IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/publus/v56y2026i1p22-48..html

Can Federalism Protect Subnational Liberal Democracy from Central Authoritarianism?

Author

Listed:
  • James A Gardner

Abstract

Liberal democracy is eroding rapidly around the globe, including in the United States, raising alarming questions about whether American democratic institutions will endure. Nevertheless, some have speculated that federalism may protect liberal democracy at the subnational level when the central government turns authoritarian. This article argues that such optimism is premature: there is no a priori basis on which to predict the effect of central democratic backsliding on the quality of subnational democracy. Federal theory does suggest that internal heterogeneity in basic political commitments is likely to produce an escalating pattern of severe and possibly intractable intergovernmental conflict. Empirical evidence bears this out: while subnational governments often resist nationally authoritarian policies, authoritarian central governments tend to punish and suppress this resistance. Nevertheless, although successful subnational resistance in particular cases cannot be ruled out, the most likely outcome of central democratic backsliding appears to be some kind of competitive authoritarianism regardless of whether the state is federal or unitary. Thus, federalism may offer little meaningful protection against long-term democratic backsliding. Additional research is needed to reach firmer conclusions.

Suggested Citation

  • James A Gardner, 2026. "Can Federalism Protect Subnational Liberal Democracy from Central Authoritarianism?," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 56(1), pages 22-48.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:publus:v:56:y:2026:i:1:p:22-48.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/publius/pjaf056
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:publus:v:56:y:2026:i:1:p:22-48.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/publius .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.