Periodic Reporting for period 2 - DANGER (Democracy, Anger & Elite Responses)
Reporting period: 2022-08-01 to 2024-01-31
Are established democracies in Europe at risk of breaking down? What is the role of political violence in these dynamics? And finally, what can political elites do to confront radical, anti-democratic forces? These questions are at the core of the “Democracy, Anger, and Elite Responses” (DANGER) project.
“Since around 2010, we have witnessed three troubling trends in European democracies”, says Nils-Christian Bormann, Professor of International Political Studies at Witten/Herdecke University and Principal Investigator of the DANGER project. “First, the rise of anti-democratic parties and movements in European democracies; second, an increase in political violence including the murder of members of parliaments (Mps) and journalists, as well as violence against ethnic minorities and riots against state institutions; and third, challenges to democratic norms and institutions in some European countries.”
European citizens and policy-makers face two important questions: How can you defend democracy? And how concerned should we be about political violence in bringing down democracy? Due to the lack of democratic crises in European democracies since the end of World War II, we are learning from democratic crises in Africa, Asia, or Latin America. “But are these the right comparison cases?”, asks Bormann.
The DANGER project investigates European democracies in the interwar period, many of which transitioned into dictatorships while experiencing intense episodes of political violence. The ultimate goal is to draw systematic lessons from cases that faced similar challenges to contemporary European democracies, including war, major economic crises, and wide-spread exclusive nationalism.
Specifically, the DANGER team is collecting two major data sets, one on political violence in European interwar democracies, and another on elite reactions to these events. Using quantitative and qualitative methods from political science, computer science, and history, the project will project the lessons from the past to contemporary European democracies.
“Since around 2010, we have witnessed three troubling trends in European democracies”, says Nils-Christian Bormann, Professor of International Political Studies at Witten/Herdecke University and Principal Investigator of the DANGER project. “First, the rise of anti-democratic parties and movements in European democracies; second, an increase in political violence including the murder of members of parliaments (Mps) and journalists, as well as violence against ethnic minorities and riots against state institutions; and third, challenges to democratic norms and institutions in some European countries.”
European citizens and policy-makers face two important questions: How can you defend democracy? And how concerned should we be about political violence in bringing down democracy? Due to the lack of democratic crises in European democracies since the end of World War II, we are learning from democratic crises in Africa, Asia, or Latin America. “But are these the right comparison cases?”, asks Bormann.
The DANGER project investigates European democracies in the interwar period, many of which transitioned into dictatorships while experiencing intense episodes of political violence. The ultimate goal is to draw systematic lessons from cases that faced similar challenges to contemporary European democracies, including war, major economic crises, and wide-spread exclusive nationalism.
Specifically, the DANGER team is collecting two major data sets, one on political violence in European interwar democracies, and another on elite reactions to these events. Using quantitative and qualitative methods from political science, computer science, and history, the project will project the lessons from the past to contemporary European democracies.
In the first half of the project’s duration, the DANGER team achieved multiple goals. Most importantly, we completed collecting the Actions by Elites and Leaders (ABEL) data set, which is set to be released to the public soon. It provides information on the strength and ideology of political parties, their links to violent organizations, and their coalitions with parties who either support or oppose democracy as well as actions by governments to weaken democratic norms and institutions. It is the most complete and detailed data set on political parties and elites in Europe’s interwar period. The ABEL data encompasses electoral and parliamentary information on ten more countries than any alternative. Its variables on leader actions are unique.
Using the ABEL data, we are currently investigating the role of polarization on the weakening of democratic norms and institutions in European democracies across the interwar period. In line with existing work on contemporary democracies, we find that high levels of polarization weakened democratic quality in the interwar period. Going beyond the existing scientific consensus, we find that very low levels of polarization are similarly threatening to democracy. Moreover, both of these effects become stronger when few political parties oppose each other. In contrast, the threat of polarization declines, as more parties compete for voter support.
Moreover, we have been analyzing the ABEL data to answer two other questions. First, which types of governments did political leaders form in European interwar democracies? Understanding whether governments include or exclude anti-democratic parties, and how they fared afterwards is an important question faced by contemporary politicians. Initial analyses suggest that the types of governments formed in the interwar period do not differ much from contemporary governments. As 12 out of 25 interwar democracies failed, that is a cause for concern.
