Democratic Backsliding refers to a process in which the quality of democratic governance deteriorates through the weakening, circumvention or removal of institutions, rights, norms and practices that sustain democratic political competition and accountability. The concept is generally used to describe regression within an existing political regime rather than simply a transition from one regime category to another.
Nancy Bermeo influentially defined backsliding in terms of state led weakening or elimination of political institutions that sustain an existing democracy, while other scholars use a broader definition involving deterioration in qualities associated with democratic governance. The concept therefore includes changes that may occur gradually and through formally legal mechanisms rather than only through coups or openly unconstitutional seizures of power. Commonly examined features include executive aggrandisement, weakening of legislative and judicial checks, restrictions on civil liberties, manipulation of electoral competition, attacks on independent media and deterioration of democratic norms.
Democratic Backsliding differs from a traditional military coup or abrupt democratic breakdown because contemporary erosion can occur through incremental institutional changes. An elected government may use legislation, constitutional amendments, appointments, administrative decisions or changes to electoral rules to weaken institutions capable of constraining its authority. Individual measures may be presented as ordinary reforms, but their cumulative effect can alter the balance between executive power and independent institutions.
This makes measurement difficult because researchers must determine whether particular changes represent ordinary political disagreement, legitimate institutional reform or a meaningful decline in democratic governance. Backsliding can also occur through attacks on informal democratic norms even where formal constitutional rules remain largely intact. Examples include undermining the legitimacy of political opposition, treating independent journalism as inherently illegitimate, using state resources systematically against opponents or encouraging political actors to disregard established restraints. The concept therefore encompasses both institutional and behavioural dimensions.
The mechanisms associated with Democratic Backsliding include executive aggrandisement, strategic manipulation of electoral rules, politicisation of courts, weakening of legislatures, restrictions on civil society, suppression or intimidation of independent media and selective enforcement of administrative or legal rules. Executive aggrandisement occurs when elected leaders gradually expand executive authority by exploiting constitutional or legislative procedures. Electoral manipulation can involve changes to electoral administration, district boundaries, party registration, campaign rules or access to political competition.
Judicial erosion can occur through changes to appointment systems, court composition, disciplinary mechanisms or institutional jurisdiction. Legislative weakening may involve reducing parliamentary oversight or concentrating agenda setting authority in the executive. Media restrictions can affect both formal freedoms and the economic or regulatory environment in which independent outlets operate. These mechanisms can interact, because weakening one institution may make it easier to weaken another. The result can be cumulative institutional erosion even where no single reform independently eliminates democracy.
Democratic Backsliding has important measurement problems because the concept depends on an assessment of change over time. Researchers must establish what democratic characteristics existed previously, identify the direction and magnitude of change, and determine whether the changes are temporary or durable. Different datasets may produce different classifications because they measure electoral competition, civil liberties, executive constraints, participation, deliberation or other dimensions differently. Some definitions restrict backsliding to democratic countries, while broader approaches allow deterioration in democratic qualities within any regime.
This creates differences in the population of cases being studied and affects statistical conclusions about causes and prevalence. Scholars also distinguish backsliding from democratic instability, ordinary policy disagreement and democratic turnover. A government losing an election is not itself backsliding, while a government changing institutions in ways that systematically reduce the competitiveness of future elections may be relevant evidence. These distinctions are essential for empirical research because otherwise normal political conflict can be incorrectly treated as regime erosion.
Democratic Backsliding can be connected to political polarisation, institutional weakness, economic crisis, corruption, executive incentives, party system changes, social conflict and the decline of democratic norms. Polarisation becomes particularly important when political competition is treated as an existential conflict in which opponents are regarded as illegitimate rather than as temporary competitors. Under such conditions, political actors may become more willing to weaken institutional restraints when doing so benefits their side.
Weak party systems can also increase personalistic leadership and reduce internal resistance to executive power. Economic crises can provide opportunities for governments to justify emergency measures, although crisis alone does not mechanically produce democratic erosion. International factors can matter through diffusion, regional political trends, external incentives and changes in geopolitical relationships. Domestic institutions remain central because the same external pressures can produce different outcomes depending on the strength of courts, legislatures, parties, electoral authorities, media and civil society.
Democratic Backsliding should be distinguished from authoritarian consolidation, democratic breakdown, democratic erosion, autocratisation and regime transition. Democratic erosion and democratic backsliding are often used interchangeably, while autocratisation can describe a broader movement towards more authoritarian government. Democratic breakdown generally implies a more fundamental failure or replacement of democratic rule, whereas backsliding can occur without the regime immediately ceasing to qualify as democratic. Regime transition is broader because it encompasses movement between different types of political regime in either direction.
Democratic consolidation represents the opposite analytical direction, involving the institutionalisation and durability of democratic rule rather than deterioration. These distinctions are important because a country can experience substantial erosion while retaining competitive elections and some democratic institutions. The existence of elections alone therefore does not settle whether backsliding has occurred. Researchers instead examine the overall structure of political competition, accountability, rights and institutional constraints and how these characteristics change over time.
Democratic Backsliding can have consequences for accountability, political participation, civil liberties, electoral competition, judicial independence and the predictability of political institutions. When institutional checks weaken, governing actors may face fewer constraints when using public resources, appointing officials or implementing policies. Reduced electoral competitiveness can make formal elections less effective as mechanisms of accountability even if voting continues. Restrictions on media and civil society can reduce the information available to citizens and weaken mechanisms through which governments are scrutinised.
The effects are not necessarily uniform because institutional erosion can occur in one area while other democratic institutions remain comparatively strong. Backsliding can also produce feedback effects, because weakened institutions may make subsequent reforms more difficult and can change incentives for political parties, bureaucracies, courts and civil society. For analytical purposes, the cumulative trajectory is therefore often more informative than an isolated institutional change.
Democratic Backsliding is particularly important for understanding why democratic institutions can deteriorate without an obvious moment of regime collapse. Its study shifts attention from dramatic coups towards gradual institutional change, elite incentives, political norms and the interaction between formal rules and informal practices. A government can preserve constitutional language and hold elections while simultaneously weakening the institutional conditions required for meaningful competition.
At the same time, not every controversial government action constitutes backsliding, and scholars continue to debate definitions, measurement and causal explanations. The most rigorous analysis therefore specifies the democratic dimension being examined, establishes the relevant baseline, identifies concrete institutional or behavioural changes and distinguishes documented changes from interpretations of their political significance. This approach allows Democratic Backsliding to be used as a precise comparative concept rather than as a general label for political disagreement or dissatisfaction with a government.
