Resilience of democracies: responses to illiberal and authoritarian challenges
Open accessAbstract
Illiberalism and authoritarianism have become major threats to democracy across the world. In response to this development, research on the causes and processes of democratic declines has blossomed. Much less scholarly attention has been devoted to the issue of democratic resilience. Why are some democracies more resilient than others to the current trend of autocratization? What role do institutions, actors and structural factors play in this regard? What options do democratic actors have to address illiberal and authoritarian challenges? This Special Issue addresses these questions. The present introduction sets the stage by developing a new concept of democratic resilience as the ability of a democratic system, its institutions, political actors, and citizens to prevent or react to external and internal challenges, stresses, and assaults. We sketch three potential reactions of democratic regimes: to withstand without changes, to adapt through internal changes, and to recover without losing the democratic character of its regime and its constitutive core institutions, organizations, and processes. The more democracies are resilient on all four levels of the political system (political community, institutions, actors, citizens) the less vulnerable they turn out to be in the present and future.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Constitutional and legal frameworks may persist symbolically while losing their substantive capacity to restrain power.
“Their study highlights how constitutional and legal frameworks may persist symbolically while losing their substantive capacity to restrain power.”
From The Role of Law in Strengthening Democratic Governance (2025) · cites this paper as Merkel and Lührmann (2021)
The available passages from our copy contain a title, section headings, and links, but no substantive discussion of constitutional or legal frameworks. Searches for symbolic persistence and for institutions losing their ability to check power returned no passage that could verify the claim. (LLM, conf=0.74)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredMany democracies experience gradual institutional decay when legal safeguards exist formally but are weakened in practice through executive interference and selective enforcement.
“Merkel and Lührmann (2021) demonstrate that many democracies experience gradual institutional decay when legal safeguards exist formally but are weakened in practice through executive interference and selective enforcement.”
From The Role of Law in Strengthening Democratic Governance (2025) · cites this paper as Merkel and Lührmann (2021)
The available indexed passages contain the title, links, and a table of contents, but no substantive section text or page-numbered passage. Searches for gradual institutional decay, formal safeguards, executive interference, and selective enforcement returned no passage that addresses the claim, so our copy cannot verify it. (LLM, conf=0.72)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
A third wave of autocratization is here: what is new about it?
Lührmann, A., & Lindberg, S. I. (2019) · Democratization · doi:10.1080/13510347.2019.1582029 · Cited by 1,528 · see citing works
Self-citationPernicious polarization, autocratization and opposition strategies
Somer, M., McCoy, J. L., & Luke, R. E. (2021) · Democratization · doi:10.1080/13510347.2020.1865316 · Cited by 220 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Pathways of Democratic Backsliding, Resistance, and (Partial) Recoveries
Riedl, R. B., McCoy, J., Roberts, K., & Somer, M. (2024) · The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science · doi:10.1177/00027162251319909 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
Ördén, H., Isaksson, E., & Smedberg, M. (2026) · European Security · doi:10.1080/09662839.2026.2615956 · Cited by 2
The Role of Law in Strengthening Democratic Governance
Rifa’i, I. J., & Abdullah, A. (2025) · Journal of Law and Social Politics · doi:10.46799/jlsp.v3i1.62
- Authors
- Merkel, W., & Lührmann, A.
- Affiliations
- WZB Berlin Social Science Center (DE)
- University of Gothenburg (SE)
- Corresponding author
- Merkel, Wolfgang
- Venue
- Democratization
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2021-07-04
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 869-884
- ISSN
- 1351-0347 (ISSN-L)
- 1743-890X
- OpenAlex
- W3185856207
- Cited by
- 204
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 48 · 2025: 61 · 2024: 44 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 2
- FWCI
- 78.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Democratization (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Econstor (Econstor) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Social Science Open Access Repository (GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Funders
- Open Society Initiative for Europe (OR2018-45627)
- Vetenskapsrådet (2018-01614)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Theory and Democracy
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Political Conflict and Governance
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Keywords
- democratic resilience, illiberalism, authoritarianism, autocratization, democratic backsliding, democratic institutions, political actors, democratic vulnerability
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review