Defending democracy: investigating the efficacy of elite democratic defence in a competitive information environment

When democracies are challenged by democratically elected incumbents, citizens are faced with two competing claims: incumbent justifications for the autocratic proposal versus democratic defenders’ claims that they harm democracy. While citizen involvement in the defence of democracy is paramount, up until now it is unclear under which circumstances citizens give more credence to which claim. This article argues citizens judge the trade-off between incumbent and democratic defender based on the ambiguity surrounding the autocratic action and the credibility of the defenders. A factorial survey experiment in the Netherlands, France, and Germany (n = 9,159) provides strong evidence for this argument. Citizen evaluations of autocratic actions depend largely on the action’s ambiguity and the credibility of democratic defenders. The findings provide avenues for democratic defenders, but also warn of pitfalls and potential backlash against democratic defence.

West European Politics, Online First, 1-34