Democracies rarely collapse with dramatic fanfare; instead, they erode quietly, often with the unwitting consent of their citizens. This silent slide into authoritarianism begins with subtle shifts in power and trust, leaving behind the freedoms that once defined them.

This article will analyze in depth what paves the way for the dismantling of democracies from within. It is essential to note that “democratic erosion” will be one of the leading keywords throughout our investigation. Therefore, it is fundamental to understand democratic erosion as best as we can and how it comes to be. This topic is important to discuss as since 2010, the number of countries turning into autocracies has been higher than that of those living in a democracy (see graphic below). In hard numbers, this means that about 72% of citizens live in autocracies, as per a study by V-Dem released in 2022. Democracies, while not perfect, are known to produce more equitable living standards and access to resources for everyone. Democracies, while not perfect, are known to produce more equitable living standards and access to resources for everyone.

An official definition for “democratic erosion” has not been agreed upon, but in more general terms, it refers to the gradual weakening or dismantling of democratic institutions and norms. Democratic erosion cannot be mistaken as a reformation process; reforming a democracy is anchored in bringing gradual change to an existing system and improving it based on former learnings. Democratic erosion involves incremental changes that erode the substance of democracy. The applied process undermines judicial independence, manipulates electoral systems, and curtails civil liberties and rights.

It is important to understand that democratic erosion is NOT a natural process of a system declining organically. Instead, it is a result of deliberate actions by political or other influential actors. It requires intentionally allocated resources and efforts to undermine democratic norms and institutions. Often, economic inequality, corruption, and societal polarization are ‘fantastic’ facilitators. While the process may appear gradual and incremental, it is usually driven by specific political strategies aimed at consolidating power and reducing checks on authority.

Another essential concept in the same context, often used interchangeably with democratic erosion, is “democratic backsliding.” The first refers to the weakening or degradation of democratic institutions and norms. In contrast, the second refers to the state-led debilitation or elimination of political institutions that sustain existing democracies. Backsliding involves deliberate actions by leaders and other voices in power where a broad platform can be addressed to amass influence and strategically manipulate the existing systems' pillars of belief.

Both concepts describe a decline of democratic quality but focus on slightly different aspects of the process. Democratic erosion can be seen as a broader phenomenon encompassing various factors leading to democratic decline, while democratic backsliding highlights the specific role of state actions in this process. They are complementary rather than sequential, as both can coincide and reinforce each other.

Both concepts mentioned above can be seen in very direct manifestations in the environments in which they occur. Again, it is vital to acknowledge that undermining a democracy requires long-term planning, while the execution is an incremental process. Nancy Bermeo highlights some of the following steps in her 2016 essay “On Democratic Backsliding” and helps us understand what paves the way to dismantle a democracy from within:

• The intentional growth of societal polarization and political discontent

• The degradation and collusion for free and fair elections, including voter manipulation and suppression tactics

• The active repression of opposition parties through arrests or limited freedoms

• The weakening of the “rule of law” (e.g., judicial and bureaucratic restraints on the government)

• The (selective) repression and institutionalization of the media and press

• The exaggerated emphasis on national security (e.g., establishing the over-exaggerated idea of foreign threads)

• The decline of liberal rights of freedom of speech, including the right to assemble

• The suspension or alteration of constitutional rules to consolidate power, including the deployment of amendments that increase executive power and relax the term limits of an executive tenure

• External realignment or interference that supports authoritarian tendencies

While democratic erosion can be observed, it is hard to identify the exact point in time when a democratically elected government becomes authoritarian. American political scientists and professors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt investigated those “barely visible steps.”

Both of them concluded that the undermining of democracies happens at the hands of democratically elected leaders. Levitsky and Ziblatt pointed out four main indicators of democratic backsliding:

1. Rejection of (or weak commitment to) democratic rules

2. Denial of the legitimacy of political opponents

3. Toleration or encouragement of violence

4. Readiness to curtail civil liberties, including those of the media

As discussed in my previous article, “Democracy in Numbers,” the V-Dem index and similar tools can help us get an idea of the quantitative facts but we need additional help for the qualitative ones. The above four indicators provide us with behaviors that can be monitored over the course of time and bring more viable facts to the table. So does the Democratic Erosion Consortium which published a report in June 2024 to take a closer look specifically at how that type of data could be approached and found three key approaches:

• Subjective Indicators
  These rely on expert assessments, such as those used by V-Dem and Freedom House. They cover a broad range of democratic aspects but are potentially biased due to individual judgments.

