Talk:Democratic backsliding

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 January 2021 and 29 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yupthatsmethx (article contribs).

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 January 2021 and 29 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yupthatsmethx.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Talk page?

Should the article have a talk page?--Democratic Backsliding (talk) 03:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

older sources

This article was entirely created from 2016-2017 sources. Needs more robust sourcing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.18.217.119 (talk) 23:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Anti-right-wing slant

Anti-right-wing slant is quite prevalent in the article.--Democratic Backsliding (talk) 09:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't see it or any mention of right-wing. If you see a problem, edit the article. Doug Weller talk 10:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the POV tag that was added — I don't see any issue with the article as it stands from a POV perspective. If you have a specific issue, you can raise it here on the talk page for consideration. Neutrality^talk 15:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

---

Regional recaps ?

The article mentions a few nations. Should it have a section covering by regions such as Central and Eastern Europe and Africa ? The Washington Post article (4 July 2018) said that one-third of the world’s population lives in a declining democracy, and books cover by region, so I would think some expansion on it explicitly as regions worldwide might convey things better. Thought ? Markbassett (talk) 02:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Improving the article

To improve this article, I’ll be expanding the introductory section of the article by adding a more comprehensive definition of democratic backsliding, including the different types of democratic backsliding that have been observed recently or in the past. Also, I’d like to add several sections on the different regions (such as Eastern Europe or Latin America) where we see democratic backsliding occurring. Finally, the article could be improved by using a wider variety of sources, since there is a lot of existing academic literature on the subject that hasn’t been referred to yet in the existing article (for example Nancy Bermeo’s article called ‘On Democratic Backsliding’). --JuulMetz (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Synth?

The source used as a reference says clearly "The U.S.-based research organization found backward moves on democracy in the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Hungary, Poland, Serbia and Spain, as well as the United States." [1]. It is neither synth nor drivel to accurately quote the source, and editors are encouraged to try and keep it civil, if they can. Here come the Suns (talk) 23:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

There's a difference between democracy scores going down, and states suffering severe democratic backsliding. By conflating Hungary and Poland with states like Denmark, the text gives the false impression that they all face similar democratic backsliding. The Freedom House source emphases both Hungary and Poland in its summary of the report[2] as clear cases of democratic backsliding, while it does not do so for Denmark (a state which is not suffering democratic backsliding). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The headline of the linked source is "Democratic backsliding threatens international order: report". I bolded the words you missed. Hungary and Poland are listed there on the exact same line as the countries I added. I agree Hungary or Turkey are more egregious examples, attested to in other sources and each having a section of its own in the article. So I would be ok with a rewrite along the lines of "The U.S.-based research group Freedom House, in reports in 2017 and 2019, identified democratic backsliding in a variety of regions across the world. Hungary, Turkey and Venzuela were called out as clear examples in other sources as well."

What won't fly, though, is calling out the US alongside Turkey and Hungary, but pretending the same source didn't also list Denmark, Spain or France.Here come the Suns (talk) 00:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I think the additional listing of countries like Denmark is not due weight - it also skews the sentence to focus more on Europe. I agree with Snoo's critique above as well. Neutrality^talk 02:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

How is it not due weight, when the source used for the other countries lists these on the same line? The source itself focuses on Europe, it is precisely due weight to have our article show the same focus. Here come the Suns (talk) 14:04, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The source material does not "focus on Europe"; the Freedom House report talks about both Europe and many non-European nations, which are not flagged in our text. Also, the 2019 Freedom House report makes no substantive mention of Denmark; it merely includes it on a map plus one list, in which Denmark's level of political rights and civil liberties is marked as unchanged. Neutrality^talk 15:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The secondary source currently used in the article, which reports in the Freedom House report says this: ""The U.S.-based research organization found backward moves on democracy in the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Hungary, Poland, Serbia and Spain, as well as the United States." [3]." How is it undue weight to reflect what this source says? Here come the Suns (talk) 15:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

There's two reports: one from 2017 and one from 2019. It's undue weight to cherry-pick a component of the report, particularly an earlier report. It's understandable that politico.eu, in summarizing the report, would focus mostly on Europe, but there's no reason for us to do the same. I also strongly share Snooganssnoogans's concern about inaccurately implying that countries like Denmark have suffered the same degree of democratic backsliding as countries like Hungary. Neutrality^talk 16:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Do you also share a concern about inaccurately implying that countries like the USA have suffered the same degree of democratic backsliding as countries like Hungary? Here come the Suns (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality, sorry I did not notice the discussion. However I uphold what I said, yes, the sources do not contain this, because they are coming from the traditional opposion voices against the right-conservative parties. Thus, in order to repair neutrality then, further sources will be added to balance this somehow.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC))

