The threat of democratic backsliding has prompted growing interest in “hardball,” the pursuit of legal and constitutional changes with the intended purpose of biasing outcomes in favor of one party over others. Such actions can be allowed under existing constitutional and legal rules, but are in tension with norms that these rules ought to be insulated from the contest for power. This paper provides a new definition of what I call democracy-reinforcing hardball, and a framework for thinking about when it might be successful. I show how the averting-backsliding literature’s injunction against hardball limits the feasibility of its suggested reforms. I categorize various hardball scenarios, highlighting conditions under which it might be democracy-reinforcing, and describe three cases in terms of this concept. I conclude by arguing that future research should study the conditions under which hardball might help stabilize a democratic political order over the long-term.
AhmedA. (2013). Democracy and the politics of electoral system choice: Engineering electoral dominance: Cambridge University Press.
2.
AronR. (1959). Immuable et changeante, de la IVe à la Ve République: Calmann-Levy.
3.
BartonR.BatemanD. A. (2023). Gilded age doughfaces: Northern democrats and Black civil rights. Journal of Historical Political Economy, 3(3), 363–390. https://doi.org/10.1561/115.00000056
4.
BatemanD. A. (2018). Disenfranchising democracy: Constructing the electorate in the United States, the United Kingdom, and France: Cambridge University Press.
5.
BellD. S. (2018). The French Communist Party: From revolution to reform. In EvansJ. (Ed.), The French party system (pp. 29–41): Manchester University Press.
6.
BoeseV. A.EdgellA. B.HellmeierS.MaerzS. F.LindbergS. I. (2021). How democracies prevail: Democratic resilience as a two-stage process. Democratization, 28(5), 885–907. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2021.1891413
7.
BourneA. K.RijpkemaB. (2022). Militant democracy, populism, illiberalism: New challengers and new challenges. European Constitutional Law Review, 18(3), 375–384. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1574019622000281
CapocciaG.this volume. Countering illiberalism in liberal democracies: Actors, strategies, temporalities.
14.
CareyJ.ClaytonK.HelmkeG.NyhanB.SandersM.StokesS. (2022). Who will defend democracy? Evaluating tradeoffs in candidate support among partisan donors and voters. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties, 32(1), 230–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457289.2020.1790577
15.
ÇarkoğluA.AksenD. (2019). Partisan and apportionment bias in creating a predominant party system. Political Geography, 69, 43–53.
ClearyM. R.ÖztürkA. (2022). When does backsliding lead to breakdown? Uncertainty and opposition strategies in democracies at risk. Perspectives on Politics, 20(1), 205–221. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1537592720003667
18.
CloseD. H. (1977). The collapse of resistance to democracy: Conservatives, adult suffrage, and second chamber reform, 1911-1928. The Historical Journal, 20(4), 893–918. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0018246x00011456
19.
ColeA. (2000). The party system: The end of old certainties. In RaymondG. G. (Ed.), Structures of power in modern France (pp. 19–36). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780333983645_2
20.
CollierD. (1999). Data, field work, and extracting new ideas at close range. APSA-CP. Newsletter of the Organized Section in Comparative Politics of the American Political Science Association, 10(1), 1–6.
21.
CroissantA.DiamondL. (2020). Introduction: Reflections on democratic backsliding in asia. Global Asia, 15(1), 8–12.
22.
DahlR. A. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and opposition. Yale University Press.
23.
EisenN.KenealyA.CorkeS.TaussigT.PolykovaA. (2019). The democracy playbook: Preventing and reversing democratic backsliding. Tech. rep. The Brookings Institution.
24.
ElgieR. (2005). France: Stacking the deck. In GallagherM.MitchellP. (Eds.), The politics of electoral systems (pp. 119–136). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/0199257566.003.0006
25.
EsenB. (2019). A new democratic agenda to counter the populist tide around the globe. Turkish Policy Quarterly, 18(3), 13–25.
26.
FalletiT. G.MahoneyJ. (2015). The comparative sequential method. In MahoneyJ.ThelenK. (Eds.), Advances in comparative-historical analysis (pp. 211–239): Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781316273104.009
27.
FinkelS. E.LimJ. (2021). The supply and demand model of civic education: Evidence from a field experiment in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Democratization, 28(5), 970–991. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2020.1843156
28.