• Objective Indicators
  These are verifiable measures like electoral results or the number of journalists jailed. They are less biased but might miss key aspects of erosion that are hard to quantify.

• Event-Based Measures
  The Democratic Erosion Consortium's dataset tracks specific events related to democratic backsliding and resilience, offering nuanced insights into the process.

The most interesting one of the above from a citizen perspective is the Event-Based Measure from the DEC’s DEED (Democratic Erosion Event Dataset). It tracks events that are related to democratic erosion and sections them into four categories: events that precede democratic erosion (precursors), events that constitute erosion itself (symptoms), events that counteract democratic erosion (resistance), and lastly, events that undermine existing democracies (destabilizing event) and lead to more authoritarian regimes.

I believe this to be one of the most convincing approaches as it is something we as citizens can experience and potentially find more relatable than the collection of abstract streams of data.

The most important question, though, still remains: How did we even get here? What enables an individual or a few in power to amass so much influence and power that they can convince the many to trust them without facts and empty narratives to choose authoritarianism over a democracy?

The answer may be easier than we think because if a system that is supposed to care for the many neglects them, the many will rebel against it. Let’s take a closer look at the Achilles’ Heel of most democracies.

As mentioned in my article “Democracy from the Perspective of AI”, political apathy and financial inequality are “close friends.” Unsurprisingly, economic frustration and inequality play a significant role in democratic erosion as well. Economic dissatisfaction within a democracy can turn the citizens against the existing system as they believe in finding relief in any system other than the one that has been letting them down for years or even decades. The Pew Research Center found that in countries where the economy is perceived as poor, dissatisfaction with democracy is higher.

Another Achilles’ Heel of democracy that leads to democratic erosion is corruption and the lack of trust in institutions. South Americans have the lowest confidence in institutions worldwide. According to the Corruption Perception Index (CPI), countries like Peru have a score of  31/100 (2024), which signals a fundamental distrust in institutions and, ultimately, in the democracies they represent. Often, citizens in these countries feel that politicians are out of touch with the populous, and frequent corruption scandals confirm this theory.

The last major Achilles’ Heel of democracy is social media and its abuse. While the world of socials has provided us with global personal connections and tailored entertainment, it has also been abused to spread misinformation and manipulate citizens. The deceptive use of social media pushed polarization and manipulated public opinion, weakening democratic processes. The most known example in this context is the Cambridge Analytica Scandal. The company offered a service called “microtargeting” to its clients using user-specific Facebook data to better target political messages to people who had the potential to be influenced. After the scandal was published, Facebook revoked API access in 2024 and entirely shut down access in 2015. The Integrity Institute, among others, has made it their mission to conduct investigative research on the amplification of misinformation and keep citizens informed.

The above three blocks represent the fundamental problems in our societies that have not been addressed efficiently by ruling democracies. Democracy, at its core, is there to serve and listen. If that fundamental task is failed, democratic erosion paves the way for authoritarianism.

While I would like to say yes, there is a point of no return in any process. When it comes to democratic erosion and the identification of that point of no return, we may use Venezuela as an example. Venezuela’s economic crisis and fast-growing economic frustrations due to the oil price dropping accelerated democratic erosion in that once beautiful country. The Democratic Erosion Consortium highlighted that the “creation of the Constituent National Assembly in 2017” was the event that eventually led to a point that can be seen as a no-return moment. The organization was meant to replace the old constitution with a new one but consisted mainly of Maduro’s loyalists, who mandated the “leader” himself to offer final approval.

While the Achilles’ Heel of democracy can be addressed and solutions can be found, the truth is we can only discover them together. This story doesn’t end with one hero; it ends with many heroes standing up for what is right and protecting each other. We need to raise up and build trust in each other, find solutions to invent economic systems that support the many over the few, raise awareness as independent individuals and inform each other using the same tools that have been used against us, and build institutions that are supported by technologies that provide ultimate transparency and accountability to citizens. Addressing the Achilles’ Heel of democracy actively and collectively will create more resilient models of democracy and develop informed and accountable citizens.

Written by @stellaachenbach

I would like to thank Daniele Nanni for his valuable feedback and suggestions, which significantly improved the final version of this article.