Heralds of Democracy - The Role of Science Communication in Raising Democratic Awareness

Vigilant citizens who recognize and sanction transgressions by political elites against liberal-democratic principles are an important line of defense against democratic backsliding. Yet, punishment at the ballot box of politicians with autocratic tendencies often falls short. While parts of this can be explained by polarization, partisan identity, and motivated reasoning, recent literature highlights the role of citizens’ non-liberal (e.g., majoritarian) interpretations of democracy and, consequently, different understandings of what does, and does not, constitute a transgression against liberal democratic norms. Majoritarian or populist understandings of democracy may legitimize actions that undermine liberal-democratic principles, such as minority rights, judicial independence, or constraints on executive power. As a result, citizens may not perceive such actions as norm violations at all, which limits the effectiveness of retrospective accountability. This raises the question of whether awareness of democratic backsliding can be increased through external informational cues, like expert warnings. Scholars, journalists, and organizations with expertise in law and politics may serve as epistemic authorities that could raise democratic awareness by clearly pointing out the principles of liberal democracy and potential conflicts with a politician's positions and statements. By explicitly linking concrete political actions to abstract democratic norms, expert voices may help citizens recognize transgressions that would otherwise remain ambiguous or contested. At the same time, such interventions may not be uniformly effective. Citizens differ in the amount of trust they have towards experts and their susceptibility to elite cues, which may condition whether expert warnings are persuasive or ignored. In a pre-registered candidate choice conjoint experiment, this study systematically tests the potential of expert interventions to counter democratic backsliding. The experiment investigates (1) whether expert interventions can affect citizens’ evaluations towards transgressive politicians in general; (2) who is most susceptible to expert interventions and who is not; and (3) which communication strategies work best (e.g., neutral information, appealing to norms, advocacy). The study tests hypotheses using a nationally representative sample in Austria with sample size determined by a priori power analysis. The findings provide systematic evidence on whether expert communication can meaningfully affect citizens’ evaluations of illiberal candidates and identify the conditions under which epistemic authority influences citizens’ interpretations of democratic norms. The results have implications for scholars in political communication and science communication who are interested in democratic backsliding processes, as well as for journalists, civil society organizations, and democratic institutions seeking effective strategies to defend liberal-democratic norms in polarized political environments.