The text is cited to mostly academic pieces, not "traditional opposion voices." If you have equivalent-quality sources, feel free to raise them here for discussion. Neutrality^talk 21:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Bozóki and NYT are traditional opposition voices. I read your response after adding sources...(KIENGIR (talk) 21:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC))

Bozóki is a political scientist and the NYT is a highly regarded newspaper. I removed some cites you added that did not address democratic backsliding, and conformed the text to the remaining sources, to make clear that the Hungarian government rejects the criticism of Freedom House and others. I'm fine with mentioning that, so long as we make clear (as the sources expressly do) that the scholarly consensus is that Hungary has experienced democratic backsliding. Neutrality^talk 22:45, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, however next to it Bozóki is openly supporting the opposition. As well, NYT is the traditional criticist not just regarding Hungary yet, but any location where right-wing is on power (including Trump, etc.), sometimes with so weird epithets and designations that is far from the reality. However, after your edits and improvements the whole thing looks more neutral, thank you for that. Yes, the government rejects some weird criticism, but not just them, the people or other media as well. Especially nowadays the two sides on daily basis are making accusations not just on local, but global level and try to gain political advantages of them, we have to be careful, accurate and the most neutral as possible.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC))

Low-quality sources used to rebut DB in Venezuela

Sock editing

An IP editor is edit-warring content into the article that attributes DB in Venezuela to "critics", while adding poorly sourced text that argues that there hasn't been DB in Venezuela. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:34, 5 September 2019 (UTC) The onus is on you to show they are poor quality sources. Are academic journals low quality? Are you seriously arguing that the Latin American Studies Association and Social Justice (journal) are "low quality"? 80.111.165.52 (talk) 12:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC) The Latin American Perspectives peer-reviewed academic journal is also used as a source, is this "low-quality" also? 80.111.165.52 (talk) 12:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC) This source[4] says as far as I can tell nothing about democratic backsliding. This[5] is a Marxist journal, and the content of the article is fringe nonsense. It utterly fails WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE to use this Marxist crap to rebut the broad academic assessment that Venezuela has experienced DB. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC) The first source you list talks about how the enlargement of participatory democracy in Venezuela, please actually read the article. Regarding the second source you have listed, whether or not you believe it to be a Marxist journal does not change the fact that it is a peer-reviewed academic journal. We don't get to cherry pick academic journals, that's not how it works. You keep saying its fringe nonsense without substantiating the claim, the fact that three academic journals are sourced suggests the opposite. Now please substantiate that claim or stop making it/withdraw it. Third times the charm perhaps?80.111.165.52 (talk) 12:58, 5 September 2019 (UTC) There are are far-right Race/IQ style journals that publish 'peer-reviewed' articles. That does not make them reliable sources. It certainly does not put the claims published in such a journal on the same level as broad academic assessments. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC) This source[6], which you added to support your fringe text, is a review essay of mostly non-academic books, and the review literally says that most of the book reviewed "sound an alarm" about the state of Venezuelan democracy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC) Once again I ask you to substantiate the claim that it is the broad academic assessment. This is the third time you have refused to do so which suggests that you cannot. Even if this claim is correct that does not mean alternate academic opinions should not be included, after all Wikipedia does not censor 80.111.165.52 (talk) 13:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC) Besides the sources which are already cited in the Wikipedia article, there are plenty more that refer to DB in Venezuela, all peer-reviewed and from top political science journals and university book presses. It's a blatant violation of WP:UNDUE to rebut this broad academic assessment that Venezuela has experienced DB when the only source brought to the table is an article in a Marxist journal defending a socialist regime. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2019 (UTC) This is nothing short of WP:SYNTH and WP:CRYSTAL, anybody can provide a mere 7 sources backing an opinion and then claiming it is a consensus. Those who support race/IQ pseudoscience could do the same. Once again Wikipedia abides by WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and WP:CENSOR. There is no Wikipedia policy which states notable opinions cannot be present in an article, even if they disagree with the so-called "broad assessment". The multiple academic sources I have provided establish its notability.80.111.165.52 (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC) That's false. WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV and WP:DUE are all Wiki policies about how we should not lend undue weight to fringe opinions. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC) Putting aside your WP:SYNTH and WP:CRYSTAL allegations of "fringe", a single sentence is not undue weight. The multiple peer-reviewed academic journals provided establish the WP:NOTABILITY of the scholarly viewpoint you wish to whitewash from this article.80.111.165.52 (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2019 (UTC) The only source that directly challenges DB in Venezuela is an article in a journal that was titled 'Contemporary Marxism' before changing its name when the Soviet Union collapsed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC) Read the articles, they clearly challenge the view. Social Justice (journal) being supposedly Marxist is entirely irrelevant, its a peer-reviewed academic journal. Anyway, pretty much all political or social journals have political leanings.80.111.165.52 (talk) 14:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC) References I've opened a discussion about this here - [7] Here come the Suns (talk) 16:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC) I'm not sure why people are arguing with this IP editor; it's an obvious sock of Claíomh Solais. Jayjg (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC) Sock edits struck out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Britishfinance may find this of interest. Hours wasted on pointless discussion and source-hunting about very basic uncontested text just because a sock was edit-warring on the page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, I was away and only seeing this now - crazy!. Britishfinance (talk) 13:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Unexplained reverts by Here come the Suns.

