Author
Listed:
- Juan Masullo
(Department of Social and Political Sciences, University of Milan, Italy; and Institute of Political Science, Leiden University, the Netherlands)
- Krzysztof Krakowski
(Department of Political Economy, King’s College London, UK)
- Davide Morisi
(Department of Political Science and Public Management, University of Southern Denmark, Denmark)
Abstract
How does crime influence democratic attitudes and behaviors? Existing research offers conflicting answers: some argue that crime fosters antidemocratic preferences, while others suggest it increases democratic engagement. To reconcile this paradox, we conceptualize democracy as a multidimensional system with distinct components that can be decoupled. We distinguish between different (anti)democratic preferences tied to core democratic principles and argue that contextual exposure to crime may heighten support for undemocratic enforcement measures without eroding commitment to procedural democracy. To test this, we conducted a large online survey ( N  = 3108) in Brazil – a country profoundly affected by various forms of crime – using two embedded experimental protocols. Our findings show that crime exposure increases support for unlawful enforcement practices, such as police overreach and vigilante justice, while leaving attitudes toward military coups, executive aggrandizement and support for democracy as the best form of government largely unaffected. Understanding this nuanced relationship is especially important in contexts where crime is pervasive and politically instrumentalized. That exposure to crime leads citizens to tolerate breaches of the rule of law in the name of public safety is deeply concerning. Yet, our results offer cautious optimism: support for undemocratic enforcement does not necessarily undermine broader democratic commitments.
Suggested Citation
Juan Masullo & Krzysztof Krakowski & Davide Morisi, 2025.
"Does crime breed authoritarianism? Crime exposure, democratic decoupling and political attitudes in Brazil,"
Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 62(5), pages 1393-1410, September.
Handle:
RePEc:sae:joupea:v:62:y:2025:i:5:p:1393-1410
DOI: 10.1177/00223433251347792
Download full text from publisher
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:sae:joupea:v:62:y:2025:i:5:p:1393-1410. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.prio.no/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.