Search
Browse By Day
Browse By Time
Browse By Person
Browse By Mini-Conference
Browse By Division
Browse By Session or Event Type
Browse Sessions by Fields of Interest
Browse Papers by Fields of Interest
Search Tips
Conference
Location
About APSA
Personal Schedule
Change Preferences / Time Zone
Sign In
X (Twitter)
How does state-sponsored violence induce democratic erosion? Populist strongmen often prompt the concern of democratic backsliding, as their actions may undermine constitutional limits as a bulwark against authoritarianism. In May 2022, the scheduled national elections in the Philippines will end Rodrigo Duterte's term in office as the president. While Duterte has largely remained popular in public polls, many argue that he has weakened the independence of the judiciary, the legislature, and the media during his term. In particular, the “war on drugs” campaign under his administration is controversial, as the campaign has led to large-scale extrajudicial killings with estimated casualties close to 27,000 people. In other words, despite his popular mandate, Duterte may have placed the country on a path back to authoritarian rule. And yet, whether and how state-sponsored violence hollows out a democracy remains unclear. In this paper, we explore whether the observed immense popularity for both Duterte and his "war on drugs" campaign is systematically inflated because of these subjects' potential sensitivity. Drawing on a novel list experiment conducted in Metro Manila and nearby semi-urban provinces, we find a plausible overestimation of the support for both the president and his anti-drug campaign by about 40 and 30 percentage points, respectively. Further analysis shows that such bias is more salient in provinces where the violence against “criminals and drug addicts” was more concentrated. The bias also tends to take place among the less educated, women, older, and poor respondents. Our findings suggest that state-sponsored extrajudicial killings may produce fear, perhaps more so for vulnerable social groups. The fear in turn compromises truthfulness in public opinion and, more broadly, undermines a weak democracy further due to a decline in free expression.