There is no need to revert my edits on European Countries the Source clearly states France, US Czech Rep. etc.Mr.User200 (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted to the last stable/good version. Your edit lacks consensus and I don't view it as an improvement. For one thing, it misleadingly lumps in places like Denmark and places like Venezuela (something not supported by any source); for another, it also dramatically overemphasizes Europe (WP:WEIGHT). Neutrality^talk 20:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Does any source support misleadingly lumping in places like the US with Venezuela? Here come the Suns (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

The sentence is giving examples from different continents/areas of the world, as a look at the sentence makes clear: "identified democratic backsliding a variety of regions across the world..." Neutrality^talk 20:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

That's not an answer to my question. Does any source support misleadingly lumping in places like the US with Venezuela? The sentence in Politico puts France and the UK in the same position as the US: "The report identified rising anxiety because of: Britain’s vote to leave the European Union; the policies of Poland's right-wing Law and Justice government; gains by anti-immigrant, nationalist parties in Europe; and Donald Trump's victory in the U.S." and "The U.S.-based research organization found backward moves on democracy in the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Hungary, Poland, Serbia and Spain, as well as the United States." Here come the Suns (talk) 20:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I mean, a cursory look at the literature will reveal this:

• Should we be afraid? Liberal democracy, democratic backsliding, and contemporary populism, Contemporary Political Theory (2019): "With Donald Trump’s presidential victory, the doubtful respect that populist leaders in Poland, Hungary, and Turkey have for democratic institutions, and the growing support for populist parties across Europe, the question of whether to be anxious on behalf of liberal democracy is much discussed in political theory and beyond."
• Democratic Decline in the United States: What Can We Learn from Middle-Income Backsliding?, Perspectives on Politics (2018): "We explore what can be learned from authoritarian backsliding in middle income countries about the threats to American democracy posed by the election of Donald Trump. We develop some causal hunches and an empirical baseline by considering the rise of elected autocrats in Venezuela, Turkey, and Hungary. Although American political institutions may forestall a reversion to electoral autocracy, we see some striking parallels in terms of democratic dysfunction, polarization, the nature of autocratic appeals, and the processes through which autocratic incumbents sought to exploit elected office."

Neutrality^talk 21:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Let's be a little less selective in what we cherry to quote, shall we? From your own source (2nd one): "a transition to competitive authoritarianism in the United States is unlikely, although not impossible. In contrast to the middle-income countries discussed later[i.e, Venezuela, Turkey, and Hungary], the American political system has institutional features that pose significant impediments to outright authoritarian rule, including high barriers to constitutional revision."

Neither of those sources are currently in the article. If we are looking to add additional material from the literature, let me offer up:

• A Democratic Paradox?, Scandinavian Political Studies (2000) 'At other times, however, we judge actual systems to be democratic, even though they fall short, probably far short, of the ideal, as when we say that the United states, France and Sweden, for example are democracies'
• Is Western democracy backsliding? Diagnosing the risks The Journal of Democracy, April, 2017 'America is far from alone; populist authoritarian parties have gained strength at the polls in many Western societies. This includes the profound shock of Brexit in the UK, as well as record support reported in contemporary opinion polls for Geert Wilders for PVV in the Netherlands, Marine Le Pen’s National Front in France, and Giuseppe Grille’s Five StarsMovement in Italy.' Here come the Suns (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is. "Democratic backsliding" is not the same as "competitive authoritarianism" or "outright authoritarian rule." Nor is a journal article from two decades ago saying that the U.S. is a democracy. Democratic backsliding obviously occurs in democracies; that's kind of the point. Neutrality^talk 22:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

