Rhetorical Stratagems of Democratic Backsliders

• In Event: Creeping Authoritarianism: How Would-Be Autocrats Subvert Democracy

Abstract

A growing number of elected leaders come into office through democratic means, but then proceed to threaten democratic institutions without overly violating the law. How are voters and watchdog groups to know that such politicians represent a threat, before they come to power? Do democratic backsliders send signals of their intentions in campaign speeches? Is the language they deploy different from that of other politicians in the emotions their rhetoric provokes, the enemies they identify, and the degree of divisiveness of their messages? The campaign statements of politicians can provide clues to such questions. In order to analyze the rhetorical stratagems of would-be autocrats, we take a broad cross-regional perspective and use a novel dataset to study the speeches of candidates ranging from Latin America to Europe, among others. Our ultimate goal in this project is to discern any early-warning signals that a given candidate is at heightened risk of undermining democracy, should he or she be elected.

Authors

• Ipek Cinar, University of Chicago

• Andres Uribe, University of Chicago

• Susan C. Stokes, University of Chicago