Democratic Backsliding

Democracy, which at the end of the twentieth century was presented as the ultimate destination of political history and a sign of the free world’s victory, has faced a reverse phenomenon at the beginning of the twenty-first century: democratic backsliding. This concept refers to the gradual weakening of democratic institutions, values, and procedures, without necessarily leading to the complete collapse of the political system. Unlike previous centuries when authoritarianism returned through coups and open repression, in the current era democracy is eroded from within and through seemingly legal mechanisms.

The 1990s, which began with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the expansion of the third wave of democratization, led many to believe that the world had entered the era of democratic consolidation. Theorists such as Francis Fukuyama, in his famous book The End of History and the Last Man, claimed that liberal democracy was the final form of rational human government. But three decades later, global trends tell a different story: press freedom is declining, electoral authoritarianism is expanding, and elected leaders are engineering legal structures to consolidate their power.

Annual reports from reputable institutions such as Freedom House and the V-Dem Institute show that since 2010, democracy indicators have declined in more than two-thirds of the world’s countries. Nations that were once considered models of democracy are now facing crises of legitimacy and political polarization; from the United States to India, Poland, and Israel.

Yet the fundamental question remains: why is democracy experiencing Democratic Backsliding in a world where it seemed firmly rooted?
Is this phenomenon the result of economic inefficiency and social inequality, or of cultural and media weaknesses?
Has democracy fallen victim to populism and social media, or is it the consequence of a geopolitical shift from West to East?

In this article, we seek to answer these questions. The approach combines theory and case studies: on one hand, offering a conceptual and historical explanation of Democratic Backsliding based on the views of scholars such as Nancy Bermeo, Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, and Larry Diamond; and on the other, examining contemporary cases in the United States, India, Eastern Europe, and the Middle East.

This article also shows that Democratic Backsliding does not necessarily mean a classic return to dictatorship; rather, a form of Electoral Authoritarianism is spreading — systems that appear to have elections and parliaments, but in which the spirit of democracy — transparency, accountability, and the rule of law — has been weakened.

Furthermore, we explore the relationship between Democratic Backsliding and Pragmatic Politics: a shift in which governments, instead of defending universal democratic values, focus solely on their short-term national or security interests. In such a world, even the traditional champions of freedom have turned into guardians of the status quo.

Finally, this article seeks to present a vision of the future global order:
Does democracy still possess the capacity for self-renewal?
Or should we expect a prolonged era of semi-authoritarian and populist-like regimes?

1. The Concept and Indicators of Democratic Backsliding

1–1. The Theoretical Meaning of Democratic Backsliding

The term Democratic Backsliding first entered the political science literature in the 2000s and refers to a situation in which seemingly democratic political systems gradually drift away from democratic standards under the cover of legal mechanisms. As Nancy Bermeo describes it, this phenomenon is a “soft regression,” not a sudden collapse, meaning that coups and military crackdowns are no longer the main drivers, but rather a slow erosion of institutions and values carried out by the elected politicians themselves.

Put simply, in Democratic Backsliding, regimes continue to speak of elections, constitutions, and apparently independent institutions, but in practice, these institutions are hollowed out. The people’s vote is no longer a tool for real change, but instead becomes a mechanism for symbolic legitimacy that sustains power.

Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, in their well-known book How Democracies Die, explain that the decline of today’s democracies does not start with tanks, but with “ballot boxes.” In such systems, leaders use electoral legitimacy to gradually weaken oversight institutions, restrict the media, and make the judiciary obedient.

1–2. Distinguishing Between Decline and Backsliding

An important point that must be clarified in theoretical analysis is the difference between the Decline of Democracy and Democratic Backsliding:

• The Decline of Democracy is a broader concept and can refer to reduced political participation, public distrust, or weakened democratic culture;
  • But Democratic Backsliding is a structural and measurable process in which formal institutions of power move toward centralization, restricting competition, and controlling society.

Thus, not every case of backsliding is necessarily driven by cultural decline, but deep cultural decline can create the grounds for institutional backsliding.

