Following democracy’s global advance in the late twentieth century, recent patterns of democratic “backsliding” have generated extensive scholarly debate. Since backsliding towards autocracy is often the work of elected leaders operating within democratic institutions, it challenges conventional thinking about democratic consolidation, the enforcement of institutional checks and balances, and the reproduction of democratic norms. Drawing insights from classic literature on democratic transitions and consolidation, this volume examines the nature of contemporary threats to democracy, recognizing that the central challenge is not always to induce the compliance of those who lose elections, but rather those who emerge victorious and turn the institutional leverage of incumbency into a source of ongoing competitive advantage. There is, then, both a “loser’s dilemma” and a “winner’s dilemma” embedded in the study of democratic resiliency. Patterns of backsliding have revealed the contingent and potentially contested underpinnings of democratic institutions in any political order, given the presence (whether latent or active) of authoritarian political and cultural currents. Democracy is, therefore, best understood not as a standardized regime template or a static endpoint of political development, but rather as a dialectical frontier that advances ‒ and sometimes recedes ‒ according to the dynamic interplay countervailing forces.

As explained in Chapter 1, state institutions are inevitably transformed into sites of regime contestation between democratic and autocratic forces when democratic backsliding is threatened or underway. That is especially the case in social and political contexts where exclusionary forms of majoritarian rule or ethnonationalism contest liberal and pluralist civil societies. The challenge for scholars is to identify the conditions under which key institutional sites serve as bastions of democratic accountability and resilience, and how and when these sites can be neutralized or even transformed into weapons of autocratization. Often referred to as “referee institutions” (such as constitutional courts and electoral commissions) and tools of horizontal accountability for checking executive aggrandizement (including ombudsman, investigative bureaus, and information commissions), key state agencies must be sufficiently capacious and nonpartisan to serve as guardrails in times of democratic contestation and regime uncertainty.

Recent patterns of democratic “backsliding” around the world have followed in the wake of a generalized weakening of organized labor under the modern, globalized variant of capitalism. Scholars have long debated whether and how labor contributes to the construction of democratic regimes and the expansion of social citizenship rights, but the current period makes it abundantly clear that democratic advances are always subject to reversal. As such, it is imperative to interrogate labor’s role in the defense of democratic rights and liberties, and not merely the introduction or expansion of those rights.These questions call for a multi-dimensional approach to the study of labor’s relationship to democracy, one that explores labor’s role in (1) constructing democratic regimes, (2) “deepening” democracy by expanding social citizenship rights, and (3) defending democracy against its adversaries and authoritarian currents in society.