This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies. Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility: Democratic backsliding can be tricky to spot. That's why most citizens rely on researchers, reporters and other third-party oversight bodies to detect and raise awareness of actions that subvert democracy.
While these groups shine a crucial spotlight on government actions, what happens when those directing the light are distrusted? A new study published in Political Science Research & Methods finds that when an oversight body is contested, individuals may doubt the intent behind the criticisms, thus potentially allowing for democratic backsliding. Political scientists Robert Gulotty, an associate professor, and Zhaotian Luo, an assistant professor, at the University of Chicago wanted to explore why it appeared that warnings from oversight bodies did not always spur corrective actions.
To explore the issue, the researchers created a game theory model with three players: citizens, incumbents and oversight bodies. In this model of electoral accountability, a citizen may remove the backsliding incumbent, thus deterring actions that subvert democracy. Then, the team introduced the element of uncertainty.
What counts as backsliding? When citizens hear of a controversy, they must still decide whether there are sufficient grounds to act. The choice becomes more difficult when controversial policy choices or rhetoric are ambiguous—are they subversive and worthy of removal, or nonsubversive and excusable?
"A nonsubversive action is not actually harming the citizen, but at the same time, it is not as distinguishable as the clean action," Luo explained. "It's an action in the gray area." The model emphasizes two ways that backsliding may not be obvious. The first is backsliding by stealth: A power grab may go unnoticed and corruption can go undetected, until it is.
One example is President Richard Nixon's Watergate scandal, which led to his resignation. The second form of nonobvious backsliding is under the cover of an excuse: Citizens must be alerted to suspicious behavior and also believe that accusations are accurate. The latter is a difficult task both because institutional degradation can be hard to evaluate and because individuals may distrust the oversight group issuing the criticism.
Extract — continue reading at the source.