1–3. Indicators for Measuring Democratic Backsliding

International research institutions such as Freedom House, The Economist Intelligence Unit, and the V-Dem Institute have developed sets of indicators for evaluating the state of democracy in countries. Reviewing these indicators shows that Democratic Backsliding usually occurs along five dimensions:

1. A) Weakening of the Independence of Oversight Institutions
   In the first stage, governments use legal tools or targeted appointments to bring institutions such as parliament, the judiciary, and audit offices under control. These institutions may remain in form, but their independence and oversight function disappear.
2. B) Restriction of Media and Civil Society
   Controlling the media through economic pressure, judicial threats, and concentrated ownership is one of the earliest indicators of backsliding. At this stage, governments shape public opinion through official narratives and prevent the spread of criticism.
3. C) Weakening of Electoral Competition
   In regimes experiencing backsliding, elections still take place, but the conditions for free competition are compromised: opposition figures are targeted through legal accusations, their access to media is restricted, and electoral laws are rewritten to favor those in power.
4. D) Undermining Democratic Rules of the Game
   A key indicator is the violation of the unwritten norms of democracy. For example, elected leaders ignore peaceful power-transfer norms, weaken the independence of electoral bodies, or question the legitimacy of vote results.
5. E) Erosion of Public Trust and Political Polarization
   Democracy rests above all on social capital and collective trust. When society is divided into hostile camps through propaganda, conspiracy theories, and partisan conflict, deliberation and compromise vanish, paving the way for authoritarianism.

1–4. The Gradual and Internal Nature of Backsliding

Contrary to past assumptions, Democratic Backsliding is not necessarily imposed from outside. In many countries, the main drivers of this process are domestic political elites — figures who rise from within the system and, relying on popularity or public discontent, rewrite laws in their favor. As Larry Diamond says, “Democracies today are not killed by bullets, but by votes.”

This internal nature makes the process harder to detect; society often does not notice the gradual erosion until the later stages. For this reason, Democratic Backsliding is considered one of the most hidden yet dangerous political trends of the 21st century.

In a theoretical summary, Democratic Backsliding can be described as the gradual decay of the liberal order that emerged after the Cold War, based on transparency, rule of law, and separation of powers. In this process, democracies are not destroyed in a single moment, but hollowed out over years, so that society still believes it lives in a free system while power gradually concentrates.

Therefore, recognizing the warning signs of this process is vital for policymakers and civil society, because only early awareness can prevent a “defective democracy” from turning into a “durable authoritarianism.”

2. The Roots of Democratic Backsliding

2–1. Structural Roots: The Crisis of Inequality and the Erosion of the Middle Class

In modern history, democracy has always been built upon a certain class balance. When the middle class expands, education, participation, and civic oversight grow, and power becomes distributed across different layers of society. But since the beginning of the twenty-first century, this balance has gradually collapsed.

Globalization and digital capitalism, despite generating economic growth, have widened the gap between the wealthy and the lower classes. Reports from the World Bank and the OECD show that in most democratic countries, the middle class’s share of national income has declined, while wealth concentration in the hands of a small minority has intensified.

This structural inequality has planted seeds of discontent and distrust in democratic societies. When the majority of people feel that political institutions exist only to serve wealthy groups and elites, their trust in electoral processes and the rule of law erodes. This is precisely the environment in which anti-elite populism flourishes — leaders who claim to speak for the “real people” but once in power dismantle democratic institutions.

In reality, economic crisis and inequality alone do not destroy democracy; it is the failure of political systems to respond to these crises that corrodes democracy from within. Governments unable to implement structural reforms turn to concentration of power and political control to preserve stability. This is the moment when Democratic Backsliding begins: when security and survival replace justice and participation.

2–2. Political Roots: Populism, Electoral Authoritarianism, and Institutional Erosion

In many countries, the engine of Democratic Backsliding has not been economic crisis, but populist leaders and anti-system parties. Modern populism, by employing simple language, nationalist sentiments, and anti-elite slogans, undermines public trust in traditional parties and presents itself as the embodiment of the “will of the people.”

Examples of this trend can be seen from Hungary and Turkey to the United States and India. Populist leaders, promising to return power to the people, in practice turn democratic institutions into personal instruments of power. They label independent media as “enemies of the people,” weaken the judiciary through political appointments, and remove limits on their authority through constitutional changes.

