CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 565Political Theory and DemocracyPolitical Conflict and GovernanceElectoral Systems and Political Participation

Polarization versus Democracy

Svolik, Milan W.·2019·Journal of Democracy
DOI 10.1353/jod.2019.0039
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

When can we realistically expect ordinary people to check the authoritarian ambitions of elected politicians? An answer to this question is key to understanding the most prominent development in the dynamic of democratic survival since the end of the Cold War: the subversion of democracy by elected incumbents and its emergence as the most common form of democratic breakdown. This article proposes an explanation according to which political polarization undermines the public's ability to serve as a democratic check: In polarized electorates, voters are willing to trade off democratic principles for partisan interests. The article presents evidence that supports this claim; raises questions about the real-world relevance of conventional measures of support for democracy; and highlights the importance of understanding the role that ordinary people play in democratic backsliding.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1353/jod.2019.0039

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Svolik (2019) finds that the share of democratic breakdowns driven by executive takeovers rather than military coups increased from approximately 50% in the 1970s to approximately 90% more recently.

    “For example, Svolik (2019) finds that the share of democratic breakdowns driven by executive takeovers rather than military coups increased from approximately 50% in the 1970s to approximately 90% more recently.”

    From Measuring Democratic Backsliding (2024) · cites this paper as Svolik (2019)

  • The CHP strategy may not have worked in Istanbul elections without the support of a strong grassroots organization that mobilized voters and defended ballot boxes.

    “A critical ingredient of opposition innovation also pertained to party organization; arguably, the strategy may not have worked in Istanbul elections without the support of a strong grassroots organization built up in recent years that successfully mobilized and communicated with voters and defended ballot boxes, despite Erdoğan's attempts to reverse the election results.”

    From Pernicious polarization, autocratization and opposition strategies (2021) · cites this paper as [47]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Svolik, M. W.
Corresponding author
Svolik, Milan W.
ORCID
Svolik, Milan W.
Venue
Journal of Democracy
Publisher
Project MUSE
Published
2019
Volume
30
Issue
3
Pages
20-32
ISSN
  • 1045-5736 (ISSN-L)
  • 1086-3214
DOI
10.1353/jod.2019.0039
OpenAlex
W2962254002
Semantic Scholar
cc53a3e10f214a5fcdc0aabcb515768fa73bbf6f
Cited by
565
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 71 · 2025: 102 · 2024: 117 · 2023: 110 · 2022: 59 · 2021: 64 · 2020: 39 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1
FWCI
171.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of democracy (publishedVersion)
  • Project Muse (Johns Hopkins University) (submittedVersion)
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
political polarization, democratic backsliding, democratic survival, democratic breakdown, incumbent firms, support for democracy

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