Mass Mobilization and Democracy: Regime-Specific Effects from a Cross-National Staggered DID Analysis

• In Event: Civic Engagement

Abstract

This study investigates the political consequences of large-scale pro-democracy mass mobilization, focusing on whether such collective action produces measurable changes in the quality of democratic governance. Specifically, it asks: When citizens mobilize on a broad scale to demand democratic reforms or protections, do their actions lead to institutional change? And are these outcomes shaped by the broader political context in which mobilization occurs?

Using panel data from 121 countries between 1990 and 2018, the study evaluates how mass mobilization influences changes in democratic governance across a range of regime types. The treatment variable is derived from the V-Dem dataset, identifying instances of sustained and high-intensity mass mobilization for democratic aims. Democracy is measured using the Polity2 score, and the causal effects of mobilization are estimated using the Callaway and Sant’Anna (2021) staggered difference-in-differences approach (CSDID). This method allows for heterogeneous treatment effects over time and across countries, reflecting the staggered onset of mobilization events and their varying political consequences.

Theoretically, mass mobilization may have dual effects. On one hand, it can weaken authoritarian resilience, pressure elites, and generate reforms, resulting in increases in democracy scores. On the other hand, it can provoke political backlash, elite entrenchment, or institutional fatigue, leading to democratic erosion. These divergent effects may occur under both autocratic and democratic regimes, depending on factors such as elite response, institutional flexibility, and public support. The study is motivated by this ambiguity and seeks to empirically trace whether mobilization serves as a force for democratization or democratic backsliding.

Empirical findings show that, on average, countries experiencing large-scale mobilization under autocratic conditions see a delayed but substantial increase in democracy scores, with effects emerging about six years post-mobilization and persisting for over a decade. In democratic settings, however, the average effect of mobilization is statistically insignificant, suggesting either institutional absorption or backlash. Notably, the analysis disaggregates the Polity2 score to examine specific components of democratic governance, including Competitiveness of Executive Recruitment, Openness of Executive Recruitment, Constraint on Chief Executive, Competitiveness of Political Participation, and Regulation of Participation. Results indicate that gains under autocracy are particularly concentrated in executive constraints and electoral competitiveness, whereas declines in democratic regimes often stem from weakened constraints on executive authority and reduced inclusiveness of participation mechanisms.

These findings highlight the contingent nature of mass mobilization’s political impact. Rather than acting as a uniformly democratizing force, mobilization interacts with institutional and political conditions to produce varying trajectories of change. By tracing these dynamics over time, this study contributes to a more nuanced understanding of how political participation outside formal institutions influences policymaking structures, governance outcomes, and regime trajectories. The results are particularly relevant for policymakers and scholars interested in democratic resilience, political reform, and the role of civic engagement in shaping the quality and direction of governance systems.

Author

• Heejoo Cheon, George Mason University
  Presenting Author