Crises and Democratic Commitments

This study investigates the relationship between distinct types of crises and support for undemocratic candidates across contexts. We theorize that individuals exhibit increased tolerance for undemocratic behavior during crises compared to periods of calm. Moreover, we differentiate between two categories of crises: intergroup conflict crises (e.g. external threats, civil war) and intragroup crises (e.g., economic crises, natural disasters), proposing that each type influences respondent support for undemocratic candidates in varying degrees. Finally, we propose that the relationship is characterized by heterogenous treatment effects, where social dominance orientation and feelings of anomie have a moderating effect on citizens’ attitudes toward moderate undemocratic behavior during crises. We assess these expectations through a vignette experiment, where we randomly assign participants to different crisis scenarios to assess how the presence or absence of crises impacts support for undemocratic actions by political leaders. Our data source is an original survey administered through YouGov, gathering data from representative samples of around across 33 countries (around 1,600 respondents from each), including France, Germany, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States, among others. The cross-national nature of our sample allows us to explore the generalizability of these effects in diverse socio-political contexts, highlighting potential moderating factors such as democratic experience, societal polarization, and political institutional setups. This research contributes to the understanding of political behavior during crises, offering insights into how varying crisis types can shape democratic commitments and candidate preferences.