In the coming weeks and months, following Donald Trump's second time "takes the oath of office," Democrats will seize every opportunity to "mobilize voters" and coordinate with "civil society groups" to "thwart anti-democratic actions" and "win power back." Elected Democrats will cast votes against Trump’s proposed legislation and attempt to block his executive orders in court. That, in essence, is the role of opposition parties and civil societies.
However, this time it’s Republicans who will shoulder the primary responsibility for safeguarding U.S. democracy.
Analysis of democratic erosion across the globe reveals that the most significant defense against a leader elected to undermine democracy originates not from opposition parties or pro-democracy activists. Instead, it stems from the ruling party — notably the influential figures within that party — and their efforts to restrain their own leader.
The risk to democracy is particularly heightened in political systems where party leaders wield significant influence relative to the political parties supporting them — a situation currently evident within the Republican Party. Data collected on all democratically elected leaders worldwide in the 30 years since the Cold War's end indicates that when leaders dominate their parties, the likelihood of democratic backsliding increases, whether through gradual democratic decay or a swift collapse.
In the United States, it's common to assume that constitutional "checks and balances," including the powers held by Congress or the Supreme Court, are central to constraining a "rogue executive" and any attempted "power grab." However, findings suggest that institutions can only fulfill this role if members of the president’s party within those institutions are prepared to utilize their authority in the face of executive abuses or overreach.
The frequent absence of such action stems from a phenomenon where a political party becomes dominated by an individual leader. In this scenario, party figures perceive their political futures as intrinsically linked to the leader's fate, rather than the party's long-term standing, making them hesitant to challenge the leader’s actions. Within these “personalist” political parties, the party elite may even endorse a leader’s abuse of power if it is seen as advantageous for maintaining their positions.
The ramifications extend beyond the political sphere. When prominent party figures tolerate — or even endorse — a leader’s "anti-democratic actions," it cultivates public acceptance of those actions among party supporters, as individuals take significant cues from their elected officials. Elevated levels of polarization and the resulting animosity towards the opposing side exacerbate the situation, with partisans willing to accept abuses of power if it means keeping the other side out of office. Indeed, even with strong public support for democracy, research demonstrates that societies can descend a non-democratic path simply due to a desire to prevent the other side from winning.
This has been the trajectory for an increasing number of democracies globally, spanning from Hungary to El Salvador and Turkey to Tunisia. Despite varying political and historical contexts, these "personalist leaders" employ an identical playbook to dismantle democracy. Once elected, they promote unqualified loyalists and family members to positions of power. They fabricate threats, "demonize political opponents" and harass critical voices in the media. They attack the legitimacy of the judicial system while portraying themselves as above the law, attempt to circumvent any legislative constraints and dismiss government officials who question their behaviors or actions.
These actions persist because elites within the incumbent political party fail to push back — indeed, contradicting a "personalist leader" risks "career suicide" for high-ranking party officials. This dynamic leads to the party becoming synonymous with the leader, and — particularly when these parties secure a legislative majority — their presidents and prime ministers can act as they choose.
During Trump’s first term, key Republicans prevented this from happening. In July 2020, Trump suggested postponing the November election, but numerous Republicans — including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House of Representatives Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy — dismissed the idea. Later that year, elected Republicans, including a secretary of state in Georgia, a governor in Arizona and electors in Michigan, refused to falsify vote counts to keep Trump in power. Trump’s handpicked acting attorney general declined entreaties to conjure up fake evidence of voting irregularities. And Republican-appointed judges in courts in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the law in the face of Trump’s attempts to cling to power. Perhaps the most crucial move to save democracy was when Vice President Mike Pence rejected Trump’s pleas to overturn the election when certifying the Electoral College count.
However, while some Republican leaders defended democracy during Trump’s first term, many party leaders are likely to find it more challenging to oppose the incoming president this time. Over the past four years, Trump has consolidated his control over the GOP, making it resemble the "personalist parties" that support autocrats elsewhere. The Republican primary process highlighted the scarcity of leaders within the party willing to champion an alternative vision for its future. Trump successfully sidelined his primary rival, Nikki Haley, signaling to others the consequences of opposition. Similarly, many House Republicans are indebted to the president-elect for his support in securing their seats in the 2024 election cycle, making them less inclined to resist his efforts. Furthermore, Trump has solidified his grip on the party organization by installing allies and even in-laws in the leadership of the Republican National Committee.
Therefore, the confirmation process for Trump’s Cabinet picks will serve as the initial critical test for the Republican Party. Should Republicans fail to take a stand against the most egregious nominations — for example former Fox News anchor Pete Hegseth to lead the Department of Defense, or Tulsi Gabbard to head the intelligence community — historical precedent suggests they will find future resistance to the president increasingly difficult.
In other words, if Republicans fail to stand up to Trump from the outset, the descent toward authoritarianism will accelerate, mirroring the trajectories of Hungary and Turkey. In every "personalist autocracy," identifiable critical junctures exist that shift the balance of power in the leader’s favor relative to their political allies. One such juncture is the installation of loyalists and cronies in powerful government positions. Once a president wrests power away from the individuals and institutions that facilitated their rise — in this case, the Republican Party — the process of concentrating power gains momentum. Power begets more power, rarely the opposite.
Beyond simply advocating for qualified nominees, senior GOP leaders must also be prepared to condemn Trump’s "anti-democratic actions" when they occur. Ultimately, it is voters who serve as the most direct guarantors of democracy, capable of removing incumbents at the ballot box. Yet, across the globe, voters have reelected "personalist leaders" because the party elite declined to condemn the leader’s "anti-democratic actions," signaling that all is well with democracy. When senior party officials remain silent — or worse, endorse such behavior — they provide crucial public cues that alter party supporters’ perceptions of acceptable democratic norms and behavior, facilitating the slide to autocracy.
Certainly, the prospect of Trump’s reelection as a threat to democracy is not a novel observation. However, research illuminates the underlying institutional reason. Aspiring autocrats exist beneath the surface in many democracies. More consequential than a leader’s intentions and ambitions, however, are the constraints imposed by the party members surrounding them.
Thus, when Trump suggests postponing the next election, or contends that the two-term limit should apply only to two consecutive terms, the central question for the Republican elite will be: Will you stand up to Trump? Key figures within the Republican Party safeguarded democracy in 2020. Will they do it again?