The New Age of Democratic Anxiety

Apr 3

*Photo:* *Doug Mills/The New York Times*

By Lamin Sanneh

The New Age of Democratic Anxiety

The global democratic order faces a new threat. This threat does not resemble a military coup. It is the slow erosion of democracy from within. Concern over the vitality of democracy has moved from academic margins to the forefront of global debate. This is not merely anxiety about a specific electoral outcome or the rise of a single populist leader. Instead, we have entered a distinct era defined by the gradual, often legalistic erosion of democratic institutions from within, a phenomenon scholars term "democratic backsliding." This era of democratic unease, as a growing body of comparative political research attests, is marked by subtle institutional corrosion, global diffusion, and deep entanglement with social and economic upheavals.

The Changing Morphology of Democratic Decline

Contemporary scholarship, particularly the work of Nancy Bermeo and Erica Frantz, highlights a transformation in how democracies decay. The 20th-century archetype of democratic collapse, a military coup or violent overthrow, has become the exception. As Bermeo observes, new forms such as “promissory coups” and “executive aggrandizement” dominate. These processes involve leaders elected through legitimate means who then exploit democratic institutions to subvert their constraints. Frantz similarly notes that today’s autocrats “come in suits rather than uniforms,” gaining power via elections before dismantling democratic checks from within.

Case studies across Central and Eastern Europe illustrate these mechanisms vividly. Sheri Berman and Maria Snegovaya have shown that figures like Viktor Orbán in Hungary have not suspended their constitutions but have rewritten them to entrench executive dominance. In place of outright repression, these leaders co-opt the media, manipulate electoral laws, and marginalize opposition while preserving a veneer of legality. This gradualism makes backsliding especially resistant to mobilized opposition, as each incremental step appears procedurally legitimate even while it erodes liberal norms.

Economic and Cultural Roots of Discontent

The institutional narrative of backsliding cannot be separated from its socioeconomic underpinnings. Political economy scholars have long stressed that democracy’s sustainability depends on a robust and inclusive social contract. Sheri Berman argues that the neoliberal turn of recent decades marked by deregulation, austerity, and globalization has weakened democratic legitimacy by eroding the material basis of social cohesion. While neoliberal reforms expanded global wealth, they also fostered economic dislocation, deindustrialization, and rising inequality that fueled anti-establishment sentiment.

Maria Snegovaya’s comparative analysis of post-Communist Europe deepens this argument, demonstrating how abrupt economic liberalization combined with cultural dislocation and a retrenched welfare state generated populist backlash. In such contexts, citizens alienated by material insecurity and perceived cultural marginalization become receptive to narratives blaming elites or liberal democratic systems for their plight. Andrea Kendall-Taylor and Carisa Nietsche emphasize how illiberal leaders successfully channel these grievances into stable political bases. Through deliberate polarization, they transform politics from a competition over policy into a battle of identities, fostering “affective polarization” a condition where partisan loyalty eclipses democratic norms. This dynamic, especially evident in the United States, corrodes cross-party cooperation and undermines institutional safeguard coalitions. As political discourse becomes tribal, actors become less willing to constrain leaders from their own camp, even when those leaders erode democratic foundations.

The International Dimension: Authoritarian Learning and Diffusion

The new wave of democratic backsliding transcends national boundaries. As Joseph Wright and David J. Samuels explore, democratic regression now involves authoritarian learning and diffusion of illiberal strategies across regimes. Techniques such as judicial capture, manipulation of electoral frameworks, and dominance over the media are observed, refined, and replicated internationally.

External authoritarian powers, notably Russia and China, actively facilitate this process. Their foreign policy and media operations promote disinformation, supply surveillance technologies, and offer financial or diplomatic backing to illiberal actors. Andrea Kendall-Taylor’s research at the Center for a New American Security reveals how such regimes exploit the openness of democratic societies through cyber interference and information warfare designed to amplify extremist voices and polarize electorates.

Again, successful cases of backsliding produce a demonstration effect across regions. The Hungarian model under Orbán provides a template for political aspirants in countries like Brazil, India, or even the United States, encouraging imitation of constitutional manipulation and media consolidation. This cross-border learning solidifies a global network of illiberal influence where anti-democratic actors find legitimacy and support rather than isolation.

A Path to Democratic Resilience

Confronting the multifaceted crisis of democratic erosion necessitates a decisive shift from alarmist rhetoric to a sustained agenda focused on institutional fortification and deepened societal engagement. A strategic framework for building democratic resilience must be advanced, one that is fundamental to protecting the integrity of democratic values and governing principles. This path forward hinges on three interdependent pillars: fortifying intermediate institutions, building cross-cutting coalitions, and renewing the social contract.

Democratic resilience depends not solely on electoral outcomes but on the vitality of robust intermediary institutions, including civil society, independent courts, and a pluralistic media. As scholars like Sheri Berman posit, civic organizations act as the “muscles” of a democratic body, nurturing social trust and buffering citizens from authoritarian overreach. Thus, critical defensive measures against executive encroachment involve the active protection of media independence, the safeguarding of judicial autonomy, and the deliberate strengthening of civic associations.

Empirical research highlights that building cross-cutting coalitions which span ideological and sectoral divides is essential to confronting illiberal movements effectively. When centrists, moderates, business leaders, and civil society activists unite around the foundational goal of democratic preservation rather than narrow partisan victory, they create a powerful constraint on executive overreach. Though, as historical precedent demonstrates, such solidarity is often rare, elites frequently acquiesce to illiberal allies for short-term political or economic advantages. Therefore, reviving democratic norms demands a conscious exercise of elite restraint and a commitment to institutional collaboration across partisan boundaries.

Finally, it is insufficient to treat democratic backsliding as a purely political or institutional problem. No procedural reform can achieve lasting success without addressing the socioeconomic roots of public disaffection. Following the analyses of scholars like Berman and Snegovaya, a durable democracy requires a tangible governmental commitment to reducing inequality, expanding employment security, and ensuring genuine social mobility. Policies that restore economic dignity foster trust in democratic governance and directly diminish the populist appeal of anti-system rhetoric. Without a foundation of social equity, citizens inevitably lose faith in democracy as a viable vehicle for collective advancement.

Conclusion

The new age of democratic anxiety captures a systemic transformation rather than an episodic crisis. Democratic backsliding today thrives through legality rather than violence, fueled by structural inequalities, cultural resentments, and a global exchange of illiberal tactics. It exposes the fragility of liberal norms when decoupled from strong institutions and inclusive prosperity.

This moment demands not nostalgia for a bygone democratic consensus but a renewed commitment to evidence-based reform and civic solidarity. Democracies must rebuild their institutional muscle through an empowered civil society, a depolarized political culture, and a revitalized social contract. If anxiety is democracy’s mirror, reflecting its vulnerabilities, then its value lies in prompting the reckoning and reinvention necessary for democratic survival in the twenty-first century.

References