Conditional Democrats: Partisanship and Support for Violations of Democratic Norms When Democracy is Under Threat

How does affective polarization shape citizens’ tolerance for violations of democratic norms when democracy is under threat? Existing research shows that partisan-motivated reasoning can erode democratic commitments, but much of this evidence comes from long-established democracies. This paper advances the literature by examining these dynamics in Brazil, a young democracy characterized by intense polarization and a failed attempt to subvert democratic rule in the aftermath of the 2022 presidential elections. We argue that in polarized environments, partisan stereotypes may legitimize conditional intolerance, even among citizens who endorse democratic values. In particular, supporters of parties that publicly defend democracy may nonetheless accept undemocratic measures when these are framed as targeting political opponents perceived as threats to democratic institutions. Such attitudes may be driven by affective polarization and by norms of reciprocity, whereby citizens justify democratic violations as defensive responses to perceived threats. We theorize that threat perception mediates the relationship between partisan identity and conditional tolerance: when co-partisans perceive opponents as existential threats to democracy itself, they may view norm violations as defensible rather than subversive actions. We test these claims using a pre-registered online survey experiment conducted with a nationally representative sample of Brazilians (N = 2,500). The experiment employs a 3×2 factorial design that combines partisan cues (Workers’ Party—PT; Liberal Party—PL; or no cue) with two types of democratic norm violations: 1) the weakening of checks and balances to benefit a co-partisan president; and, 2) restrictions on the rights of association and protest of supporters of the opposing party. Respondents evaluate statements attributed to hypothetical senatorial candidates, allowing us to compare tolerance for undemocratic behavior across partisan groups and types of democratic norm violations. The study examines how partisan identity and perceptions of threat jointly condition support for democratic norm violations among PT supporters, PL supporters, and non-partisans. By situating affective polarization within a context of democratic vulnerability like in Brazil, the paper contributes to comparative debates on selective tolerance, democratic resilience, and the mass foundations of democratic backsliding. Our research speaks to broader debates on affective polarization and the quality of democracy. Specifically, we explore the question of whether affective polarization constitutes a universal threat to democratic stability or whether its effects are context-dependent, intensifying primarily under conditions of genuine regime vulnerability.