FishkinJ.PozenD. (2018). Asymmetric constitutional hardball. Columbia Law Review, 118, 915.
29.
FultonB. (1991). The boulanger affair revisited: The preservation of the third republic, 1889. French Historical Studies, 17(2), 310–329. https://doi.org/10.2307/286459
30.
GalstonW. A. (1989). The obligation to play political hardball. Report from the Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy, 9(1), 6–9.
GamboaL. (2017). Opposition at the margins: Strategies against the erosion of democracy in Colombia and Venezuela. Comparative Politics, 49(4), 457–477. https://doi.org/10.5129/001041517821273044
33.
GamboaL. (2022). Resisting backsliding: Opposition strategies against the erosion of democracy. Cambridge University Press.
34.
GerringJ. (2007). Case study research: Principles and practices. Cambridge University Press.
GraberM. A. (2023). Punish treason, reward loyalty: The forgotten goals of constitutional reform after the civil war. University Press of Kansas.
37.
GrahamB. D. (1959). The French elections of november, 1958. Australian Quarterly, 31(1), 46–59. https://doi.org/10.2307/20633501
38.
GrahamM. H.SvolikM. W. (2020). Democracy in America? Partisanship, polarization, and the robustness of support for democracy in the United States. American Political Science Review, 114(2), 392–409. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055420000052
39.
GrosserA. (1967). La IVe République et sa politique extérieure. A. Colin.
40.
GrossmanL. (1976). The Democratic party and the negro: Northern and national politics, 1868-1892. University of Illinois Press.
41.
HaggardS.KaufmanR. (2021). Backsliding: Democratic regress in the contemporary world. Cambridge University Press.
42.
HelmkeG.KroegerM.PaineJ. (2022). Democracy by deterrence: Norms, constitutions, and electoral tilting. American Journal of Political Science, 66(2), 434–450. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12668
43.
HuberJ. D.Martinez-gallardoC. (2004). Cabinet instability and the accumulation of experience: The French Fourth and Fifth republics in comparative perspective. British Journal of Political Science, 34(1), 27–48. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123403000334
KalmoeN. P. (2020). With ballots and bullets: Partisanship and violence in the American civil war. Cambridge University Press.
46.
KousserJ. M. (1974). The shaping of southern politics: Suffrage restriction and the establishment of the one-party south, 1880-1910: Yale University Press.
LavauG. (1969). Le parti communiste dans le systeme politique francais. In Fondation nationale des science politiques (Ed.), Le communisme en France (pp. 7–81). A. Colin.
49.
LeeF. E. (2016). Patronage, Logrolls, and “polarization”: Congressional parties of the gilded age, 1876–1896. Studies in American Political Development, 30(2), 116–127. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0898588x16000079
50.
LevitskyS.WayL. A. (2010). Competitive authoritarianism: Hybrid regimes after the cold war. In Problems of international politics. Cambridge University Press.
51.
LevitskyS.ZiblattD. (2018). How democracies die. Crown.
52.
LevitskyS.ZiblattD. (2023). Tyranny of the minority: Why American democracy reached the breaking point. Crown.
53.
LibbeyK. R. (1976). The French communist party in the 1960s: An ideological profile. Journal of Contemporary History, 11(1), 145–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/002200947601100107
54.
LinzJ. J. (1978). The breakdown of democratic regimes: Crisis, breakdown and reequilibration. An introduction. Johns Hopkins University Press.
55.
LinzJ. J. (1994). LinzJ. J.ValenzuelaA. (Eds.), Presidential or parliamentary democracy: Does it make a difference? In the failure of presidential democracy (pp. 3–90). The Johns Hopkins University Press.
56.
LinzJ. J.StepanA. C. (1996). Problems of democratic transition and consolidation : Southern Europe, south America, and post-communist Europe. Johns Hopkins University Press.
LustickI. S. (1993). Unsettled states, disputed lands: Britain and Ireland, France and Algeria, Israel and the west bank-Gaza. Cornell University Press.
61.
MaerzS. F.EdgellA. B.WilsonM. C.HellmeierS.LindbergS. I. (2021). A framework for understanding regime transformation: Introducing the ERT dataset. V-Dem Institute, University of Gothenburg. Working Paper.