My point is that no one thinks the state of democracy in US is like Hungary, anymore than they think France's backsliding is like Hungary's. Rather, they see some elements - in both France and the US - that stray from an ideal democracy. And my further point is that the source you selected some cherry-picked quotes from makes this distinction very clear and explicit - it clearly says the US is not like Venezuela, Turkey, and Hungary. That's what "In contrast to the middle-income countries discussed later [Venezuela, Turkey, and Hungary], the American political system has institutional features that pose significant impediments to outright authoritarian rule" means. Here come the Suns (talk) 23:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Alt language

Here is alternative language that brings in more peer-reviewed journal articles and hews very carefully to the source material:

The U.S.-based research group Freedom House, in reports in 2017 and 2019, identified democratic backsliding a variety of regions across the world. Scholarly work in the 2010s detailed democratic backsliding, in various forms and to various extents, in Hungary and Poland, the Czech Republic, Turkey, and Venezuela. Political scientists writing in 2017 and 2019 identified the United States as being in danger of democratic backsliding.

References

I hope this will be acceptable to everyone; it's faithful to the source material and should put to rest any concerns about "lumping" the U.S. --Neutrality^talk 23:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I am ok with this. Here come the Suns (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Judicial independence in Poland

See discussion at Talk:Judiciary of Poland#Judicial independence in Poland. Whizz40 (talk) 09:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

CEE section

Given that democratic backsliding is a global phenomenon, it would be helpful for the article to contain a well-developed theoretical introductory part supplemented by the scholarly discussions regarding the specificities of particular regions. My intention is to develop the Central Eastern European section, due to the high relevance of the issue for the readers. At the moment, the article covers exclusively cases of Poland and Hungary in a redundant manner. The contemporary scholarly discussion indicates those cases shall be treated separately, as the democratic trends in the region at large might be different. Therefore, my intent is to provide a theoretical background needed to comprehend de-democratization discussion in the region, followed by separated sections regarding Poland and Hungary and the rest of the countries in the region (excluding post-soviet republics for semantic reasons). In this way, the page would accurately represent the state-of-art research on the subject, whilst providing extensive coverage of cases that might be of uttermost importance for the readers (given the recent state of emergency power employed indefinitely by Orban). Piotr Marczyński (talk) 12:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Piotr Marczyński

I agree with all of this. I have decided to take the first step in that direction with some recent reorganization and additions relating to Hungary. ComradeZ97 (talk) 01:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Dear Piotr Marczyński,

As I have been assigned to review your plans for this CP wikipedia assignment, I will hereby share my feedback. You mention this section being of great importance. On the one hand, providing evidence for why this is important would be beneficial, but on the other hand, be aware of violating the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, as one person may deem this importance of deviant significance than others. Additionally, do you plan on taking a historical approach to this section? Covering a cross-sectional analysis on the topic, entailing both during-soviet, as well as pre- and post-soviet scenarios? FefeliceUva (talk) 12:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Venezuela

Many elements of this article could extensively be expanded and further elaborated on, entailing the main causers of democratic backsliding, such as personalism – which only consists of two sentences, and solely mentions Latin America as empirical evidence of this phenomenon – and the forms in which democratic backsliding occurs. Additionally, the part on prevalence is not sufficiently substantiated to embody a reliable source and could be further expanded by adding more in-depth information and empirics in a cross-sectional/historical context. In my contribution, I would prominently focus on the elements of executive aggrandizement, personalism and the prevalence section on Venezuela by utilizing T. Khaitan’s article on executive aggrandizement and personalism (Khaitan 2018), substantiated by Posner, Issacharoff (2018), Diamond et al (2014) and Geddes et al (2014) and, respectively, the democratic decay during the Chávez regime as empirical evidence, as described in J. Corrales’ articles (1999; 2007; 2011;2015). FefeliceUva (talk) 13:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

ComradeZ97,

as I explained, the information you put is redundant and overly detailed, on the other hand if we discuss about NPOV issues, the legislature is not controlled by any party, on the other hand we have to mention also the outcome of the case of the judges. All the informations you put so far are enough informative of the possible concerns and situation.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:29, 30 April 2020 (UTC))

