Democracy Learned or Lost? Formative Regime Experiences and Attitudinal Legacies During Backsliding
This study investigates how formative regime experiences shape democratic support in countries undergoing backsliding. Using social survey data from 1995 to 2023 across four backsliding countries, I draw on theories of attitudinal development to argue that both regime performance and individuals’ relative status within the regime may influence later democratic support. Comparing individuals who came of age before and after backsliding within the same country using GLMM and GAM models, the results show that negative experiences during backsliding among those socialized to democracy during backsliding are associated with significantly higher democratic support. Among those socialized under backsliding regimes, however, the effects are more nuanced: democratic support tends to decline overall, and the role of economic conditions remains uncertain. In additional OLS analyses using a winner–loser framework, findings suggest that being a regime loser during backsliding does not affect democratic support, regardless of socialization period. Taken together, the results indicate that regime type during formative years plays a critical role in shaping democratic attitudes, as socialization under backsliding regimes may dampen rather than strengthen democratic commitment regardless of lived experience. Overall, the study highlights the enduring influence of early regime experiences and civic learning while challenging the assumption that adversity under autocratizing contexts necessarily fosters stronger democratic convictions.
Draft & replication materials available upon request
When the Center Speaks, Who Listens? The Moral Mediation of Voter Attitudes Toward the Radical Right
This study examines how the moralization of policy messaging by mainstream parties influences voter attitudes, particularly in response to radical right parties. Drawing on theories from moral psychology and issue framing, I argue that moralized messages from mainstream elites have a stronger impact on voters than pragmatic ones—especially when voters feel close to the party or hold strong moral convictions about the issue at stake. Building on frameworks of moralized political communication, I integrate the strategic dimension of mainstream party responses—namely, accommodation versus opposition—to support the idea that the combination of message tone (moral vs pragmatic) and party strategy affects voter’s perceptions of party competence and support for compromise with the radical right. To test these hypotheses, I conduct a vignette-based survey experiment in Spain, presenting participants with varied responses from mainstream parties (PSOE and PP) to Vox’s moralized messaging on immigration. As fieldwork is ongoing, preliminary results will be available by July 2025. This study offers a new framework for understanding how the interplay between elite rhetoric and voters’ moral convictions shapes attitudes toward radical challengers.
PAP & draft available upon request