The abuse of emergency provisions: How and under which conditions declared states of emergency foster democratic decline

States of emergency (SOE) serve as security instruments that enable the executive branch to temporarily centralize power and bypass democratic constraints to address existential threats. While the crises that usually precede the proclamation of SOEs are difficult to predict, their political consequences are not. They facilitate concentration and often the abuse of power. Enacted SOEs enable procedural shortcuts and repression that endanger democracy. Measures introduced while a SOE is declared may also become permanent. To prevent this, horizontal accountability mechanisms should serve as a safeguard against such misconduct - both ex ante and ex post. I analyze different types of SOEs declared as well as the emergency provisions in consolidated democracies between 1973 and 2018 and their impact on aspects that constitute a democracy. I find that while natural disasters are not associated with a decline in democracy, SOEs declared due to domestic man-made events are. Moreover, the analysis indicates that an independent high court, the presence of opposition parties that are able to exercise oversight and investigatory functions, and the specific design of the emergency provisions render abuse less likely.