Why Do People Continue to Support Politicians Who Attack Their Democracies? Expert Q&A
However, this research also highlights certain conditions under which people may begin to give up this commitment. Some people will care less about democracy if they can secure significantly better economic outcomes. In ongoing research with my co-authors, we also show that perceived threats to safety are especially likely to induce democratic trade-offs.
One important finding from these studies is that people are strongly committed to maintaining competitive elections in their countries, but they are more willing to give up civil liberties and constraints on executive power in exchange for preferred economic and security outcomes. Some people are openly sympathetic to a majoritarian vision of democracy that empowers elected leaders to ignore institutional constraints if it means giving the people what they want.
The relatively weaker commitment to these aspects of democracy means that anti-democratic leaders who first focus on undermining political freedoms and expanding their own power, rather than undercutting elections, are less likely to face a backlash.
This well-used playbook may explain why Trump has faced relatively inconsistent pushback from the public, despite brazenly seizing legislative powers and violating civil liberties.
Because Trump won the 2024 election, and because many Americans likely believe that subsequent elections will still meet democratic standards, they may tolerate attacks on civil liberties and checks and balances – especially if it gives them policy outcomes they prefer.
Yet, it is important for Americans who care about democracy to recognize that several of Trump’s actions directly threaten the ability of the United States to hold free and fair elections in the future. The president and his allies have deployed lawsuits and withheld legally obligated funding in an effort to silence critical voices in the media, universities, NGOs, businesses, the legal community, and the Democratic party. Such actions are already muting criticisms of Trump and will make it harder for opposition to compete fairly in upcoming elections.
Vice president J.D. Vance recently accused European leaders of “running in fear” from voters over immigration. What did you make of his intervention?
These comments are a good example of how political leaders who attack democracy often claim to be defending democracy instead. A common strategy is to claim that they are the true representatives of the people and their preferences. As a result, their actions must be democratic, and those who oppose them are blocking the will of the people.
Such claims about immigration should be viewed as a rhetorical cudgel used by the extreme right to beat back accusations of their own anti-democratic stances. Even if their immigration policies are more preferred by the public, this stronger alignment on a single issue should constitute only a small piece of the pie in terms of evaluating their democratic credentials.
And their claims to represent public opinion on immigration stand on shaky ground at best. Attitudes toward immigration are complicated and multifaceted. Though negative views on the issue are clearly prevalent, attitudes have become more favorable over time in several European countries.
Negative voices are often louder but do not necessarily represent the majority. Public opinion also fluctuates. In the United States, Trump was perceived more favorably than Kamala Harris on immigration during the 2024 election. But already by late April, a majority of Americans expressed opposition to Trump’s extreme approach.
How can defenders of democracy meet these challenges?
In countries where anti-democratic parties are on the rise, political leaders and the public should resist normalizing them. The more they are treated as just any other party, the more people may begin to perceive their anti-democratic politics as acceptable.
When anti-democratic parties come to power, it is important for their opponents to push back as forcefully as possible before the party can consolidate an authoritarian regime. As the political system becomes more repressive, people will increasingly hide their views, and it will be harder to mobilize opposition moving forward.
For these efforts to succeed, it is important for the opposition to remain as unified as possible. If the ruling party can use its power to make elections less fair, state institutions more biased, and protests more dangerous, then the opposition will need to make use of every advantage they can to oust the government. A divided opposition will be much more likely to fail.
Scott Williamson is Associate Professor, Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Oxford. This article is published courtesy of The Conversation.