Outwardly, free elections still take place, but the outcome is predetermined. In such systems, citizens are not deprived of voting — they are deprived of meaningful votes. This phenomenon is what scholars call Electoral Authoritarianism — a hybrid system in which the form of democracy remains, but its substance is erased.

Meanwhile, in Western countries, the weakness of political parties and the collapse of public trust in elites have turned democracy into an arena of emotional and personality-driven contestation. In the absence of strong parties, political individualism has replaced institutionalism, and politics has been reduced to performance and media spectacle.

2–3. Cultural and Media Roots: The Post-Truth Era and the Collapse of Dialogue

One of the less-examined yet highly influential dimensions of Democratic Backsliding is the cultural transformation of the digital age. Democracy, at its core, rests on dialogue, reasoning, and compromise. But algorithm-driven social networks have created an environment opposite to this logic: a world of “echo chambers” where individuals hear only the voices of the like-minded.

In this space, truth gives way to emotion and conspiracy theories. Recent studies show that fake news spreads more widely on social platforms than real news, intensifying political polarization. A society divided into hostile camps becomes incapable of compromise and accommodation — the two pillars of democracy.

Furthermore, the rise of identity politics instead of program-based politics has led voters to make decisions not based on ideas but on ethnic, religious, or cultural affiliations. Ultimately, this destroys civic dialogue.

At the cultural level, Democratic Backsliding may be seen as the consequence of forgetting the values of tolerance and rational discourse. Without these values, society easily slips toward authoritarianism, preferring imposed order over deliberative complexity.

2–4. Geopolitical Roots: The Return of Authoritarian Powers and the Shift in Global Politics

If in the twentieth century the spread of democracy was tied to the global influence of the United States and Western institutions, the twenty-first century has witnessed a shift from liberalism to pragmatism. The United States, once the main advocate of democracy, is now itself engulfed in internal crises of legitimacy and partisan polarization; meanwhile, China and Russia, by offering models of “effective authoritarianism,” have posed both theoretical and practical challenges to liberal democracy.

China, by combining capitalism with political control, has presented a model of “management without freedom” that appeals to many developing states. Russia, leveraging energy, proxy wars, and media operations, has helped weaken the democratic influence of the West in Europe and the Middle East.

In this context, international institutions such as the United Nations and the European Union which once defended democratic values, have weakened. The foreign policies of states have shifted from “promoting democracy” to “managing interests” — what can be called Pure Pragmatism.

This geopolitical shift — especially in the Middle East and Africa — has facilitated the collapse of democratic projects. The fluctuating support of global powers for popular movements has produced distrust and instability, pushing local elites toward authoritarian models.

2–5. The Interconnection of Roots: From Economics to Culture, From Politics to Geopolitics

A key insight for understanding Democratic Backsliding is that none of these roots alone is sufficient. Democratic Backsliding is always the outcome of multiple, simultaneous crises:

Economic crisis erodes public trust.
Political crisis weakens institutions.
Cultural crisis destroys dialogue.
And geopolitical crisis undermines global legitimacy.

Ultimately, democracy dies from “a thousand cuts” — not through a single sudden blow, but through the slow accumulation of weaknesses, inefficiencies, and small concessions to authoritarianism.

In summary, the roots of Democratic Backsliding can be explained at three levels:

• Socio-economic level: inequality and perceptions of injustice erode public trust.
  • Institutional-political level: populism, institutional weakening, and media control serve as its instruments.
  • International level: the rise of authoritarian powers and the retreat of the West from liberal ideals create the global context for this phenomenon.

In the following sections, we will see how these roots manifest in real-world cases — from the United States to the Middle East — demonstrating how Democratic Backsliding has evolved from a theoretical concept into a global reality.

3. Contemporary Cases of Democratic Backsliding

3-1. United States: A Crisis of Legitimacy in the Heart of Liberal Democracy

The United States, which since the nineteenth century has been recognized as a model of rule-based democracy and peaceful transfer of power, has in the past decade itself become one of the clearest examples of institutional Democratic Backsliding.
The 2016 presidential election was a turning point in this trend. The victory of Donald Trump symbolized the rise of right-wing populism within an established democracy. Slogans like “Drain the Swamp” reflected deep distrust toward political elites and institutions.
But the issue was not merely rhetoric; in practice as well, the Trump administration, through verbal attacks on the media, efforts to weaken the judiciary, and disregard for the unwritten rules of democracy, shook the soft pillars of the system.
The peak of this crisis was manifested in the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol — an event that symbolized the collapse of electoral legitimacy in the world’s largest democracy.
Since then, the United States has witnessed unprecedented political polarization, media extremism, and a decline in institutional trust. More than half of Republicans consider the 2020 election results “illegitimate,” meaning that the foundation of democracy — acceptance of the ballot — is eroding.
In theoretical terms, the current situation in the United States can be seen as an example of what Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt describe in How Democracies Die:

