How different people around the world understand democracy and why it is important

Most people in most countries say they want to be governed democratically. Because the lure of democracy is so powerful, governments and political leaders everywhere claim to be supporters of democracy.

Take China, for example. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has ruled for decades under a one-party system, a system that contrasts sharply with traditional definitions of democracy. Democratic systems emphasize competitive elections for key leaders, strong protections for political rights, and limitations on executive power.

However, ask CCP members and they will likely tell you that their government is democratic because it responds to the preferences of the Chinese public. According to them, what makes a democracy is not elections, freedoms and limitations. Rather, strong and free political leaders can govern well and give the people what they want.

How do people understand democracy? If people around the world have dramatically different views of what democracy means, or even adhere to understandings of democracy that reflect a more authoritarian style of government, then democracy’s apparent global appeal may not mean a lot in practice.

Researchers have long been interested in how people from different countries and backgrounds understand democracy. But it’s a complex issue, and previous studies have found it difficult to determine what people really mean when they say they want to be governed democratically. In a new paper published in Science, we use a survey-administered experiment in Egypt, India, Italy, Japan, Thailand, and the US to provide new evidence for this debate.

We presented respondents with even profiles of hypothetical countries. These profiles randomized nine factors that reflect different theories of how people understand democracy. For example, we presented respondents with information about country elections, varying whether they were free and fair, biased, or not held.

We also randomized whether political rights are protected or repressed, and whether the executive respects the powers of the legislature and the courts. These three attributes reflect traditional concepts of democracy.

We also included attributes of the hypothetical countries that reflect alternative understandings of democracy. Some argue that democracy means a political system capable of producing substantial changes that benefit citizens in broad terms. So we varied whether economic equality in the country is higher or lower. We also adjusted whether social equality between genders is better or worse. And we randomized how much influence technocratic experts have over policy decisions.

Others advocate a more authoritarian model of democracy in which unfettered leaders give the people what they want in exchange for their obedience. To reflect this view, we provided information on how often political leaders in countries follow the preferences of the majority. We also varied whether people obey the government or not.

After reviewing the country profiles, respondents were asked to determine which hypothetical country was more democratic. Analyzing which attributes most strongly influenced respondents’ choices gives us insight into how they understand what democracy means.

Reasons to be cheerful

Our results indicate that the traditional definition of democracy is widely accepted. Across the six diverse countries in our sample, respondents were more likely to perceive countries as democratic when elections were free and fair and political rights were strongly protected.

This prioritization of the elections held transversally. People felt this way regardless of their individual characteristics, such as gender, education level, political ideology, age, minority status, and attitudes toward geopolitics.

This finding implies some reasons to be optimistic about support for democracy. He suggests that when people say they want democratic governance, many mean competitive elections and protected freedoms. This agreement is important. This makes it more likely that enough people will recognize – and potentially reject – attempts by undemocratic political leaders to subvert democratic governance.

Reasons for caution

But our findings also highlight points of caution. First, institutional checks and balances were less central to how our respondents understood democracy. This suggests that political leaders may be able to increase their grip on power more easily by undermining the influence of the legislature and courts.

And anti-democratic politicians can still claim to be democratic by falsely arguing that they prioritize these elements of the political system, while actually undermining them. A prominent example is the former president of the United States, Donald Trump. In 2020, Trump tried to reverse his election loss by falsely claiming it had been rigged against him.

Even in fully authoritarian countries, rulers often use controlled elections as “evidence” of their democratic nature. In Egypt, for example, autocratic President Abdel Fatah al-Sisi declared after winning his rigged 2023 election that he would continue to build “a democratic state that protects its citizens.”

Many people can see through these claims, but autocrats can sometimes build support by using elections to present themselves as democrats, even when they are not free and fair.

Although many people reject fully authoritarian notions of what democracy means, factors other than elections and freedoms also influence their understanding of democratic governance. In our study, countries were often believed to be more democratic when they performed well, for example by providing greater gender or economic equality.

Gender equality was the only attribute in the experiment that came close to elections and freedoms in its ability to shape perceptions of which countries were more democratic. Because gender equality is inherently desirable and associated with democracy, some autocrats have successfully engaged in “gender washing.” They have done so (often nominally) by reforming women’s rights to reduce pressure for more competitive elections and protect political rights.

Finally, the fact that people generally agree on what democracy means does not necessarily mean that they will continue to support it. If democracies do not function effectively or represent their citizens well, people can be persuaded to accept more authoritarian models of government.