A new book highlights the economic inequality at the heart of democratic backsliding

The Backsliders, a new book from Susan C. Stokes, analyzes the moment while offering solutions to a polarized public.

By Sarah Steimer

Early in her career, political scientist Susan C. Stokes saw a wave of democratization. In Southern Europe, Latin America, and the former Soviet Union and in Eastern Europe, authoritarian regimes were tumbling.

But in this first quarter of the 21st century, tides have changed. In her new book, The Backsliders: Why Leaders Undermine Their Own Democracies, Stokes, the Tiffany and Margaret Blake Distinguished Service Professor, explores not just how we got here — although the book offers a rigorous analysis of this point — but she also provides readers with tools to identify the characteristics of a backsliding democracy, to understand the rhetoric used by such leaders, and to fight against a leadership that’s bent on undermining democracy. 

Stokes’s work began with a 2021 Andrew Carnegie Fellowship, which supported her research into how would-be autocrats attack democracy. That includes the core discovery in the book: that democracies with high levels of income inequality are more likely to experience democratic erosion. The finding, originally published in PNAS at the end of 2024, was based on a large cross-national statistical study that revealed a robust association between economic inequality and where and when democracy erodes. The data also showed that even wealthy and longstanding democracies are vulnerable to democratic backsliding if their citizens’ economic realities are highly unequal.

In her book, Stokes traces the connective tissue between inequality and democrat backsliding. The leaders who were coming into office and then eroding their democracies were those who relied on some degree of grievance, frustration, or nihilism among the populace with regard to “elite” institutions. Stokes connected income inequality with democratic backsliding through increased partisan polarization. Income inequality encourages partisan polarization. A polarized public is more tolerant when their leaders attack the press, the courts, and other institutions. A public that is deeply skeptical about institutions is also more tolerant of backsliding. Their leaders therefore encourage polarization and cynicism. Much of The Backsliders is dedicated to making sense of the different pathways that connect growing income inequality with a backsliding democracy.

“There are enormous political costs to democratic backsliding. It is a terrible threat to individual rights protections, rule of law, and economic stability,” Stokes says. “It’s also a threat to world peace: Political scientists discovered a long time ago that democracies are much less likely to go to war with a fellow democracy. 

“There's a lot at stake and income inequality is a cause of that,” she says. “It’s another reason to think about what we can do to make sure that there's a more equal distribution of the fruits of economic activity.”

The book explores the historical question of why some countries are more likely to fall into a pattern of democratic backsliding than others. Stokes also considers how to distinguish instances of backsliding from examples of presidents and prime ministers flexing their strength. Stokes offers examples and comparisons of democracies she considers near-miss cases of backsliding, those who showed symptoms, and those who fell to their leaders’ autocratic tendencies.

These comparative studies, Stokes says, underscore the crucial role of voters and public to counter a backsliding democracy. The book goes on to consider why, in some places, voters seem to be more tolerant (or even welcoming) of democratic backsliding than in others. This examination includes a close look at elite discourse and rhetorical strategies of backsliding leaders, and the psychology behind why some believe leaders’ outlandish claims.

The book is careful to note the difference between politicians who attack democratic institutions and politicians who support policies that some dislike. Stokes also notes that backsliders aren’t relegated to one end of the political spectrum: They might be right-wing ethno-nationalists or left-wing populists.

But the book doesn’t end with analysis; Stokes was careful to offer her readers a range of tactics to counter democratic backsliding. 

“We owe it to people to give them some sense of — if you favor democracy — what can be done to counter this,” Stokes says.

Stokes organizes this final, solutions-oriented portion of the book by actors. For example, those working in public policy or on a political campaign can consider how to address and counter polarization or institutional cynicism, which can arise in part because of income inequality and a loss of hope in the future. She also illustrates how journalists and professional organizations can hold backsliders to account, often by way of publicizing or otherwise highlighting a backsliding administration’s errors, scandals, and other instances of underperformance (economic, in particular).

Writing this book during the midst of democratic backsliding in the U.S. and elsewhere made Stokes’s work tricky, but perhaps all the more vital. Even recent literature on the topic began to age in real time: several earlier studies showed that many backsliding leaders (Viktor Orbán or Hugo Chávez, for example) shifted away from democracy slowly and stealthily — often making it difficult for observers to distinguish between democratic backsliding and an outspoken norms-breaker.

But many of today’s backsliding leaders are being far more direct. Stokes points to the recent example of Donald Trump asking Texas legislators to re-gerrymander the state, quite obviously bending the midterm elections in Republicans’ favor.

“A lot of that literature seems a little dated already, even though it’s very recent work,” Stokes says. “And that's not because it’s bad work, but reality changes.”

Stokes’s own work was affected by a fast-changing reality: She wrote most of Backsliders during the Biden administration, when it appeared the nation’s experience with Trump was done. “It was important to understand what happened in the elections in 2024 and update some of the material in the book,” she says.

Stokes acknowledges that finding effective responses to backsliding is also a moving target, but efforts like her book are at least a place to start. 

“I have the sense, when I've spoken to groups about this project — in particular, non-academic members of the public — they do find it reassuring that we can think about this and we can analyze it, and we can figure it out,” she says. “It isn't just something inscrutable and inevitable and overwhelming that's happening to us.”

Stokes says she understands the general handwringing, and the desire to disconnect — she jokes that she’s become an avid gardener in recent months as a form of self care. 

“But we owe it to future generations to be there, trying to figure out every little thing we can do.”