Everyone Loves Democracy, But Who Wants to Protect it? Examining Support for Militant Democracy

Democratic backsliding has reignited debates over militant democracy, i.e. preventive measures to keep undemocratic actors out of power. While existing research examines the design and effectiveness of measures such as proscription and employment bans, we know little about citizens’ support for such measures. Yet democratic resilience depends not only on institutions and elites but also on citizens' willingness to defend democracy. We make two arguments. First, when state authorities officially designate political organisations as extremist, this acts as an institutional cue that increases support for pre-emptive measures, particularly among citizens with high levels of institutional trust. Second, support is not always principled but may instead reflect motivated reasoning, with citizens more willing to endorse restrictions against ideological opponents than against ideologically proximate actors. We test these claims with data from an original survey of approx. 4,000 respondents in Germany. We also introduce and validate the first measure of citizens' support for militant democracy. We show that support for pre-emptive measures reflects both institutional legitimacy and ideological bias: official extremist designations increase support, particularly among high-trust citizens, while individuals remain more willing to target ideological opponents than allied groups. Our findings suggest that the legitimacy of militant democracy ultimately depends on the credibility of the institutions implementing it.