In the past two decades, a slide from democracy toward autocracy has been a consistent global theme. Across various countries—some young and fragile, others long considered unassailable—democracies appear to be folding in on themselves. The weight of history, however, has often taught citizens to expect that parliaments, courts, and other safeguards will hold firm. Yet, as the past is starting to show, they do not always stand up to leaders who wield the slow, methodical tools of backsliding.

Now a new study by Cornell University—a special issue of The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, “Democratic Backsliding: How It Happens and How It Can Be Countered”—breaks down how democracy is breaking down and what can be done to fix it.

“Political scientists are very focused on democratic backsliding right now as an empirical phenomenon,” said corresponding author Rachel Beatty Riedl. “There were two empirical ‘rules’ we had in democracy studies: that advanced industrial democracies do not break down, and that democracies that have existed for at least 50 years do not break down,” Riedl said.

However, she went on to say that as autocratization grips developed, longstanding democracy theories have crumbled.

The new methods of taking power

The authors capture four distinct patterns of backsliding. There is the well-trodden road of “legislative capture” in which a single party or coalition uses its majority to pass laws that look legitimate but restrict judicial independence and muzzle the media.

“In passing laws that fit the leader’s agenda, they are never breaking the law,” Riedl said. Consequently, legislators, the media and the public may not even be united in the idea that legislative capture is happening.

Another significant route, “plebiscitary override,” involves presidents or prime ministers bypassing a skeptical legislature by rallying the general population through referenda or constitutional reforms. In such cases, popular votes grant the executive new powers—even if those votes undermine future accountability.

“A populist leader will use that populist appeal to go back to the population and say, ‘We need to vote on this referendum to give me more power and to change the constitution,'” Riedlsaid, adding that it is often a national mobilizing strategy to get rid of existing constraints like term limits and constitutional limits on executive power.

By contrast, the “executive power grab” proceeds with greater boldness. Where supportive legislatures or popular referenda are not forthcoming, some presidents simply seize control. This method can involve a sacked parliament or congress, replaced judges, shuttered agencies, and arrested critics.

Can the trends be reversed?

“Resisting backsliding is hard,” said Kenneth M. Roberts, the Richard J. Schwartz Professor of Government. “Since backsliding is an incremental process carried out by elected leaders, there is always uncertainty about the nature of the threat. Opposition actors do not always recognize that backsliding is underway until it’s too late, and they often disagree about how to respond.”

And yet, despite the unsettling findings, there is a strong note of optimism: backsliding is no inescapable fate, and multiple countries show partial or even full recoveries. Riedl and her co-authors have seen that early, vocal pushback can stop autocracy in its tracks. Throughout the report, evidence from places like Poland, Brazil, Moldova, and Ecuador offer glimpses of democratic resilience. Though success may be partial, these efforts underscore the authors’ warning that it is never wise to wait for full-scale collapse before acting.

When voters, activists, and independent media do not yield to a leader’s manipulations, backsliding can slow. Mass protests have sometimes forced incumbents to back down or re-evaluate harmful policies. In other cases, courts and independent watchdogs have refused to capitulate, exposing secret deals or ruling flagrantly unconstitutional laws invalid. Sometimes, coordination among civil society groups, local officials, and business leaders—unlikely allies in normal times—can reassert the rule of law.

“Successful resistance relies on heterogeneous coalitions,” Riedl said. “We need to protect systems that allow us to have those differences, that allow us to unite above and beyond our differences. It’s not an electoral issue—we need to talk about democracy beyond elections…We often think that courts or legislatures can be a check, but what our research shows is that those checks are not neutral. They are moved by citizen mobilization. Citizen pressures can create institutional checks that protect and strengthen democratic practice.”