Legitimacy, Repression, and Ambiguity: A Two-Stage Framework of Democratic Defence

Democracies around the world face the challenge of democratic erosion and autocratisation. Existing research has mainly focussed on the specific tactics of would-be autocrats, but much less is known about those actors who stand up to defend democracy. In particular, we lack a comprehensive theoretical framework to account for the success and failure of democratic defenders. To explain the successes and failures of the defence of democracy when an incumbent would-be autocrat erodes democracy, this paper presents a theoretical framework based on three dimensions: the defenders’ legitimacy, the level of credible threats, or repression, against the defender, and the ambiguity of the autocratizing actions taken. We conceive of democratic defence as a two-stage process. In the first stage, potential defenders must self-select into becoming an actual defender. They weigh credible threats to their physical security as well as informal threats to their livelihood (repression) against their self-interest in preventing the autocrat’s specific action. Second, defence is only successful when the defender is perceived legitimate and not self-interested, and if the autocratic tactic is sufficiently clear and unambiguous. We illustrate how these dimensions interact in three brief case studies of the possible outcomes: no defence, unsuccessful defence, and successful defence. Doing so, we employ an actor-centred approach to democratic erosion. In recent years, scholars have found that structural conditions (such as polarization, presidentialism, economic decline) matter for democratic erosion. They could favour a would-be autocrat’s legitimation of tactics that are otherwise harmful to democracy. While recognizing the value of this research, actors, such as elite defenders, would-be autocrats, and the public, matter too: people protest, incumbents pack courts, and oppositions call for (international) action. The resulting theoretical framework of democratic defence can guide future research on the role of specific actors in defending democracy. An actor-based approach of democratic defence is crucial to understand what actions domestic and international actors can take to actually to prevent (further) backsliding.