliding
This briefing analyzes the phenomenon of democratic backsliding, drawing upon three main
sources:
1. "Democracy and Its Vulnerabilities" by Milan Svolik (2021)
This source provides a game theory model to explain how an "authoritarian-minded leader" can
undermine democracy even with popular support. Svolik argues that democratic backsliding often
happens gradually. Incumbents can exploit their position to gain an "advantage," incrementally
shifting the playing field in their favor. This advantage can take various forms, such as:
​ Changing electoral rules: Manipulating electoral systems to disadvantage opposition.
​ Controlling the media: Limiting freedom of the press and controlling the narrative.
​ Weakening checks and balances: Undermining the judiciary, legislature, and other
institutions meant to hold the executive accountable.
Svolik argues that citizens might not react to these actions if they find the incumbent appealing or
are unable to assess their long-term consequences. This inaction, however, can lead to a point
where the leader consolidates enough power to become unaccountable to the people.
Key Quote: "People may not react to such violations [of democratic norms] even when they observe
them or they may be unable to assess their consequences."
2. "Measuring Democratic Backsliding" by Michael K. Miller and Matthew C. Wilson (2024)
This source challenges the prevailing narrative of a global democratic recession. By analyzing
objective measures like incumbent party electoral success and executive constraints, Miller and
Wilson argue that the evidence doesn't support a widespread backsliding trend. They find:
​ Elections remain competitive: Incumbent parties are losing elections at similar rates as in
previous decades.
​ Objective indicators show no decline: Measures like executive constraints and electoral
fairness haven't significantly deteriorated in recent years.
The authors suggest that the perception of widespread backsliding might be influenced by factors
like media bias and changing coding practices in democracy indices. They caution against
overstating the decline of democracy based on subjective assessments.
Key Quote: "Our core contention is that if the world is experiencing major backsliding in the
aggregate, we should expect to see evidence of this effect on the objective measures... but we do
not."
3. "On Democratic Backsliding" by Nancy Bermeo (2016)
This source examines the changing nature of backsliding. Bermeo argues that contemporary
backsliding differs from the overt coups and blatant violations of the past. She highlights three key
characteristics of modern backsliding:
​ Incrementalism: Backsliding occurs through gradual erosion of democratic norms rather
than dramatic seizures of power.
​ Legality: Authoritarians often use legal means and existing institutions to achieve their aims,
making it harder to challenge them.
​ Ambiguity: The actions of backsliding governments are often couched in ambiguous
language, making it difficult to discern their true intentions.
Bermeo uses examples like Turkey under Erdoğan and Ecuador under Correa to illustrate how
elected leaders can gradually dismantle democratic institutions. She argues that these tactics make
it more challenging for international actors to respond effectively.
Key Quote: "We now face forms of democratic backsliding that are legitimated through the very
institutions that democracy promoters have prioritized: national elections, voting majorities in
legislatures and courts, and the “rule” of the laws that majorities produce."
Conclusion:
While there is debate about the extent of democratic backsliding, the sources agree that it poses a
real threat to democracy. Modern backsliding is often subtle and insidious, operating within the
bounds of law and exploiting the weaknesses of democratic systems. Understanding the
mechanisms and motivations behind this phenomenon is crucial for safeguarding democratic
institutions and ensuring that power remains in the hands of the people.

Briefing Document: Democracy and its Vulnerabilities

Source: Excerpts from "Democracy and its vulnerabilities" (2021)
Authors: Daron Acemoglu, Georgy Egorov, Konstantin Sonin
Main Themes: This paper investigates the factors that make a democracy vulnerable to backsliding,
defined as "a process of incremental (but ultimately substantial) decline in the quality of democracy"
(Svolik 2019). It challenges the traditional view that democracies are self-correcting, arguing that
gradual erosion can occur even when citizens value democracy.
Key Ideas & Facts:
​ Two Paths to Backsliding: The authors identify two scenarios leading to backsliding:
​ Backsliding with Support: Citizens knowingly consent to democratic erosion because they
find the incumbent appealing due to policy outcomes or ideological alignment.
​ "Whenever the citizen finds the leader highly appealing, the unique equilibrium is one in
which the leader backslides with the support of the citizen."
​ Backsliding against Opposition: Citizens unconditionally oppose the incumbent, but the
incumbent has accumulated enough "advantage" (e.g., control over media, electoral
manipulation) to survive in office despite this opposition.
​ "Backsliding occurs...when citizens unconditionally oppose the incumbent, so that the
incumbent can remain in office only by backsliding."
​ Authoritarian-Minded Leaders: The model assumes the leader is "authoritarian-minded,"
meaning they are willing to exploit opportunities to undermine democracy and secure their
grip on power.
​ Citizen's Role: While citizens value democracy, they are not always able or willing to
effectively counter backsliding. They may:
​ Fail to react in time to incremental changes that erode democratic institutions.
​ Be unable to accurately assess the long-term consequences of the incumbent's actions.
​ Prioritize short-term gains (like economic benefits) over the long-term health of democracy.
​ Sustainable Democracy: The authors define sustainable democracy as one where the
leader refrains from actions that excessively increase their "advantage." This sustainability
depends on:
​ The Appeal of the Leader: A leader who is too appealing can easily erode democracy with
citizen support.
​ The Quality of Challengers: The presence of attractive challengers provides citizens with a
viable alternative and disincentivizes the incumbent from backsliding.
 ​ "Democracy is sustainable, free from the threat of backsliding, when opposing politicians are
neither very attractive nor very unattractive to citizens."
​ Trade-offs: Citizens face a trade-off: a more appealing leader may provide better short-term
outcomes but increase the risk of backsliding.
Implications:
​ Traditional notions of democratic self-correction may be overly optimistic.
​ Preventing backsliding requires vigilance against incremental changes that erode democratic
norms and institutions.
​ The presence of high-quality political challengers is crucial for sustaining democracy.
​ Citizens must be made aware of the long-term consequences of backsliding, even when
short-term gains seem appealing.
Quotes:
​ "This is the view of democracy we inherited and this is the view we are now forced to
question."
​ "By now we have seen...instances of democratic “backsliding” (or “deconsolidation,”
“erosion,” “retrogression”)"
​ "The obvious question is what makes democracy vulnerable to backsliding."
​ "The burgeoning literature on backsliding differs in two dimensions: the motivation of the
incumbent...and the identity of the restraining agent."
Further Research:
​ Empirical studies on how voters react to different forms of backsliding.
​ The role of media and information in shaping citizen perceptions of democratic erosion.
​ Strategies for strengthening democratic institutions and norms to make them more resilient
to backsliding.