IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/2rwgt_v1.html

Elites as Democratic Gatekeepers: Theory and Evidence from Norway

Author

Listed:
  • Goldstein, Daniel A. N.

    (University of Oslo)

  • Bakke, Kaja Sparre
  • Dahlum, Sirianne
  • Wig, Tore

Abstract

Studies of democratic backsliding suggest that political elites can, but often fail to, serve as "democratic gatekeepers" by punishing autocratic colleagues to protect democracy. While there is a substantial body of literature examining voters' preferences for democracy and their reactions to democratic violations by elites, we know less about elites' preferences for democratic gatekeeping in contemporary democracies. We develop a theory of democratic gatekeeping among political elites in democracies, examining the practice within and between parties. We tested the implications of this theory in pre-registered survey experiments targeting approximately 8,000 national and local elected representatives and party officials in Norway. We then compared the results to those of a survey of citizens. Through various experimental approaches, we uncover the gatekeeping preferences of Norwegian political elites when exposed to anti-democratic party colleagues and political parties as potential coalition partners.

Suggested Citation

  • Goldstein, Daniel A. N. & Bakke, Kaja Sparre & Dahlum, Sirianne & Wig, Tore, 2026. "Elites as Democratic Gatekeepers: Theory and Evidence from Norway," SocArXiv 2rwgt_v1, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:2rwgt_v1
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/2rwgt_v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/6a1085a5cd126a9769487992/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/2rwgt_v1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ben M. Tappin & Adam J. Berinsky & David G. Rand, 2023. "Partisans’ receptivity to persuasive messaging is undiminished by countervailing party leader cues," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(4), pages 568-582, April.
    2. Paul Goren & Christopher M. Federico & Miki Caul Kittilson, 2009. "Source Cues, Partisan Identities, and Political Value Expression," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(4), pages 805-820, October.
    3. Lührmann, Anna & Mechkova, Valeriya & Dahlum, Sirianne & Maxwell, Laura & Olin, Moa & Petrarca, Constanza Sanhueza & Sigman, Rachel & Wilson, Matthew C. & Lindberg, Staffan I., 2018. "State of the world 2017: autocratization and exclusion?," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 25(8), pages 1321-1340.
    4. James D. Fearon, 2011. "Self-Enforcing Democracy," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 126(4), pages 1661-1708.
    5. Graham, Matthew H. & Svolik, Milan W., 2020. "Democracy in America? Partisanship, Polarization, and the Robustness of Support for Democracy in the United States," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 114(2), pages 392-409, May.
    6. Grossman, Guy & Kronick, Dorothy & Levendusky, Matthew & Meredith, Marc, 2022. "The Majoritarian Threat to Liberal Democracy," Journal of Experimental Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(1), pages 36-45, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Boese-Schlosser, Vanessa A. & Meißner, Daniel & Ziblatt, Daniel, 2026. "Voters' orientations towards democracy: A new conceptual framework," Discussion Papers, Research Group Waves of Regime Transformation SP V 2026-701, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    2. repec:osf:osfxxx:neh5u_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Brummel, Lars & Toshkov, Dimiter, 2024. "When Should Governments Listen to Social Protests? The Effects of Public Support and Outcome Favorability," OSF Preprints neh5u, Center for Open Science.
    4. Gilad, Sharon & Sulitzeanu-Kenan, Raanan & Levi-Faur, David, 2024. "Partisan Alignment and the Propensity to Choose a Job in a Government Ministry," SocArXiv ufzcj, Center for Open Science.
    5. Michael Kurschilgen, 2023. "Moral awareness polarizes people’s fairness judgments," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 61(2), pages 339-364, August.
    6. Jacob Sohlberg, 2016. "The Effect of Elite Polarization: A Comparative Perspective on How Party Elites Influence Attitudes and Behavior on Climate Change in the European Union," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-13, December.
    7. Hanne Fjelde, 2020. "Political party strength and electoral violence," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 57(1), pages 140-155, January.
    8. Guriev, Sergei & Treisman, Daniel, 2020. "A theory of informational autocracy," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    9. Williams, Christopher J. & Hunger, Sophia, 2022. "How challenger party issue entrepreneurship and mainstream party strategies drive public issue salience: evidence from radical-right parties and the issue of immigration," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 14(4), pages 544-565.
    10. Drew Cagle & Nicholas T. Davis, 2024. "Civility norm violations and political accountability," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 105(3), pages 832-842, May.
    11. Xu, Lei & Ou, Amy Y. & Park, Haemin Dennis & Jiang, Han, 2024. "Breaking barriers or maintaining status quo? Female representation in decision-making group of venture capital firms and the funding of woman-led businesses," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 39(1).
    12. Pierre Salmon, 2013. "Horizontal competition in multilevel governmental settings," Working Papers hal-00830876, HAL.
    13. Londregan, John & Vindigni, Andrea, 2006. "Voting as a Credible Threat," Papers 10-04-2006, Princeton University, Research Program in Political Economy.
    14. Maciel, Marcelo Veloso, 2024. "Was Bolsonaro’s 2018 electoral victory an institutional accident?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    15. Segun T. Aroyehun & Almog Simchon & Fabio Carrella & Jana Lasser & Stephan Lewandowsky & David Garcia, 2025. "Computational analysis of US congressional speeches reveals a shift from evidence to intuition," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 9(6), pages 1122-1133, June.
    16. Şaşmaz, Aytuğ & Yagci, Alper H. & Ziblatt, Daniel, 2022. "How Voters Respond to Presidential Assaults on Checks and Balances: Evidence from a Survey Experiment in Turkey," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 55(11), pages 1947-1980.
    17. Özgür, Arslan-Ayaydin & Thewissen, James & Torsin, Wouter, 2021. "Earnings Management Methods and CEO Political Affiliation," LIDAM Discussion Papers LFIN 2021017, Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain Finance (LFIN).
    18. Daron Acemoglu & Tuomas Pekkarinen & Kjell G Salvanes & Matti Sarvimäki, 2025. "The Making of Social Democracy: the Economic and Electoral Consequences of Norway’s 1936 Folk School Reform," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 23(1), pages 119-158.
    19. repec:osf:socarx:ufzcj_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Kimbrough, Erik O. & Laughren, Kevin & Sheremeta, Roman, 2020. "War and conflict in economics: Theories, applications, and recent trends," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 998-1013.
    21. Toshkov, Dimiter & Brummel, Lars & Carroll, Brendan & Yesilkagit, Kutsal, 2024. "Public Policy Attitudes and Political Polarization in the Netherlands," OSF Preprints bz6n9, Center for Open Science.
    22. William G. Nomikos & Dahjin Kim & Gechun Lin, 2025. "American social media users have ideological differences of opinion about the War in Ukraine," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 12(1), pages 1-7, December.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:osf:socarx:2rwgt_v1. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arabixiv.org .

    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.