The Democratic Backsliding Analysis Project

Project Goal and Strategy

This project was started on January 31, 2023. This page was last updated on July 4, 2026.

The goal of this project is to very significantly help solve the global democratic backsliding problem. Nations are backsliding from democracy to authoritarinism, as see in the graph below in Problem Background.

The democratic backsliding problem is arguably the most important problem in the world, since if it's not solved, nations will be unable to cooperatively solve any other large-scale global common good problem like climate change, war, or high inequality of wealth. This is because authortarians care only about solving their own problems and those of the small group of the rich and powerful supporting them, since the goal of an authoritarian state is to maximize the short-term benefits (profits) of the ruling elite. By contrast, democracies care about solving common good problems, since the goal of a democracy is to optimize the long-term good of all it citizens.

The strategy to achieve the goal is to:

1. Apply the System Improvement Process (SIP) to the problem and keep improving the process until it's mature enough to produce the results needed. This is process driven problem solving, the most powerful strategy known for solving insanely difficult problems.

2. Publish papers and articles on the research.

3. Collaborate with other who are interested in a root cause analysis-based problem solving approach to difficult large-scale social problems, like democratic backsliding and climate change.

Project Status

Significant progress has been made:

1. In 2019 we performed the Truth Literacy Training study and presented results at a conference with this paper.

2. In 2023 we completed the RDem agent-based model of the democractic backsliding problem.

3. In January 2026 a paper on Democracy's Eternal Vulnerability was published, reporting on the Truth Literacy Training study and the analysis behind it.

4. In June 2026 a report on Democracy's Ultimate Challenge was released.

Problem Background

How complex and how serious the democratic backsliding problem is may be seen in the graph below. This is from a widely cited paper: A third wave of autocratization is here: what is new about it? The graph appears on page 1103. The paper is in Democratization, the same journal we submitted to. That link is to their Aims and Scope page. Notice how "authoritarianism" or "authoritarian" appears three times. That's how interested this journal is in the backsliding problem.

Backsliding graph

This is the same graph used by Wikipedia in its entry on democratic backslidiing. (On January 31, 2023. The graph will eventually change.) That entry is a good introduction to the problem.

Note the Wikipedia section on Causes and characteristics. Possible causes described are populism, economic inequality and social discontent, personalism, COVID-19, great power politics, authoritarian values, polarization, misinformation, incrementalism, and multi-factor explanations. What we don't see is any sign that these causes are anything more than educated guesses. RCA was not used. Once you become familiar with Thwink's social force diagrams, you will probably instantly realize that all these causes are superficial. All arise from deeper causes. For example, why does populism work to convince people to elect authoritarians? Why does economic inequality make backsliding more likely? Etc.

We encountered the same pattern in the backsliding literature. They too did not use any well-structured approach to identifying the root causes. A paper in submission discusses this point in the section on 4.1 Current theories. This says:

None of the theories used RCA. The result is ten strikingly different diagrams, even though all attempt to explain the same problem. This wide variation is what Kuhn (1996, p. 75) calls“the proliferation of theories” that occurs when a field encounters an acute anomaly, critical behaviour its present paradigm cannot explain

 

Managing Problem Complexity

This is done by using a process that fits the problem. For this class of problems Thwink developed the System Improvement Process (SIP). The process and its use are described at length in the book Cutting Through Complexity.

Risk Management

The main risks at this point appear to be:

1. The Thwink analysis is wrong. If so, then by working with others, such as journals and collaborators, we can find the flaws and fix them.

2. Continued paradigm change resistance. Since out first paper was submitted to high-quality peer-reviewed journals, we have received 2 acceptances out of 31 submissions. It has been very hard to get traction with potential collaborating organizations. Perhaps this will improve with the 2026 paper and report, and further research.