What Do Citizens Accept? Decision-Making Preferences in the Context of Democratic Backsliding

The rise of populist and sometimes openly anti-democratic parties and candidates has raised concerns about democratic backsliding in established Western democracies. Previous research shows that citizens may tolerate violations of democratic norms when outcomes are favorable or when violations come from actors who share their ideology. However, less attention has been paid to how citizens evaluate potentially undemocratic decision-making processes. These procedures are central to democracy, and erosion may begin not only with violations of key liberal democratic features, but also with subtler forms such as procedural shortcuts. This paper combines research on democratic backsliding and process preferences to examine how citizens evaluate different features of political decision-making and how outcome favorability shapes these evaluations. Using a conjoint experiment, I analyze support for decision-making scenarios that vary both in procedural characteristics and policy outcomes. Procedural characteristics include different main institutions, such as an assertive leader; pluralistic and deliberative features, ranging from unilateral to more inclusive decision-making; and the presence or absence of constitutional constraints. Using survey data from approximately 2,500 respondents in Germany and the United States, the analysis compares a context in which norm transgressions have become increasingly common since Trump's second presidential term with a European case in which no significant backsliding has occurred yet. Additionally, the paper examines subgroups identified as particularly susceptible to norm violations, including populists and politically disaffected citizens. Understanding the ideal decision-making preferences of citizens and the trade-offs they are willing to accept for favorable policy outcomes reveals the potential for subtle democratic backsliding in established democracies.