The Demand Side of Militant Democracy: How Elite Justifications Shape Citizen Support for Party Bans

Democracies face a fundamental dilemma: how to defend themselves against anti-democratic threats without undermining their own principles. Political elites play a key role in this process by framing restrictions on opposition parties in ways that justify undemocratic measures to the public. Drawing on the concept of “militant democracy” - the idea that democracies may pre-emptively limit threats to constitutional order - we investigate how different framings influence citizen support for party bans. We conduct a vignette-based survey experiment in the United States and Germany (N=6,000), testing three legitimacy-style justifications: national security, anti-corruption, and social justice. All three framings increase support, perceived democratic and institutional legitimacy relative to no justification, with security and anti-corruption frames proving most effective. These findings highlight the mechanisms through which elite framing can legitimize restrictive measures, revealing the demand side of militant democracy and raising questions about when democratic defense becomes democratic erosion.