Kinder and Gentler, Also to Terrorists? Consensus Democracy and Counterterrorism

Type of democracy is known to affect a wide range of policies and performance indicators. Many studies have shown that consensus democracy is “kinder and gentler” than majoritarian democracy (Lijphart 2012; Bogaards 2017). A previous study invalidated the claim that consensus democracies are less prone to domestic terrorism (Bogaards 2020). But maybe consensus democracies do have a characteristic way of dealing with terrorists? This paper provides the first test of the relationship between type of democracy and counter terrorist legislation. With the help of five datasets on policies of counter terrorism and the prevention of extremism, the paper tests three hypotheses: 1) Consensus democracies are less likely to have counter terrorism legislation; 2) Consensus democracies tend to have a different type of counter terrorist policies, focusing more on prevention and less on repression; 3) After 9/11, counter terrorism policies have converged. I find evidence that, indeed, consensus democracies are “kinder and gentler”, also to (suspected) terrorists. Surprisingly, and different from what the literature would lead us to expect, the contrast with majoritarian democracies has increased since the War on Terror. This result is interpreted to mean that type of democracy makes more of a difference in challenging times. This finding resonates with recent studies on crisis management and has additional urgency in light of the crisis of democracy in the USA.