Toleration in bad politics – how long should we stay civilized?

This paper addresses a critical lacuna in the political theory of toleration: how democratic citizens should respond to political opponents who do not share or uphold democratic norms and principles or only do so partially. While traditional literature on toleration primarily focuses on religious and cultural diversity or ideal democratic interaction, this paper reorients the debate toward real-world democratic erosion, offering a conceptual framework to guide the practice of toleration under non-ideal political circumstances. The paper argues that toleration in politics is an active virtue and a normatively dependent practice that can be grounded in democratic principles of freedom, respect, and responsibility. Toleration in politics is defined by four criteria: refraining from the intent to eliminate opposing views, respecting formal equal rights, avoiding coercive non-legal means of suppression, and recognizing political opponents as legitimate members of the political community. Conversely, non-toleration entails failure across all these dimensions. The paper introduces a graded model of democratic decline in five escalating scenarios—ranging from ideal deliberative democracy to authoritarian encroachment—and examines how the practice and limits of toleration evolve at each stage. Under more ideal circumstances, toleration entails communicative or strategic engagement within fair democratic competition. Here communication between actors is oriented towards understanding or at least structured over some notion of friendly competition and civil exchange of views. Under less ideal circumstances, where opponents begin undermining institutional fairness or altering democratic rights for self-entrenchment, the justifiability of more confrontational responses, such as uncivil forms of discourse as well as (un)civil disobedience or resistance, increases. Ultimately, when opponents dismantle core democratic rights, toleration may no longer be warranted, and self-defensive measures involving both speech and action—still ideally restrained by democratic responsibility—become legitimate. The paper distinguishes between content-related and process-related reasons for toleration or rejection. This dual lens allows democratic citizens to assess not only the substance of their opponents' values but also their methods of political engagement. The paper points to a grey zone or "borderland" between toleration and non-toleration, recognizing that political responses often evolve along a spectrum rather than in binary terms. In sum, the paper posits that toleration under less-than-ideal democratic conditions should remain grounded in the commitment to democratic principles. However, it must be flexible enough to account for varying degrees of democratic backsliding and non-commitment to democratic norms and principles by opponents, including norms of civility. The aim is to develop a critical normative tool for democratic citizens and theorists to evaluate when toleration should end and resistance begin. This includes different modes and combinations of civil and uncivil forms of discourse.