“Democracies often collapse not through coups, but through the election of leaders from within the system.”
Today, the United States shows that even entrenched systems are not immune to Democratic Backsliding, because democracy, if not supported by culture and social institutions, becomes hollow from within.

3-2. Poland and Hungary: Electoral Authoritarianism in Europe

In Eastern Europe, which, after the fall of the Eastern Bloc, had become a symbol of liberal-democratic success, a reverse trend began in the 2010s.
In Poland, the conservative Law and Justice Party (PiS), coming to power with the slogan of “restoring national and Christian values,” in practice restricted judicial independence, brought public media under government control, and weakened oversight institutions.
In Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, the populist leader of the Fidesz Party, through constitutional amendments, electoral engineering, and attacks on civil society, has effectively built a quasi-authoritarian system that he himself calls an “illiberal democracy.”
Orbán proudly declares that his country no longer follows the Western model and is closer to states like China and Turkey.
These developments shocked the European Union, as they showed that even membership in a supranational structure founded on democratic values does not guarantee the continuation of democracy.
In fact, Democratic Backsliding in Eastern Europe began from within the electoral system, not from outside it. Here too, the vote became a tool for consolidating power instead of limiting it.
In Nancy Bermeo’s terms, this phenomenon should be called “soft democratic erosion” — gradual decay through legal reforms, not military coups. The new leaders are not traditional dictators but authoritarian legalists.

3-3. India: Religious Nationalism and the Decline of Pluralism

India is the world’s largest electoral democracy, but in recent years, international institutions such as Freedom House and V-Dem no longer classify it as a “full democracy” but as a “flawed democracy” or “electoral authoritarianism.”
The rise of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the leadership of Narendra Modi marked a turning point in this transformation.
By combining Hindu nationalism, economic populism, and identity politics, Modi built a broad popular base — but at the expense of religious pluralism and media freedom.
The repression of the Muslim minority, restrictions on dissent, and control of the digital sphere have shifted India from a secular democracy toward an ideologically colored system.
What is happening in India is an example of “extreme majoritarian democracy” — where the majority sees itself entitled to violate minority rights. This model is democratic in form but alien to the essence of liberal democracy.
Moreover, state-aligned media and social networks under the influence of the ruling party have turned the public sphere into a one-sided propaganda arena.
Thus, India represents a clear case of identity-based electoral authoritarianism: a system that derives legitimacy from the vote yet deprives citizens of the right to dissent.

3-4. Middle East: Sterile Democracies and Modern Authoritarianism

In the Middle East, the concept of democracy never fully took root. Yet the popular uprisings known as the Arab Spring (2011) created hope for a new political order. But within less than a decade, that hope turned into an illusion.
In Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, and Yemen, either the revolutions ended in coups and civil wars, or new governments recreated authoritarianism in modern form.
In Tunisia — once the sole relative success of the Arab Spring — President Kais Saied dissolved parliament in 2021 and rewrote the constitution in the name of the “will of the people.” In Egypt, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, relying on the military and operating under the cover of elections, has established a quasi-civil yet highly authoritarian regime.
In other Arab states, democracy was stifled at birth and replaced by Stable Authoritarianism — regimes that survive on promises of stability, relative welfare, and international support.
Here, Democratic Backsliding did not emerge from within democratic systems but from the failure of democratic transition itself.
The Middle East illustrates that without institutional infrastructure, civil society, and a culture of tolerance, free elections can become a tool for authoritarianism — what neoliberals call “instant democracy”: elections without institutions.

3-5. Comparative Summary

Reviewing these four cases reveals several key points:

The common thread across all these cases is the gradual collapse of trust in institutions and the weakening of the culture of tolerance.
Democracy does not disappear through a single event, but through a thousand small compromises.