You did not explain, you merely stated that the information is redundant (which it is not, it is new information not stated elsewhere in the article) and overly detailed (which it also is not, since it describes how the judiciary is being politicized, which is relevant information in an article on democratic backsliding). You also have not explained the "NPOV issues": my edits fully comply with the policy on NPOV. The opinions of judges are relevant and my version reflects the fact that they are opinions. If you object, you are free to add a paragraph explaining or justifying the Hungarian regime's record on human rights. I encourage you to visit the page on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and also on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Also, your addition about the judges' case was not cited or discussed in the existing citations. It should be removed until you can provide a reliable source stating that the judges were paid compensation. Please see the policy on Wikipedia:Edit warring rather than continuing to remove reliable information and personally criticizing the number of revisions I've made.ComradeZ97 (talk) 17:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I fully agree the discussion over politicization of judiciary is well-worth including. In doing that I feel like it might be helpful though to include (or at least indicate the existence) of the academic contention regarding the contexts of illiberalism and backsliding. Indeed, they often occur simultaneously in the literature, but the issue of judiciary belongs to the debate over dismantinling of liberal(!) democratic institutions. Simply following Bermeo's line over backsliding might falsely suggest there is unanimity in the field over the conceptualization. Adding some information over illiberal turn would also prove to be immensely helpful background for the CEE section, as this concept encompasses Mair's idea of "hollowing out of democracy", which has to be explored in case of CEE given its notoriously immobilized civil society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piotr Marczyński (talk • contribs) 11:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Redundantly and overly detailed you added information of the judges and the judiciary system, and what you already added is enough informative in the issue, see the sentences about Handó and the EU, we don't need 7-8 sentences instead of 4. I explained the NPOV issus (excuse me, I know very well this policy, COI is not the case here, if not from your side), see the edits logs and also here what I have written. No problem about sources, will add. Sorry, edit warring is not the case right know, and we cannot ignore the problems I mentioned.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC))

I have modified your edit to avoid Wikipedia:FALSEBALANCE, an important part of ensuring NPOV. I hope this finally resolves the matter and you do not engage in further Wikipedia:Edit warring. ComradeZ97 (talk) 14:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me, I did not engage myself to any edit-warring, read back, I followed policy.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC))

Why is the failed coup attempt against Chavez not mentioned? I would say trying to overthrow an elected government in favor of a non-elected one is a pretty good example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A442:581E:1:135A:2130:D641:6009 (talk) 11:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Neutrality:, still, such is impossible:

the United States of America is the only country in Western Europe and North America -> USA is a country only in North America, Western Europe is in a different continent!! If the article or you mean an aggregation like, if we regard Western Europe and the North America, only the USA is affected by something, even that should not be phrased like this, since it is still as bad as the beginning....make it clear that USA is NOT in Western Europe, etc. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 01:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC))

KIENGIR, the sentence in the source is clear: "the United States of America is the only country in Western Europe and North America suffering from substantial autocratization." That's unambiguous: of all the countries in either region, the U.S. was the only one suffering from substantial autocratization. Neutrality^talk 01:11, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with Neutrality's edit. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, the recent version is probably the best, now logically satisfies interpretations, however I still stand it's not the best possible. Of course, Neutrality tried to do the best, I never thought it would be on him primarily.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:34, 26 September 2020 (UTC))

"Authoritazation" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Authoritazation. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 11#Authoritazation until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:37, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Recency bias and narrow minded thinking in the United States section

The Issue of Democratic Backsliding in the United States is due to much more chronic issues that go back centuries. Blaming such a complex issue all on Trump stinks of recency bias. That section needs a much more nuanced take than just "Trump bad". I added a small bit of nuance, and a long-term perspective to that section. Hopefully people without a narrow minded agenda will help improve that section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamescart (talk • contribs) 10:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC))

Some amount of "democratic backsliding" may have been going on for a while (if hardly "centuries", not while voting right were being constantly extended, and the Senate became elected and not appointed, etc.), but the onset of Trump was a major move backwards towards authoritarianism which pales even in comparison to the modern growth of the Imperial presidency. That is not "recentism", that's factual. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Benin

This page needs a section on Benin, there are numerous sources discussing this.--Pokelova (talk) 11:28, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Democratic backsliding regarding LGBTQ+ rights???

Do these count on the democratic backsliding since it technically walks back on rights of people. This is the phrase I was thinking

Recently Hungary also backslid in its view regarding LGBT rights in Hungary, creating a bill similar to the Section 28 bill.

