The (Un)Democratic Left Behind? The Procedural Preferences of Citizens Who Feel Unseen and Unheard

The rise of populist and anti-democratic actors has raised concerns about the resilience of established Western democracies. Research shows that some citizens are more willing to tolerate violations of democratic norms and to support populist or authoritarian actors, with perceived societal marginalization and feelings of being “left behind” playing a central role beyond socio-economic factors. These perceptions have been linked to the rise of authoritarian populism; however, little is known about the procedural preferences of marginalized citizens. Yet democratic legitimacy ultimately depends on a broad consensus about how political decisions should be made. Understanding which decision-making procedures those who feel unseen and unheard consider legitimate (and whether they are more open to norm-violating or unilateral forms of governance) is therefore crucial for assessing the risks of democratic backsliding. To explore the procedural preferences of those who feel left behind, I conducted a conjoint experiment with approximately 2,500 respondents in the United States and Germany. Respondents evaluated decision-making scenarios that varied in institutional features, including the main actor (an assertive leader, representatives, or citizens); the presence of constitutional constraints; and the involvement of multiple actors versus unilateral executive action. By linking feelings of marginalization to procedural preferences, the paper examines how perceptions of exclusion shape citizens’ support for both democratic and potentially undemocratic decision-making processes. It also explores which institutional designs are most likely to maintain legitimacy and broad support under conditions of political strain.