Affective Polarization has emerged as a key explanation for citizens' tolerance towards democratic backsliding. However, we argue that democratic violations by incumbent governments may themselves contribute to deepening polarization: for citizens who prioritize democratic values, (the supporters of) a governing party that violates democratic norms may become unacceptable. That is, affective polarization cannot only be an explanation for backsliding, but may also be its consequence.
Studying the case of Hungary, a central example of democratic backsliding within Europe, we address two questions: first, to which extent are citizens’ evaluations of partisan groups determined by ideological divisions or by the respective parties’ government participation? Second, do divergent party evaluations signal a divide over democracy itself? To assess the latter, we analyze how voters who value liberal aspects of democracy evaluate the governing Fidesz party.
Empirically, we collect novel data to combine individual-level party evaluations and measures of affective polarization with a conjoint experiment that measures trade-offs around democratic violations. We use the outcomes of this conjoint, as well as a series of attitudinal questions on different aspects of democracy, as predictors of party evaluations.
Our results support our expectation of a regime divide. Moreover, they indicate that those citizens who value liberal aspects of democracy evaluate the governing right-wing Fidesz party significantly more negatively. The same does not hold for the radical-right Jobbik party, as well as for other opposition parties.
Our findings contribute to a dynamic understanding of affective polarization, as well as to broader debates on democratic backsliding.