Democratic backsliding is a process in which the quality, functioning or institutional foundations of democracy deteriorate over time. It can involve declines in competitive elections, civil liberties, freedom of expression, judicial independence, legislative oversight, media freedom, political participation, rule of law or constraints on executive power. The term is generally used for a process rather than a single event, although scholars differ over how long a decline must last and which democratic dimensions must deteriorate before it qualifies as backsliding. V Dem's conceptual work emphasises that definitions depend partly on how democracy itself is conceptualised and measured. Contemporary measurement systems therefore examine multiple dimensions rather than assuming that democracy is adequately represented by elections alone.
Democratic backsliding can occur gradually and through formally legal mechanisms. A government may amend legislation, alter electoral rules, weaken independent oversight, restrict civil society, politicise public institutions or reduce media freedom without immediately abolishing elections. This gradual process distinguishes much contemporary backsliding from traditional military coups or abrupt authoritarian takeovers. V Dem research describes contemporary autocratization in democracies as often gradual and occurring from within existing institutions, sometimes under a legal facade. Democratically elected leaders can therefore become important agents of democratic erosion when they weaken institutional constraints that previously limited executive authority. The existence of elections during such a process does not necessarily demonstrate that the broader democratic system remains healthy.
One important feature of democratic backsliding is that different dimensions of democracy can deteriorate at different speeds. Elections may continue while freedom of expression declines, courts become less independent, opposition parties face greater obstacles or civil society organisations encounter restrictions. V Dem explicitly measures democracy through multiple dimensions and indicators, including electoral, liberal, participatory, deliberative and egalitarian principles. Its data include indicators concerning media censorship, administrative impartiality, election violence and other institutional characteristics. This multidimensional approach matters because a political system can retain competitive elections while simultaneously weakening liberal protections and checks on executive power. Democratic backsliding is therefore not necessarily equivalent to the immediate disappearance of electoral competition.
The mechanisms of democratic backsliding can include attacks on independent institutions, restrictions on journalism, intimidation of political opponents, politicisation of civil services, manipulation of electoral rules, weakening of courts, constitutional changes that expand executive authority, restrictions on protest and pressure on civil society. These mechanisms can reinforce one another. For example, weakening independent media can reduce public scrutiny, while weakening courts can make it more difficult to challenge executive actions, and weakening electoral institutions can reduce the ability of voters to remove incumbents. V Dem research identifies freedom of expression and liberal democratic safeguards such as rule of law and checks and balances among prominent targets during contemporary autocratization.
Democratic backsliding is closely related to autocratization, democratic erosion and democratic deterioration, although terminology varies across researchers. V Dem defines autocratization as a process of regime transformation in which a country becomes significantly less democratic. Democratic backsliding is often used more specifically for deterioration occurring in an existing democracy, whereas autocratization can describe movement away from democracy more broadly. Democratic breakdown is a stronger concept because it refers to the point at which a regime ceases to uphold democratic qualities and becomes an electoral or closed autocracy. These concepts can therefore describe different stages or scopes of political change rather than being perfect synonyms.
Backsliding does not necessarily lead to complete authoritarian rule. Democracies can sometimes resist or reverse deterioration through elections, courts, legislatures, civil society mobilisation, independent journalism, institutional resistance and changes in political leadership. V Dem describes democratic resilience as the ability of a democracy to withstand internal or external stress or recover after facing threats. It distinguishes resilience to the onset of autocratization from resilience after autocratization has already begun. This distinction is important because preventing institutional deterioration and reversing established deterioration involve different political mechanisms. The existence of backsliding should therefore not be treated as proof that democratic collapse is inevitable.
Measuring democratic backsliding presents methodological difficulties because democracy is a multidimensional and contested concept. Different datasets can produce different assessments depending on whether they emphasise elections, liberal rights, participation, deliberation, equality or other dimensions. V Dem's methodological work explicitly notes that different operationalisations can produce different estimates of the extent and timing of democratic decline. Researchers must therefore specify the period examined, the democratic dimensions measured and the threshold used to identify meaningful deterioration. A temporary policy change is not necessarily equivalent to structural democratic backsliding, while a series of individually modest institutional changes can collectively produce substantial erosion.
Democratic backsliding is significant because democracy depends on more than the formal existence of elections. A functioning democratic system requires institutional competition, rights, accountability, political pluralism and constraints on arbitrary power. When these foundations weaken, elections can remain formally present while becoming less capable of producing genuine political accountability. Current V Dem research continues to identify democratic backsliding and autocratization as major global political processes, while also identifying countries experiencing democratisation. The appropriate analytical approach is therefore to examine concrete changes in institutions and political rights rather than applying the term solely because a government is unpopular, controversial or ideologically different from its predecessor.
