Who's to blame for democratic backsliding: populist, presidents or dominant executives?
Who's to blame for democratic backsliding: populist, presidents or dominant executives?
复制标题
谁应该为民主倒退负责：民粹主义者、总统还是占主导地位的高管？
DOI：
10.1080/13510347.2023.2190582
复制
发表时间：
2023
期刊：
影响因子：
3.2
通讯作者：
Marisa Kellam and Antonio Benasaglio Berlucchi
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Marisa Kellam and Antonio Benasaglio Berlucchi
当在压倒性选举中当选的民粹主义总统手中出现倒退，产生了几乎没有机构制约的占主导地位的高管和软弱的反对党时，我们应该将民主的衰落归咎于他们的民粹主义意识形态、他们的总统权力，还是他们的政党在立法机构中的主导地位？关于民主倒退的文献大多就倒退的后果达成了共识，并共同揭示了民主倒退在全球范围内日益普遍。然而，学者们还没有就这一现象的因果解释达成一致。我们评估了自1970年以来，在世界所有地区任职的所有民选高管中，最近以意识形态为中心的民主倒退论点相对于之前的体制论点的证据。我们使用新获得的民粹主义领导人和政党的数据集来评估民粹主义者在政府中的危险，我们使用匹配的方法来区分民粹主义高管、总统作为首席执行官和占主导地位的高管对自由民主衰落程度的影响。
When backsliding occurs at the hands of populist presidents who were elected in landslide elections, producing dominant executives with few institutional checks and weak opposition parties, should we blame the decline in democracy on their populist ideology, their presidential powers, or their parties’ dominance in the legislature? The literature on democratic backsliding has mostly arrived at a consensus on what backsliding entails and collectively has revealed its growing prevalence around the globe. Yet, scholars have not settled on causal explanations for this phenomenon. We assess the evidence for recent ideology-centered arguments for democratic backsliding relative to previous institutional arguments among all democratically elected executives serving in all regions of the world since 1970. We use newly available datasets on populist leaders and parties to evaluate the danger of populists in government, and we employ matching methods to distinguish the effects of populist executives, presidents as chief executives, and dominant executives on the extent of decline in liberal democracy.