The Demand Side of Democratic Backsliding: How Divergent Understandings of Democracy Shape Political Choice

Natasha Wunsch et al.

British Journal of Political Science2025https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123424000711article
ABDC A*
Weight
0.69

Abstract

Why do citizens fail to punish political candidates who violate democratic standards at the ballot box? Building on recent debates about heterogeneous democratic attitudes among citizens, we probe how divergent understandings of democracy shape citizens’ ability to recognize democratic transgressions as such and, in turn, affect vote choice. We leverage a novel approach to estimate the behavioural consequences of such individual-level understandings of democracy via a candidate choice conjoint experiment in Poland, a democracy where elections remained competitive despite an extended episode of backsliding. Consistent with our argument, we find that respondents who adhere less strongly to liberal democratic norms tolerate democratic violations more readily. Conversely, voters with a stronger liberal understanding of democracy are more likely to punish non-liberal candidates, including co-partisan ones. Our study identifies political culture, particularly the lack of attitudinal consolidation around liberal democracy, as a missing variable in explaining continued voter support for authoritarian-leaning leaders.

31 citations

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123424000711

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{natasha2025,
  title        = {{The Demand Side of Democratic Backsliding: How Divergent Understandings of Democracy Shape Political Choice}},
  author       = {Natasha Wunsch et al.},
  journal      = {British Journal of Political Science},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123424000711},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

The Demand Side of Democratic Backsliding: How Divergent Understandings of Democracy Shape Political Choice

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.


Evidence weight

0.69

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.79 × 0.4 = 0.32
M · momentum1.00 × 0.15 = 0.15
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.