Emerging literature shows that citizens in established democracies do not unconditionally support central democratic principles when asked to weigh them against co-partisanship or favored policy positions. However, these studies are conducted in highly polarized contexts, and it remains unclear whether the underlying mechanisms also operate in other contexts. Furthermore, it is unclear whether 'critical citizens' or satisfied democrats are more eager to support democratic norms. We examine these questions with evidence from a conjoint experiment conducted in Finland (n=1030), an established democracy with high levels of democratic satisfaction and a consensual political culture. We examine how transgressions of two paramount democratic norms, the legitimacy of political opposition and the independence of the judiciary, affect leader favorability. We also explore how these differ across ideological and policy congruence, and across levels of political disaffection. Our results show that segments of the Finnish population are willing to condone authoritarian behavior if this brings them political benefits. Furthermore, satisfied citizens are more likely to sanction such behavior. These findings contribute to the literature on democratic support and political behavior in established democracies by showing that dangers of democratic deconsolidation appear even when there are few visible signs of political polarization among citizens.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Saikkonen et al. (2021) studied this question.