4. The Relationship Between Democratic Backsliding and Pragmatic Politics

4-1. From Liberal Idealism to Absolute Pragmatism

Classical liberal democracies, not only within their domestic spheres but also in the international arena, promoted the values of freedom and human rights. From the end of the Cold War until the mid-2000s, the foreign policies of the United States and the European Union were focused on expanding democracy and the rule of law.
However, multiple economic, security, and political crises — along with the rise of authoritarian rivals — led to a shift from idealism to pragmatism. Within this framework, governments are no longer concerned with exporting democratic values; instead, they focus on preserving short-term national interests and domestic stability.
Put simply, contemporary foreign policy is increasingly based on Pragmatic Politics rather than liberal idealism. This change in mindset, in turn, creates conditions for internal Democratic Backsliding: when universal values lose their significance, the incentive to protect domestic democratic institutions declines.

4-2. China and Russia: Models of Successful Authoritarianism

Geopolitical rivalry with non-liberal powers is one of the most significant drivers of Democratic Backsliding. China, with its model of “controlled capitalism,” and Russia with its model of “modern authoritarianism,” have shown that economic development and political stability can be maintained without full press freedom and genuine public participation.
These models are especially appealing to developing countries:
• In India, Turkey, and some African states, populist leaders justify restricting freedoms by citing China’s effectiveness.
• Russia, through information campaigns and military operations, questions the legitimacy of Western democracies — exemplified by its pressure on the European Union and NATO in security matters.
In other words, the relative success of authoritarian models encourages democracies to prioritize short-term interests over principles, even within their own domestic politics.

4-3. Domestic Pragmatism: Decline of Social Capital and Rule of Law

Pragmatic politics manifests both externally and internally. State leaders, to retain power and manage crises, sometimes restrain democratic institutions:
• Restricting the media
• Weakening oversight bodies
• Reforming electoral laws in favor of the ruling party
Although these actions may appear effective in the short term, they reduce social capital and public trust in the long run. A society that loses trust in its leaders no longer has the capacity to resist authoritarianism.

4-4. Pragmatism and Populist Ideology

Populism and pragmatic politics go hand in hand. Populist leaders, through emotional and nationalist slogans, not only distance themselves from democratic ideals but also justify this distancing as a legitimate tool for managing the country.
In the United States, Turkey, and India, this trend is clearly visible: politicians, under the banner of national security, economic stability, or collective identity, impose restrictions on political and civil liberties.
This means democracy is being reduced to a tool for legitimizing pragmatism rather than serving as a mechanism to guarantee freedoms.

4-5. Global Consequence: Redefining Standards of Legitimacy

The shift toward pragmatism has also affected international standards of democracy:
• Western support for democracy is now conditional on interests, not values
• States no longer defend domestic democracy when facing external pressure
• Competition with authoritarian powers pushes governments toward flexibility and short-term compromise rather than liberal principles
As a result, not only does internal Democratic Backsliding accelerate, but the global order moves toward a multipolar structure with fluid norms — one in which liberal democracies no longer serve as the primary model.

In summary, the key point of this section is that political pragmatism and Democratic Backsliding are intertwined. When governments focus solely on short-term interests rather than defending values:
• Institutional legitimacy declines
• The culture of tolerance weakens
• External pressure on democracies becomes more effective
• The domestic environment becomes ripe for authoritarianism
In other words, pragmatic politics functions not as a temporary strategy but as a structural driver of democratic erosion — a process now visible worldwide, from the United States and Europe to Asia and the Middle East.

5. Consequences of Democratic Backsliding

5-1. Decline of Civil Liberties and Human Rights

One of the most immediate and profound consequences of Democratic Backsliding is the reduction of civil liberties and violations of human rights. In this process, governments gradually restrict individual freedoms under the banner of “national security” or “domestic stability.”

• Restriction of media: Censorship of the press and intervention in the online space to prevent criticism of government policies becomes a common practice.
  • Reduction of freedom of assembly: Peaceful demonstrations and public protests are suppressed more aggressively.
  • Minority rights: Ethnic, religious, and gender minorities face increased pressure as independent institutions weaken, leaving them unable to secure their rights.

This trend results in the loss of public trust in governments and the rise of societal mistrust — one of the most significant outcomes of Democratic Backsliding.