Chefs-kiss (talk) 13:17, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Merge with "Democratic recession"

The article "Democratic recession" is significantly similar to this article. It seems redundant to have both. The articles should be merged with each other, with Democratic recession's useful information being transferred to this article, and then making it a redirect. aaronneallucas (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

• I support this merger. aaronneallucas (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• support they are both on the same topic and it would be better as a redirect. >>> Wgullyn.talk(); 01:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• I also support this merger because they are both practically the same thing, democratic recession should be made into part of this article. BubbaDaAmogus (talk) 14:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
• support. Agnerf (talk) 14:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• I support due to the similarity of the topics. Ryme071 (talk) 12:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
• Neutral. I can understand reasons, and even though I would not be invested too much into the merger, I would not argue against it. InvadingInvader (talk) 12:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Y Done. aaronneallucas (talk) 01:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Brazil?

The article shows an aggressive, exaggerated bias. As a Brazilian and expert on this topic, I can guarantee that even people from the left here would laugh at that. There's NO single act by the government of Brazil that would be considered Democratic backsliding. The article only cited (out of context) phrases. There's no single ACTION by Bolsonaro that jeopardized Brazilian Democracy. Actually, the "anti-democratic rallies" cited in this article was a protest against the Supreme Court which arrested a congressman, censored a site, and sent police to confiscate the computer and phone of an Brazilian comedian who is a critic of them (That's right, you read it exactly right). This article is so biased, that even the media in Brazil, which is hostile to him, don't make such an accusation. It's just absurd, comical. There is no single act in that sense, and it was agreed here, but the tactic was to take statements out of context. By adding Brazil here, the effect is just the spread of fake news. Brazil is as democratic as before. Actually, Bolsonaro often remembers that the people have the right to self-defense and supports freedom for anyone older than 25 years old and without criminal records to own guns. If the state wants to dominate a people, the first act would be disarming them. This article seems either from far-left sources or from misinformed sources. I suggest diverse sources, not a source based on extremist views, which is the case here. Sawyersx (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

This entire article is a polemic. It is from the perspective of left-wing Americans. In America Bolsonaro is viewed as the 'Brazilian Trump' by members of the Left. The same is true of the governments of Hungary and Poland. Of course the claim that Trump moved America towards authoritarianism is also false. No president has that power because various American institutions prevent one person from seizing power. But you have to understand that for the American Left Trump's election in 2016 was viewed as synonymous with the events in 1933 Germany. Even recently, prior to America's mid-term elections in 2022, the left-wing politicians, and much of the media, told the people that if the right-wing party (Republicans) won the election then democracy would be over in America. Unfortunately, my fellow Americans have succumbed to political rhetoric and now view hyperbolic statements and fear mongering as true. I haven't commented on a talk page in probably 15 years even though I read them all the time. This page is one of the worst pages I have seen. The bias is so slanted that the page is now a work of fiction. It is a polemic against conservative governments around the world. 2601:140:C002:8C60:B8F3:F89F:C4A3:1A2 (talk) 10:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Ahem. An expert would certainly be capable of providing good sources backing such claims instead of limiting himself to name-calling and conspiracy theories. These claims that negative evaluation of Bolsonaro's presidency (and his well-documented anti-democratic beliefs and actions) is a "far-left" position (or a "left-wing American" position) seem particularly indicative of trolling - the same kind of trolling that, ironically, is directly correlated with democratic backsliding. Kiwi Rex (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Change the opening image

We should change the lead image of the article back the one we originally used and move the graph to the "prevalence and trends" section. The original File:Countries democratizing or autocratizing substantially and significantly 2010–2020.svg image that was used was of better quality than the graph that occupies the space now. Though it is true that the graph shows it across all time frames, and is therefore a more complete assessment, the one we originally used that would be of the most use to a person who reads the article, especially if a person only wants to read the lead section, as many people do. aaronneallucas (talk) 23:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the other image is of more use. We don't know that the reader is most interested in recent events, and even if they were WP:RECENTISM means that recent episodes of democratic backsliding should not be given more weight than further behind episodes. (t · c) buidhe 23:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Buidhe: That isn't really what Wikipedia:Recentism says. It mostly refers to breaking news influencing Wikipedia, not a desire to show the current state of things, especially in the lead photograph. The graph that is used does not demonstrate anything that isn't already explained in the lead section. The map conveys far more information that would be impossible to communicate with text alone in the lead section. aaronneallucas (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

