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

Abstract

Democracy is in decline worldwide, primarily because voters elect candidates harboring antidemocratic aspirations. Scholars argue that elections animate the democratic spirits of winners and deflate those of losers, but what about contests ending in the victory of authoritarian candidates? To answer this question, we consider the dynamics of commitment to democracy in Brazil's 2018 presidential campaign. Drawing on AmericasBarometer data and an original five‐wave panel survey, we confirm that Jair Bolsonaro's campaign attracted skeptics of democracy. Although his election and inauguration boosted his supporters’ allegiance to the political system, it also exacerbated their tolerance for institutional ruptures such as executive‐led coups. Meanwhile, election losers retained their democratic commitments. As a result, the authoritarian victory narrowed preexisting winner–loser gaps in support for the political system, but widened gaps in tolerance for certain antidemocratic maneuvers. Thus, authoritarian electoral victories can foster short‐term satisfaction among democracy's critics while abetting future instability.

Do Two-Party Systems Hamper Defection from Undemocratic Candidates?

“…The argument is different from yet consistent with the classical accounts described above as well as extant explanations of why voters support undemocratic political leaders (e.g., Graham and Svolik 2020;Frederiksen 2022aFrederiksen , 2022bCarey et al 2020;Touchton et al 2020;Bartels 2020;Albertus and Grossman 2021;Ahlquist et al 2018;Svolik 2020;Luo and Przeworski 2019;Braley et al 2021;Carey et al 2019;Simonovits et al 2022;Cohen et al 2022). For example, Linz (1978, 72) observed that defection in presidential systems-which should not be equated but surely overlaps with two-party systems-is costly due to a 'winner-takes-all'-logic.…”

More Parties, More Punishment of Undemocratic Candidates? Experiments on England's Ambiguous Party System

“…Empirically, it shows us that more parties are not better for democratic stability, when it comes to opposition to undemocratic politicians. The paper also contributes to the burgeoning literature explaining why voters support undemocratic political leaders (e.g., Graham and Svolik 2020;Frederiksen 2022a;Carey et al 2020;Touchton et al 2020;Bartels 2020;Albertus and Grossman 2021;Ahlquist et al 2018;Braley et al 2021;Simonovits et al 2022;Cohen et al 2022;Krishnarajan 2022). Whereas prior studies have typically focused on the characteristics of the options within the system-such as to which extent they are polarized-this paper sheds light on what happens when the very number of options in the party system increases or decreases.…”

“…The argument relates to the classical accounts on party systems and democratic stability (Sartori 1976;Dahl 1971;Lipset 1983;Linz 1978;Lijphart 1999;Anderson and Guillory 1997) as well as extant explanations of why voters support undemocratic political leaders (e.g., Graham and Svolik 2020;Frederiksen 2022aFrederiksen , 2022bCarey et al 2020;Touchton et al 2020;Bartels 2020;Albertus and Grossman 2021;Ahlquist et al 2018;Svolik 2020;Luo and Przeworski 2019;Braley et al 2021;Carey et al 2019;Simonovits et al 2022;Cohen et al 2022). Although not touching upon support for undemocratic politicians, Linz (1978, 72) observed that defection in presidential systems-which should not be equated but surely overlaps with two-party systems-is generally costly due to a 'winner-takes-all'-logic.…”

Citizens as a Democratic Safeguard? The Sequence of Sanctioning Elite Attacks on Democracy

“…These results chime with Mazepus and Toshkov (2022), who found that citizens who voted for a losing party in the previous elections are more supportive of checks and balances than those who supported a winning party. Similarly, evidence from Brazil indicates that opposition supporters retain their support for democratic governance even at times of democratic backsliding (Cohen et al 2021).…”