Democratic decoupling

Abstract

Democratic backsliding does not necessarily see all democratic institutions erode in parallel fashion. This article analyses contemporary democratic backsliding through the lens of institutional change, as a process of "democratic decoupling," in which a systematic gap opens up between the constitutive features of liberal democracy. Specifically, we focus on the worldwide decoupling between electoral quality and rights protections over the past decade. Using global data from the V-Dem project, we establish that elections are improving and rights are retracting in the same time period, and in many of the same cases. We offer several illustrative examples from Asia of illiberal juggernauts who have ridden the waves of free and fair elections to do great damage to rights protections, focusing primarily on Narendra Modi and the ruling BJP in the world's largest democracy, India.

The politics of civil society forms

“…The conclusion reached in this paper echoes Ding and Slater (2020), who argue that it is necessary to connect the literature on democratic backsliding with the literature on institutional change theory. They note that one of the latter's most important insights is that "institutional complexity and multiplicity provide opportunities for political entrepreneurs to foster institutional change" (Ding & Slater, 2020: 64).…”

“…In this context, the politics of civil society forms illustrate the complexity of Indonesian civil society, including the means through which urban environmental activists have acted as political entrepreneurs and seized opportunities. In this sense, we can see not only the 'democratic decoupling' caused by increased electoral quality and decreased rights protection, as argued by Ding and Slater (2020), but also show that urban environmental activists-more of their ambiguous impact on democracy-can nevertheless foster institutional changes.…”

State of the world 2020: autocratization turns viral

“…47 Modi and his government have also placed constraints on civil society and have gone against the constitution's commitment to secularism. 48 The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) from 1967 and amended in August 2019 is being used to harass, intimidate, and imprison political opponents, as well as people mobilizing to protest government policies, 49 and to silence dissent in academia. 50 Universities and authorities have also punished students and activists in universities engaging in protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).…”

Routledge Handbook of Autocratization in South Asia

“…Croissant and Haynes (2021), for example, identify seven factors driving 'democratic regression' in Asia, but focus primarily on institutional weaknesses, such as the role of political parties and civil society and the extent to which power is concentrated in a presidency. Ding and Slater (2021) also explore the institutional aspects of autocratization, pointing to the structural tensions between electoral and rights institutions in democracy. Diamond highlights the agency of 'elected political leaders, greedy for power and wealth, who knock away various types of constraints on their power and enlarge and entrench it in undemocratic ways' (Diamond 2021: 30).…”