"Recentism is a phenomenon on Wikipedia where an article has an inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events." Anyway the map doesn't show a current state but rather a fairly arbitrary time interval. The results are going to vary dramatically based on the exact years selected so I don't think the map does a good job informing readers of democratic backsliding either in the present (2022) or through history. (t · c) buidhe 15:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Suggested Rename: Erosion of Democracy

"Democratic erosion" is already given as a synonym in the footnote at the start of the lede. The terms in this set all have the scent of academic jargon, which is not a sin in itself but does impede readability. I'm more concerned about an assumption in the current page title/name that democracy already exists before "backsliding" occurs. In public discourse, a large number of countries are labeled "nascent democracies" due to their inevitable birth pangs, moving forward and backward, sometimes several times a year.

Rather than pose in the mantle (or aura) of objectivity with supposed measurements based on a limited set of axioms, we would do better to list additional manifestations and/or edit some of the existing ones (e.g., in some countries "free" elections are not "degraded" from an earlier ideal because one political party has always been in power, despite small numbers of opposition parties in parliament).

Some suggestions based on my experience of living in East Asia for several decades:

1. one-party rule (Japan and Malaysia for a long time, Singapore still), which severely limits free choice
2. political parties founded by prominent personalities with few policy statements but a strong desire to become president (Thailand and Indonesia)
3. pressuring people to vote (e.g., missing an election means you need to re-register to vote in the future) in order to achieve suspiciously high turnouts.

And there are others which can be perceived as eroding the freedom and/or meaningfulness of elections in any given country. Martindo (talk) 11:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree that democratic backsliding could be described as "eroding the freedom and/or meaningfulness of elections in any given country", but that does not mean that the proposed title satisfies WP:Article title criteria such as WP:COMMONNAME. The lead makes it clear that democratic backsliding is the reduction of democratic qualities and does not necessarily require that the system was a democracy to begin with. (t · c) buidhe 16:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

That's an excellent point but the fact that a small "galaxy" of synonyms is being offered suggests that consensus is in flux. As I noted, these "common" terms all sound like academic jargon, which ironically (?) harks back to WP cofounder Larry Sanger's view of an open encyclopedia written primarily by experts (not ordinary users simply citing experts).

The word "common" is misleading IMO, because elite researchers using "democratic" as an adjective to compress their jargon ignores "common" syntax: the backsliding is not democratic, but rather "of a democracy". Considering the multitude of terms and the goal of usability by non-experts, we might want to be more flexible here. Martindo (talk) 21:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

When writing the footnote, I did some pretty exhaustive searches and determined that "democratic backsliding" is the most common name although I agree it may not be the most intuitive; others listed are less common. "Erosion of democracy" gets 3,650 results on Google Scholar (2010-present) compared to 8,100 results for "democratic backsliding" in the same time period. Google NGRAMS also indicates the current title has been more common since 2015. WP:COMMONNAME usually means that the article title is the most common name used in reliable sources, but if you disagree feel free to start a requested moves discussion. (if it were up to me to decide I would pick "autocratization" since the subject of the article is becoming more autocratic). (t · c) buidhe 22:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, autocratization is probably better. It is polysyllabic but at least it follows "common" syntax. And it provides a kind of "target" concept that refers to the presumed result of backsliding. Martindo (talk) 22:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I confess that I have never used Google Scholar, but I wonder if that is the best way to source "common" usage. My understanding is that the hits it generates are mainly *primary* sources. Do they also include public discourse such as newspapers or online media? I'm thinking usability here, Buidhe.

Also, I assumed that the consensus about the title derived from human editors discussing it, not mere stats. Martindo (talk) 23:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Not all reliable sources are on Google Scholar but it's one way to get easily reproducible counts for the frequency of different terms in a subset of reliable sources. Article titles are based on both policy and consensus. (t · c) buidhe 00:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Who else determined the title? And will they automatically be pinged if I submit the request?