5-2. Crisis of Legitimacy and Rise of Radical Movements

Another key consequence of Democratic Backsliding is a crisis of legitimacy. When governments rely on power and coercion to pursue their goals instead of public support and democratic principles, their legitimacy is severely weakened at the societal level. This loss of legitimacy paves the way for the rise of radical movements.

• Populist and extremist movements across the world — including in Europe, Asia, and the Americas — exploit this legitimacy crisis and call for fundamental change in political systems.
  • These movements attract dissatisfied citizens with slogans such as “the people vs. the elites” or “democracy has failed.”

This crisis of legitimacy, especially in Western countries that once seemed to have strong democratic foundations, deepens social and political divides.

5-3. Decline of Social Capital and Public Trust

Democratic Backsliding directly affects social capital — meaning mutual trust among individuals and trust in governmental and political institutions.

• When democratic institutions weaken, people lose trust both in each other and in the state.
  • Decline in civic participation: Reduced public trust leads to lower participation in democratic processes such as elections, peaceful protests, and involvement in civic organizations.

In the long term, this distrust can result in social fragmentation and increased internal tensions, which in turn reduce social and economic stability.

5-4. Weakening of the Economy and Economic Institutions

Democratic erosion does not remain confined to politics — it affects the economy as well.

• Non-transparent decision-making and manipulation of economic institutions negatively impact long-term economic growth and foreign investment.
  • In democracies experiencing Democratic Backsliding, governments often expand state control over the economy to retain power, reducing economic freedoms.
  • As a result, the private sector and economic innovation deteriorate, deepening economic crises.

Rising corruption is another consequence; when oversight weakens, opportunities for corruption and misuse of public resources increase.

5-5. Security Threats and Risk of Civil Conflict

A major effect of Democratic Backsliding is the rise in security threats. As democratic institutions weaken, governments increasingly rely on military and coercive tools to maintain power. This can lead to escalating domestic violence and even civil war.

• Rival political and social groups exploit this internal instability, fueling uprisings and unrest.
  • If governments cannot overcome internal crises, they may become embroiled in prolonged civil conflicts that destroy political, social, and economic structures.

5-6. Global Consequence: Transformation of World Order and New Threats

The shift from democracy toward authoritarianism affects not only domestic systems but also the global order.

• Authoritarian states and democracies experiencing backsliding align more closely with non-liberal models, intensifying international competition.
  • International institutions such as the United Nations and the European Union struggle to resist this trend and lose legitimacy.
  • This leads to the emergence of a multipolar world in which democratic states face serious challenges in confronting authoritarian powers.

Overall, the consequences of Democratic Backsliding extend far beyond political borders, impacting all social, economic, and global dimensions. Declining civil liberties, legitimacy crises, reduced social capital, economic deterioration, and security threats all stem directly from this trend. At the global level, these changes disrupt the existing order and foster the rise of new powers — posing a serious threat to Western and liberal democracies.

Responding to these challenges requires innovative strategies that can restrain emerging powers while preserving democratic principles.

Below is the full, accurate, and detailed translation of your text — no summarization, no deletion of details, and with Democratic Backsliding consistently preserved.

6. Possible Solutions and Responses to Democratic Backsliding

6-1. Strengthening Democratic Institutions and Government Transparency

One of the most important strategies to counter Democratic Backsliding is strengthening democratic institutions. Governmental and civil institutions must be designed in a way that ensures they maintain efficiency while preserving accountability and transparency in their performance.

• Independence of the judiciary: Ensuring the complete independence of the judiciary from politicians and executive bodies is one of the foundations of strengthening democracy. This contributes to public trust in the political system and helps prevent corruption.
  • Strengthening civic oversight: Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and watchdog institutions must play a central role in governmental processes to ensure that governments remain accountable for fulfilling their democratic commitments.
  • Transparency of information: Public access to government information and key decision-making processes increases public trust and reduces corruption. Transparency should be established at all executive and judicial levels.

Strengthening these institutions, especially during crises such as wars or pandemics, can have positive effects in preventing a drift toward authoritarianism.

6-2. Strengthening Civil and Political Participation

One of the main factors behind Democratic Backsliding is the decline in civic participation. To counter this trend, democratic institutions must be structured in a way that actively engages citizens in decision-making processes.

