Inequality spurs democratic backsliding

Global analysis by the Chicago Center on Democracy reveals the more unequal, the greater the risk

COMMENT | SUSAN STOKES | With November’s election in the United States fast approaching, Democrats continue to debate whether to campaign on the economy or the future of democracy. In fact, our research at the Chicago Center on Democracy shows that the two issues are closely connected: high levels of income inequality increase the risk of a democracy sliding into autocracy.

The U.S. is highly unequal, by international standards, and that inequality is partly to blame for the erosion of its democracy. If Democrats can wrest the mantle of economic anti-elitism away from Donald Trump and continue to improve the lives of low- and middle-income Americans, they could help pull the country back from the brink of authoritarianism.

About two dozen countries around the world are experiencing different forms of democratic erosion or backsliding. Most commonly, elected presidents and prime ministers aggrandise their own powers by attacking the press and judiciary, impugning public servants and civil-society groups, and undermining confidence in elections when they lose.

Our global analysis of democracies reveals a startling regularity: the more unequal a society, both in terms of income and wealth, the greater the risk of democratic backsliding. National income (GDP per capita) has a smaller effect, while a democracy’s age and the strength of its public institutions have no discernible influence. Inequality is the key factor.

For example, Sweden, which is more equal than 87% of democracies, had about a 4% risk of democratic erosion in 2017. On the other end of the spectrum, South Africa, the world’s most unequal democracy, had a risk of around 30%. As for the U.S., which remains more unequal than 60% of all democracies (despite recent wealth gains at the bottom of the distribution), the risk was 9%, more than double that of Sweden.

To understand how economic inequality erodes democracy requires a closer look at the differences between the U.S. and Sweden. Most notably, both countries have a prominent right-wing nationalist party. The Sweden Democrats – the Swedish equivalent of the MAGA-dominated Republican Party in the U.S. – have gained support by opposing the country’s relative openness to immigration over the past two decades. They now play an important role in the center-right governing coalition after finishing second in the 2022 parliamentary election, ahead of traditional conservative parties.

Despite this, Sweden is not displaying the symptoms of democratic erosion that are becoming increasingly pronounced in the U.S. Politicians do not call the press the “enemies of the people,” attack judges and prosecutors, threaten to purge the civil service, or question the integrity of elections.

Presumably such behavior would not resonate widely with the Swedish public, because, in a country with a relatively small gap between rich and poor, confidence in public institutions remains comparatively high. Swedes across the board have benefited from the country’s generous welfare state, which the Sweden Democrats have buttressed by pushing for increased social spending in areas like public health and education. Overall, Europe’s nationalist right tends to be more supportive of social policy than legacy conservative parties.

What is strange about America’s would-be autocrat is that his populism is so half-hearted (as well as half-baked). While Trump discourages fellow Republicans from cutting Social Security and Medicare, his messaging on the issue has been inconsistent, and he never misses a chance to call for repeal of the Affordable Care Act.

Worse still, a second Trump administration would only widen income and wealth gaps in the U.S. As president, Trump passed highly regressive tax cuts and has promised to extend them should he return to the White House. He even floated the idea of eliminating the income tax altogether and replacing it with tariffs on imports.

A demagogue, Trump uses anti-elitist rhetoric to solidify his base and, with that fervent support, would feel emboldened to undermine democracy and exacerbate inequality during a second term. So long as he feeds his followers a steady diet of grievance and anger, Trump would likely receive no pushback for failing to implement policies that could create a more equal society. But the contradiction of a billionaire “populist” who would seek to enact policies that would make America even more unequal economically couldn’t be more glaring.

Since efforts to subvert democratic systems are more likely to succeed in unequal societies, the U.S. and other countries can strengthen democracy by fostering a fairer economy. That means the Democrats don’t have to choose between campaigning on economic growth and equity, on one hand, and the future of democracy, on the other. They are the same fight.

****

Susan Stokes is Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago and Faculty Director of the Chicago Center on Democracy. She is the author, most recently, of the forthcoming Trash-Talking Democracy: Why Leaders Erode Their Democracies and How to Stop Them (Princeton University Press, 2025).

Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2024.