IMO, it would be more logical to submit two (or maybe more) terms from the synonym list as candidates for new title, specifically Autocratization and Erosion of Democracy. What do you think? Martindo (talk) 03:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I think it's a bad idea to change the title. Democratic backsliding is by far the most commonly used term to describe this phenomenon. Other terms should be mentioned and given a redirect, but there is no reason to change the title to a more complex term, like Autocratization (my computer doesn't even recognize this word), or the nearly unused term of Erosion of democracy. aaronneallucas (talk) 16:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• Democratic backsliding is a common academic term, so you'd have an uphill climb to demonstrate that any other term is more suitable. --Aquillion (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Irrelevant statistics in the lead

The article is about change in democratic processes, not the current state of democracy in the world. (t · c) buidhe 07:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

No, it is very much about the state of democracy in the world, and describes how democracues are "backslidingh" into non- or quasi-democratic form due to changes in their processed. The material added is therefore relevant. Beyond My Ken (talk)

The article is about democratic backsliding throughout history. Adding info about the state of democracy in one particular year, to the second sentence of the article, is clearly giving undue weight to a present state (related, but not synonymous to the topic) thus recentism. Also, WP:ONUS is not met here. Just because something is verifiable does not mean it belongs in the lead of this particular article. (t · c) buidhe 08:26, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

It is not appropriate because it is verifiable, it is appropriate because it is relevant to the subject. To know how democracy in the world (writ large) is healthy or not, one must know the state of democracy in the world at each moment. Backsliding is not only an issue in each individual democracy, it is an issue in the world at large. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:39, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

DeSilver, Drew (2020-05-30). "Despite global concerns about democracy, more than half of countries are democratic". Pew Research Center. Retrieved 2022-10-26. Moxy- 11:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Please don't just post a link, I cannot read your mind or interpret what you want to say.

If this stat belongs anywhere in the lead, it should go in the second paragraph which already has other information about historical cases of democratic backsliding. I cannot imagine that any reliable source would give this stat in a 1-2 sentence summary of the topic, without context or explaining how it is related to the topic, so it certainly does not belong in the first paragraph. Furthermore, I do not think that one could give just one estimate and put it in wikivoice, since there are multiple RS that estimate the number of democracies in the world and they do not all arrive at the same number of democratic countries. According to some estimates only 30% of the world's population lives in a democracy. Such complexities are difficult to handle briefly, which inclines me to think that this stat belongs in other articles not necessarily this one. (t · c) buidhe 04:38, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I have absolutely no objection to the information going into the second paragraph instead of the lede graf, and I think it would be great for you to do the research to come up with the estimates of other RS's of the number of democracies in the world and adding those as well. However, the fact that we have only one estimate at hand at the moment is not a valid reason for excluding it. Wikipedia requires reliable sources, and if the current estimate is from a reliable source -- which it seems to be -- it can be included in the article, whether or not other estimates from other sources are also included: after all WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As for Wikivoice, again, I have no objection to it being rephrased in the form of "According to X...". Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:24, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Excerpt template

@Beyond My Ken I'm sorry, but I continue to fail to see why {{Excerpt}} is undesired for the #United States section. The Democratic backsliding in the United States intro is identical, but includes an additional inline citation (and currently comes with the option of including an additional V-Dem Institute graph). Regarding the disadvantages of {{Excerpt}} according to its own documentation,

• the "impediment to editing" is at least partially resolved by the template providing a one-click edit button to the excerpted article (as {{Excerpt}} itself points out),
• the reduced accuracy of this article seems to hardly apply considering the section here is an introduction to the application of democratic backsliding to the U.S. which Democratic backsliding in the United States's intro (as the article title and selected section suggests) would match perfectly,
• and decreased visibility of changes I would see as the only viable counterpoint.

Therefore, in my view, one is trading reduced maintenance, improved content quality, and fostered collaboration (per {{Excerpt}}) for partially decreased visibility (only "partially", seeing the overlap in the subjects of democratic backsliding and its application in the U.S. (on the English Wiki) and hence anticipated likelihood of a given editor watching both pages). Anderjef (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Now that this has sat in committee for a week without objection, I reinstate my edit. Anderjef (talk) 18:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

It has clearly been objected to, since I reverted it - and I have reverted it again, as hyou have no consensus on this talk page for your edit. Get a consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Prefer excerpt HudecEmil (talk) 01:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

So, how did you happen to come here, since you've never edited this article? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:25, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken And why is that relevant, except to help prove my point? WP:GOODFAITH

WP:DETCON: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue." It appears to me that I have consensus. Anderjef (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Aciually, it appears to me that you asked an editor to drop by here and support you. If you attempt to edit the article on the basis of this patently false consensus, your edits will be reverted until there is an actual consensus by users who regularly edit this article, not by drive-bys. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• @Anderjef: I withdraw my objection. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Israel should have its own page about its democratic backsliding

under netanyahu israel has gone a severe democratic backsliding Monochromemelo1 (talk) 17:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)