The (Conditional) Acceptance of Democratic Norm Violations During an Emergency. A Comparative Study

How do citizens evaluate democratic rule during states of emergency, and under what conditions do they accept restrictions of fundamental rights and institutional checks? Although recent crises have prompted much research, we still know relatively little about how people judge multiple emergency measures simultaneously, and how these judgments vary across political and national contexts. This paper addresses these questions through a preregistered conjoint survey experiment, based on representative samples, conducted in Italy, Hungary, and Norway. Respondents are presented with pairs of hypothetical crisis scenarios that vary along several dimensions: the type of emergency, whether elections are held or postponed, whether parliament retains its powers, whether movement is restricted, whether media and social media are regulated, and whether the government provides economic assistance. Comparing how citizens evaluate these profiles allows us to identify which measures increase or reduce the acceptability of government actions, and which factors shape trust in the government’s ability to manage a crisis. We expect that citizens generally prefer democratic continuity: elections taking place as scheduled, active parliamentary oversight, and no restrictions on media or movement. At the same time, measures such as temporary mobility limits or economic support may enhance trust in the government, even when they constrain individual freedoms. We also examine whether economic assistance and ideological closeness to the government make people more willing to accept measures that would normally be viewed as illiberal. By comparing reactions across different political contexts and types of crises, the paper sheds light on how democratic publics balance liberty, security, and institutional integrity when governments act under pressure.