• Civic education: Educating citizens about their rights and effective ways to participate in political processes is the first step in strengthening democracy.
  • Protection of minority rights: Democracies that respect minority rights not only protect their own societies but also prevent the formation of social and political divides.
  • Promotion of critical thinking: In societies where media and social networks are influenced by government power, promoting critical thinking and media literacy is essential to prevent misinformation and the distortion of facts.

Greater public participation in social and political matters can reduce public despair and increase hope in the democratic system.

6-3. Responding to Economic and Social Crises

One of the main reasons behind tendencies toward authoritarianism and Democratic Backsliding is economic and social crises. To prevent this trend, governments must provide effective responses to these crises that lead to improved social and economic conditions.

• Sustainable economic reforms: Instead of relying on short-term solutions, governments must pursue sustainable structural reforms. These reforms may include strengthening the private sector, reducing corruption, creating transparency in resource distribution, and increasing access to education and healthcare.
  • Reducing social inequality: A key factor leading to public dissatisfaction is increasing economic and social inequality. Governments must prioritize anti-inequality policies and prevent the widening of class divides.
  • Support for vulnerable groups: Social programs supporting vulnerable groups such as minorities, women, and youth can increase public trust in the democratic system and prevent the spread of extremism.

If governments can successfully address economic and social crises, they can rebuild public trust and reduce social pressures.

6-4. International Cooperation and Protection of Global Democracy

At the global level, international cooperation is essential for strengthening democracy. Democratic countries must adopt coordinated and proactive policies to support transitioning democracies and counter authoritarianism.

• Support for emerging democracies: Supporting countries in transition toward democracy should be a priority of democratic states’ foreign policy. This support may include economic assistance, educational programs, and advisory support.
  • Developing international democratic institutions: Organizations such as the United Nations and the European Union must adopt stronger measures to monitor elections and democratic processes in member states.
  • Creating global democratic models: Developing and promoting global democratic models jointly accepted by democratic nations can form a unified strategy for confronting Democratic Backsliding.

International organizations must also respond to human rights violations and political suppression in various countries and demand that governments and institutions adhere to their democratic commitments.

6-5. Building Social and Cultural Solidarity

To prevent Democratic Backsliding, building social and cultural solidarity is essential. Societies that foster cultural exchange, respect diversity, and encourage open dialogue are better equipped to confront threats to democracy.

• Strengthening a diversity-based national identity: Promoting a national identity that embraces cultural and religious diversity can strengthen social cohesion and prevent the spread of social tensions.
  • Intercultural dialogue: Establishing intercultural and interfaith dialogue programs can help reduce social divides and increase mutual understanding.

Strong social solidarity can act as a shield against internal and external threats and prevent the dominance of authoritarian tendencies.

Ultimately, combating Democratic Backsliding requires a comprehensive and multidimensional approach in which strengthening democratic institutions, addressing social and economic crises, international cooperation, and fostering social solidarity all play central roles.

If these measures are implemented effectively, they can prevent the collapse of democratic institutions and facilitate the process of democratic revival. Strengthening democracy at both global and domestic levels requires collective will, and most importantly, active and informed citizen participation in democratic processes.

Conclusion

Democratic Backsliding, as a complex and multifaceted phenomenon, poses serious challenges for democratic countries and the world. This backsliding can intensify due to internal factors such as political corruption, declining civic participation, and economic and social crises, as well as external threats such as rising authoritarian powers and the spread of extremism.

However, strengthening democratic institutions, responding to crises, and fostering international cooperation are among the strategies that can prevent Democratic Backsliding and facilitate the path toward democratic restoration. Additionally, active citizen participation and increased transparency in political systems can help rebuild public trust and advance democracy.

The most important lesson from this article is the necessity of social and cultural solidarity in democratic societies. Democracy depends not only on governmental institutions but also on a culture of participation, dialogue, and respect for diversity to withstand various crises and threats.

Ultimately, the future of democracy depends on the collective will of governments, institutions, and citizens. Only through shared commitment and cooperation can we prevent Democratic Backsliding and protect democracy against multiple threats. Today’s world urgently requires joint efforts to preserve existing democracies and help emerging democracies flourish.