The other questions asks whether increasing support for left-wing or ethnic minority parties leads to the curtailment of democratic norms and institutions. Existing research by historians and political scientists links the growth of communist parties to the rise of fascism, and democratic failures to a perceived threat by fascists. Our study is the first to investigate whether increasing support for ethnic minority parties leads to similar threats to democratic survival, and initial results provide evidence in favor of the hypothesis.
Using the ABEL data, we are currently investigating the role of polarization on the weakening of democratic norms and institutions in European democracies across the interwar period. In line with existing work on contemporary democracies, we find that high levels of polarization weakened democratic quality in the interwar period. Going beyond the existing scientific consensus, we find that very low levels of polarization are similarly threatening to democracy. Moreover, both of these effects become stronger when few political parties oppose each other. In contrast, the threat of polarization declines, as more parties compete for voter support.
Moreover, we have been analyzing the ABEL data to answer two other questions. First, which types of governments did political leaders form in European interwar democracies? Understanding whether governments include or exclude anti-democratic parties, and how they fared afterwards is an important question faced by contemporary politicians. Initial analyses suggest that the types of governments formed in the interwar period do not differ much from contemporary governments. As 12 out of 25 interwar democracies failed, that is a cause for concern.
The other questions asks whether increasing support for left-wing or ethnic minority parties leads to the curtailment of democratic norms and institutions. Existing research by historians and political scientists links the growth of communist parties to the rise of fascism, and democratic failures to a perceived threat by fascists. Our study is the first to investigate whether increasing support for ethnic minority parties leads to similar threats to democratic survival, and initial results provide evidence in favor of the hypothesis.
In addition to the ABEL data, we are collecting the Citizen Anger Interwar News (CAIN) database. It will include event-level information on political violence in 25 European democracies. Specifically, we will provide information on the actors involved in violence, the location and time of the event, as well as the number of casualties. We aim to use this data to understand how violence interacts with voter support for anti-democratic parties at the micro-level and democratic quality and survival at the macro-level. After trialing data collection, we are currently collecting data on five countries (Germany, Ireland, Italy, the United Kingdom, and Yugoslavia). We will expand other democracies in 2024.
Combining the ABEL and CAIN data, we will explore if political violence strengthens anti-democratic actors, what pro-democracy elites can do to counter it, and how the interactions between democrats and their enemies affect democratic quality and survival. We will combine comparative analyses across as many democracies as possible with detailed insights from country studies.
Finally, two PhD projects are exploring other threats to democracy. One investigates the relationship between ethnic diversity and nationalism on support for anti-democratic parties and democratic stability. Focusing on the micro-dynamics of violence and voter behavior in a paired comparison of interwar Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, the project will shed new light on how democracy works, or doesn’t, in ethnically diverse and divided societies. Another PhD project investigates the macro-dynamics of how (anti-democratic) ideology spreads across and within borders. By bringing ideology into the study of authoritarian and democratic politics, the project aims to make an important contribution in understanding how contemporary ideologies that pose a threat to democracies might be countered and possibly contained.
Combining the ABEL and CAIN data, we will explore if political violence strengthens anti-democratic actors, what pro-democracy elites can do to counter it, and how the interactions between democrats and their enemies affect democratic quality and survival. We will combine comparative analyses across as many democracies as possible with detailed insights from country studies.
Finally, two PhD projects are exploring other threats to democracy. One investigates the relationship between ethnic diversity and nationalism on support for anti-democratic parties and democratic stability. Focusing on the micro-dynamics of violence and voter behavior in a paired comparison of interwar Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, the project will shed new light on how democracy works, or doesn’t, in ethnically diverse and divided societies. Another PhD project investigates the macro-dynamics of how (anti-democratic) ideology spreads across and within borders. By bringing ideology into the study of authoritarian and democratic politics, the project aims to make an important contribution in understanding how contemporary ideologies that pose a threat to democracies might be countered and possibly contained.