Dodging the autocratic bullet: enlisting behavioural science to arrest democratic backsliding
Dodging the autocratic bullet: enlisting behavioural science to arrest democratic backsliding (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2024.43 ) was written by Christoph M. Abels, Kiia Jasmin Alexandra Huttunen, Ralph Hertwig, and Stephan Lewandowsky in 2024. It was published in Behavioural Public Policy.
The authors study so-called 'near misses'; states that experienced democratic backsliding but saw a reversal at the 'last minute'. Specifically, states that experienced executive branches of government amassing power and diminishing institutions but saw an auto-coup narrowly thwarted.
Human factors research has established methods for accidents vs. near accidents. The authors specifically apply the "drift-to-danger model of sociotechnical accidents developed by Rasmussen (1997)". In brief:
- A system is established with goals and constraints, e.g. a factory has N staff and targets Y output and has various workplace safety policies.
- Individuals form strategies for how to meet goals and constraints balancing their effort.
- As circumstances change, so too do individuals' strategies; certain changes can cause strategies to drift towards danger, e.g neglect of safety policies.
- A well functioning system requires defenses in depth--systems as independent layers that will react to transgressions and provide a negative feedback signal.
- A highly complex system (i.e. many layers) also requires a coordinating agent that is familiar with all layers and can identify accumulating transgressions.
- A complex system fails when too many layers have transgressed and or failed to provide negative feedback.
Authors adopt the theory, terminology, and classifications of the V-Dem project: "we conceptualize democracy in terms of five core components: electoral, liberal, participatory, deliberative and egalitarian".
Authors adopt the 'near miss' classification from Ginsburg and Huq: "a country 1) experiences a deterioration in the quality of initially well-functioning democratic institutions, without fully sliding into authoritarianism, but then, 2) within a time frame of a few years, at least partially recovers its high-quality democracy".
To quickly summarize why the authors argue the near misses fit the Rasmussen model:
- modern democracies are designed as independent layers
- backsliding can have visible signs for a long period; the enduring problem is lack of negative feedback
- once a threshold is reached, very unlikely the system can be salvaged
Authors are largely interested in norms and norm violations by political elites. "The liberal, participatory and deliberative components of the V-Dem taxonomy appear especially vulnerable to erosion because--relative to the electoral and egalitarian components--they rely more on norm commitment than on legislation or regulation."
Case studies
- Finland: The Lapua Movement emerged in 1930 after a violent counter-demonstration (counter to a communist youth parade) in Lapua. Conservative government was sympathetic. Ocurring in 1932, the Mantsala incident was a mass demonstration demanding policy changes. Military declined to participate and the movement became politically poisonous. Lawfulness front countered the movement and won 1937 elections, propping up a coalition government.
- the UK: The British Union of Fascists (BUF) was established in 1930s. It had a paramilitary wing, the Blackshirts. A violent rally in Olympia in 1934 caused it to lose public support.
- Spain: In 1981, the military seized Parliament and demanded the appointment of a general as PM. Juan Carlos I denounced the attempted coup, and rally of more than 1 million people amassed in Madrid to protest.
- Colombia: Alvaro Uribe pushed a constitutional amendment in 2004 to remove the term limits that would otherwise deny him a third term in 2010. The Constitutional Court rejected this amendment.
- Sri Lanka: Mahinda Rajapaksa's election in 2005 involved violent voter suppression. He led a brutal suppression of the Tamil Tigers. He pushed a constitutional amendment in 2010 to remove the term limits that would otherwise deny him a third term. He called snap elections in 2015 and unexpectedly Maithripala Sirisena, one of his ministers, ran against him successfully. He attempted to invalidate the election results and declared a state of emergency, but the judiciary and military did not support these.
- South Korea: Lee Myung-bak ordered mass surveilance in 2010 and ordered the National Intelligence Service to spread misinformation leading into the 2012 elections. Park Geun-hye won that election and her aide, lacking an official governmental position, solicited bribes for her. This was revealed in 2016 leading to her impeachment. In 2018, she was found guilty on criminal charges of corruption.
- Chile: Salvador Allende was elected by a small plurality in 1970. Opposition parties attempted to delegitimize his election, leading up to passing a resolution in August 1973 accusing his government of constitutional violations..By November 1972, Allende was inviting military officers to serve in government, which was publicly popular but escalated political divisions in the legislature. In September 1973, Augusto Pinochet seized power in a military coup.
From these case studies, the authors selected these risk factors:
- Right wing populism is contrary to liberal democracy
- Voter disenfranchisement efforts
- Misinformation efforts, especially as it affected cynicism in the population, not necessarily as it deceives
- Conspiracy theories
- Polarization as it leads partisans to view political opponents as threats to national security
Lastly, the authors suggest that there is a link between experience (or lack there of) with autocracy and backsliding.
Reading notes
Then authors describe a 'hot stove effect', quoting Denrell 2007. I guess sociologists felt the need to re-invent moral hazard???