Personal Schedule
Change Preferences / Time Zone
Sign In
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
Location
About APSA
Bluesky
X (Twitter)
Recent scholarship shows that citizens hold diverse and often incommensurate conceptions of democracy, with important consequences for democratic resilience and vulnerability. Yet much of this literature implicitly assumes that democratic attitudes are formed primarily through domestic political experience. This paper challenges that assumption by arguing that conceptions of democracy are shaped relationally—through sustained comparison with salient authoritarian regimes—especially in democracies facing persistent external threats.
The study examines South Korea and Taiwan, two consolidated democracies confronting existential pressure from proximate authoritarian “blood brothers”: North Korea and the People’s Republic of China. I argue that these authoritarian counterparts serve as powerful negative reference points through which citizens interpret democratic principles, evaluate democratic performance, and prioritize particular democratic values under conditions of threat.
Empirically, the paper draws on original nationally representative surveys conducted in South Korea and Taiwan. Using latent profile analysis, I identify distinct configurations of conceptions of democracy and assess how attitudes toward neighboring authoritarian regimes—such as perceived threat, identification, and affect—systematically predict profile membership. To complement the survey analysis, I conduct in-depth interviews and focus groups in both societies to examine how citizens articulate democracy through contrast, boundary-drawing, and imagined authoritarian alternatives.
The findings demonstrate that internal divisions in conceptions of democracy are closely linked to how citizens perceive and interpret authoritarian neighbors. More broadly, the paper shows that democracy under threat is not only defended through institutions but also understood and reconstructed through relational comparison with authoritarian others, highlighting an underappreciated mechanism through which democracies adapt, harden, or fragment in the shadow of autocracy.