McCoyJ.SomerM. (2021). Pernicious polarization and democratic resilience: Analyzing the United States in comparative perspective. In RobertsK. M.LiebermanR. C.MettlerS. (Eds.), Democratic resilience: Can the United States withstand rising polarization? (pp. 61–92): Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108999601.003
McCrillisNRNR (1998). The British conservative party in the age of universal suffrage: Popular conservatism, 1918-1929. The Ohio State University Press.
66.
MettlerS.LiebermanR. C. (2020). Four threats: The recurring crises of American democracy. St. Martin’s Press.
67.
MüllerJ. W. (2012). Militant democracy. In RosenfeldM.SajóA. (Eds.), The oxford handbook of comparative constitutional law (pp. 1253–1269). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199578610.013.0062
O’LearyB. (2019). A treatise on northern Ireland, volume I: Colonialism. Oxford University Press.
70.
PetryF. (1992). Coalition bargaining in the French Fourth republic 1946–58. In LaverM. J.BudgeI. (Eds.), Party policy and government coalitions (pp. 380–408): Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-22368-8_13
71.
PevehouseJ. C. (2003). Democratization, credible commitments, and joining international organizations. In DreznerD. W. (Ed.), Locating the proper authorities: The interaction of domestic and international institutions (pp. 25–48). University of Michigan Press.
72.
PierceR. (1955). Constitutional revision in France. The Journal of Politics, 17(2), 221–247. https://doi.org/10.2307/2126465
73.
PozenD. E. (2019). Hardball and/as anti-hardball. NYU Journal of Legislation and Public Policy, 21, 949–955.
74.
PrzeworskiA. (1991). Democracy and the market: Political and economic reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America. In Studies in rationality and social change. Cambridge University Press.
75.
PrzeworskiA. (2019). Crises of democracy. Cambridge University Press.
76.
RekkerR.van SpanjeJ. (2022). Hate Speech Prosecution of Politicians and its Effect on Support for the Legal System and Democracy. British Journal of Political Science, 52(2), 886–907. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000712342000068X
SayleB. (2021). Populist constitutionalism’ and the unionist party during the 1911 House of Lords’ crisis. Parliamentary History, 40(3), 521–542. https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-0206.12588
79.
SearleG. (1979). Critics of edwardian society: The case of the radical right. In O’DayA. (Ed.), The edwardian age : Conflict and stability, 1900-1914 (pp. 79–96): Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-15854-6_5
SingerM. (2018). Delegating away democracy: How good representation and policy successes can undermine democratic legitimacy. Comparative Political Studies, 51(13), 1754–1788. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414018784054
SomerM.McCoyJ. L.LukeR. E. (2021). Pernicious polarization, autocratization and opposition strategies. Democratization, 28(5), 929–948. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2020.1865316
84.
StatonJ. K.ReenockC.HolsingerJ. (2022). Can courts be bulwarks of democracy? Judges and the politics of prudence: Cambridge University Press.
SvolikM. W. (2019). Democracy as an equilibrium: Rational choice and formal political theory in democratization research. Democratization, 26(1), 40–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2018.1506768
TeeleD. L. (2018). Forging the franchise: The political origins of the women’s vote. Princeton University Press.
89.
ThompsonM. R. (2021). Pushback after backsliding? Unconstrained executive aggrandizement in the Philippines versus contested military-monarchical rule in Thailand. Democratization, 28(1), 124–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2020.1835860
90.
TominiL.GibrilS.BochevV. (2023). Standing up against autocratization across political regimes: A comparative analysis of resistance actors and strategies. Democratization, 30(1), 119–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2022.2115480
91.
TrumanD. B. (1959). The American system in crisis. Political Science Quarterly, 74(4), 481–497. https://doi.org/10.2307/2146419
92.
TushnetM. (2004). Constitutional hardball. Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works.
93.
ValellyR. M. (2004). The two reconstructions: The struggle for Black enfranchisement. University of Chicago Press.
94.
ValellyR. M. (2016). How suffrage politics made—and makes—America. In ValellyR. M.MettlerS.LiebermanR. C. (Eds.), The oxford handbook of American political development. Oxford University Press.
95.
WilliamsP. (1963). How the Fourth republic died: Sources for the revolution of may 1958. French Historical Studies, 3(1), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.2307/285892
96.
ZiblattD. (2017). Conservative parties and the birth of democracy. Cambridge University Press.
