Fiddling while Democracy Burns: Partisan Reactions to Weak Democracy in Latin America

Abstract

Democracy is weakened when citizens and elites do not criticize actions or actors that undermine its principles. Yet this study documents a widespread pattern of partisan rationalization in how elites and the public evaluate democratic performance in Latin America. Survey data show that those whose party controls the presidency consistently express positive evaluations of the current state of democratic competition and institutions even when democracy in their country is weak. This pattern emerges in both mass survey data and among elected elites. These data have a worrying implication: if only the political opposition is willing to publicly acknowledge and sound the alarm when democracy is under attack, public pressure to protect democracy is likely to be dramatically reduced.

Happy Winners, Sore Partisans? Political Trust, Partisanship, and the Populist Assault on Electoral Integrity in Mexico

“…Voters identified with the political opposition may expect the judiciary to reinforce the limits on the executive power. This finding coincides with recent research showing that voters identified with the losing parties or candidates are willing to oppose or reject the executive's effort at dismantling the separation of power or crucial checks on his authority (Mazepus and Toshkov, 2021; Singer, 2021). If that is the case, it is important to disentangle the presidential effects on the partisan winners from his influence on the opposition identifiers.…”

“…Recent studies demonstrate that voters tolerate the incumbent government's gradual attempts at the subversion of democracy as a consequence of their partisan allegiances or political identification (Cohen et al, 2022;Graham and Svolik, 2020;Singer, 2018). Similarly, other studies reveal that the partisan losers are aware of the stakes involved in the incumbents' attempt to aggrandize executive power and are willing to stand up for democracy (Mazepus and Toshkov, 2021;Singer, 2021). In turn, this study provides evidence that MORENA and the opposition identifiers are sensitive to the incumbent government's antagonizing relationship with electoral authorities and checks and balances.…”

“…Current research shows that voters tend to prioritize their political allegiances and partisanship over their commitment to democracy. In Latin America, for instance, under certain conditions, both citizens and legislative elites in the winning camp agree to the overarching concentration of power in the executive or ignore declines in the quality of democracy (Singer, 2018(Singer, , 2021. Similarly, after Jair Bolsonaro's election in Brazil, the winning voters displayed a renewed enthusiasm for democracy while also agreeing to bolster his clout by dismantling institutional checks on the executive (Cohen et al, 2022).…”

“…Despite their alleged commitment to democracy in principle, some voters are willing to tolerate infringements to essential freedoms, the rule of law, or the integrity of elections when they feel represented by the executive. Provided their preferred politicians are in power, they might tolerate and even endorse reforms that could drive the regime into the path of autocratization (e.g., Cohen et al, 2022; Graham and Svolik, 2020; Mazepus and Toshkov, 2021; Moehler, 2009; Singer, 2018, 2021; Svolik, 2020).…”

Winners’ Consent? Citizen Commitment to Democracy When Illiberal Candidates Win Elections

“…We expect authoritarian victory to lift winners’ democratic spirits. The German AfD's surprising 2017 success boosted its voters’ satisfaction with democracy (Reinl and Schäffer 2021), and Latin American winners remain satisfied with democracy even when it is in rapid decline (Singer, 2021). However, we suspect that authoritarian victories might not raise all democratic commitments equally; illiberal victories could boost winners’ support for both the democratic system and some institutional ruptures.…”