Understanding Democratic Erosion: A Lowy Institute/Toda Peace Institute Collaborative Project
Newsletter 381 - September 5 2025
.Note: All our newsletters are also available on the BI Newsletter Archive.
For the last two years, we have been meeting with members of the Toda Peace Institute's Global Challenges to Democracy Program to help build a conflict map of the system driving democratic erosion. This map has just been released on the partner Lowy Institute website, (The Lowy Institute is an Australian Think Tank that has been collaborating with Toda). We thought it was worth a newsletter to share this map and further thoughts about the value of conflict mapping to the study of —and intervention in — intractable conflicts, particularly those posing challenges to democracy.
First, to be clear: our role in this map was consultative, and rather minimal. The real drivers behind the map were Peter Woodrow, Lydia Khalil, James Paterson and Robert (Bob) Kaufman. Peter is a leading thinker in the application of systems thinking concepts and tools of context analysis and program design in peacebuilding, anti-corruption, and democratic backsliding. He, along with all of the others (and Guy and myself) is a member of the Toda Global Challenges to Democracy Working Group. Lydia is Program Director of the Transnational Challenges Program at the Lowy Institute, where she manages the Digital Threats to Democracy Project. Bob Kaufman is Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Rutgers University (USA). He has written widely on authoritarianism and democratic transitions. His current research focuses on backsliding in democratic regimes in Latin America, other developing and post-communist countries, and the United States. Finally, James Paterson is the Research Associate for the Transnational Challenges Program at the Lowy Institute. He holds a PhD from Monash University where his research focuses on insurgent dynamics and legitimacy. We met with Peter, Lydia, Bob and several others periodically over the last two years to draft, and redraft and revise again, portions of this map. But it was Peter, Lydia, and James who were the primary collaborators on the final product, and Bob contributed, particularly, to the written commentary that accompanies the map.
What is a Conflict Map and How is it Useful?
When we were teaching, both Guy and I taught conflict mapping in almost all our courses. We see it as an invaluable tool for better understanding the nature of complex conflicts: what drives them, what their impacts are, and where and how one might be able to intervene to change the dynamics and outcomes of a conflict.
Conflict maps also have utility far beyond the classroom. When done by third party intervenors (mediators, for example), or disputants themselves (with or without a facilitator or mediator's help), the maps can go a long way to explain what is really going on in a conflict and how it might be approached most effectively. It is a fail-proof way to get beyond the almost always too simplistic and usually destructive "us-versus-them," "good-guys-versus-bad-guys" definitions of conflicts, replacing those notions with a much better understanding of why the parties are at odds, and what might be done to bring them closer together.
How to Do Conflict Mapping
There are many ways to do conflict mapping. The way we originally learned to do it (long ago in graduate school) was a text-based approach, described by Paul Wehr on the BI website. Later we learned how to do what we call "graphical conflict mapping" (to distinguish it from Paul Wehr's approach) from Peter Coleman and Rob Ricigliano, who describe the process well in Colemans' The Five Percent, and Ricigliano's Making Peace Last. Most people now assume one means the graphical approach when one refers to a "conflict map."
The core elements of a conflict map are geometric shapes connected with arrows. (They are not, generally, geographical maps.) The shapes represent conditions, actors, and actions, and the arrows indicate relationships between the conditions, actors, and actions as well as dynamics of the system. It is the arrows that provide the most value of the map, as they clearly show things that are generally not evident in a text-based conflict assessment approach (such as Wehr's).
When I taught conflict mapping, I always suggested that our students start with a problem they care about. In this case, the Toda Mapping Working Group chose democratic backsliding. But you can choose anything else. My students looked at abortion, immigration, Israel/Hamas, Syria, ISIS, Iran and Nuclear Proliferation, DRC, US-China, Law Enforcement and Minority Communities — and many, many more. I would then ask them to identify the factors that each of the parties to the conflict cared about, and suggested they put those on the map. What things led to those? What things resulted from those? Which influenced which other? A key element of almost all intractable conflicts, and hence almost all good conflict maps, are feedback loops— circular chains of cause and effect that can be either reinforcing (i.e escalating -- making something worse and worse over time), or dampening destructive cycles, making them better over time. (Unfortunately, but perhaps not surprisingly, intractable conflicts have far more reinforcing loops than dampening loops.)
Maps typically turned into what I referred to as "spaghetti diagrams" with arrows going every which way in a huge tangle. I then coached my students on ways to simplify the maps using different levels (zooming in or out), and different layers (looking at different elements in isolation). (That is how Toda simplified their map.) Some of the resulting maps were amazingly impressive and/or creative (one student created one in the shape of a pumpkin on Halloween, and other team based theirs on a map of the Moscow subway system, which I advised would never work, but they made it work despite my warning. But always more important than the end result was the process. Students always learned a great deal from creating these maps. Disputants and conflict intervenors do the same. It is impossible to look at a conflict the same way after you have tried to map it.
The Lowy/Toda Democratic Erosion Map
The Lowy/Toda map starts out with the following description:
Democratic erosion is the incremental and multifaceted deterioration in the freedoms, guarantees, and processes vital to the functioning of democracy. Various studies have tried to pinpoint one cause or set of causes of democratic erosion. But we argue that democratic erosion is a systems problem that is best understood by applying systems thinking to identify and explore the complex processes and pathways behind the phenomenon. This interactive feature [the conflict map] illustrates those dynamics and uses systems mapping to show how reinforcing “loops” — the circular chains of cause and effect — accelerate democratic erosion.
They go on to explain that:
In this systems map, we show how a number of the preceding conditions and actors contribute to democratic erosion by illustrating the causal pathways between the factors and elements these conditions and actors create. Some of these pathways become “reinforcing loops” or sequences of mutual cause-and-effect that create a feedback loop that amplifies decline. We identify five reinforcing loops of democratic erosion: 1) anti-democratic actors gain and consolidate power; 2) weakening of balancing institutions, guardrails, and norms; 3) entrenched division; 4) loss of faith in democracy; and 5) support for and use of political violence.
To make the map easier to understand, they break out each of these five loops separately. For example, here is the map that they have showing the elements that lead to anti-democratic actors gaining and consolidating power. This map shows several feedback loops which are probably best understood by looking at the map, rather than by reading my commentary. (If you click on the diagram, it will pop up in a new window enlarged enough to read it.)
Here you can see that polarization is shown to be one cause of the election of anti-democratic candidates, as is media manipulation and disinformation. Polarization also leads to appeals to grievances and exclusionary nationalism, which leads to media manipulation, and eventually back to election manipulation. The election of such candidates is also shown to lead to executive aggrandizement, which leads to repression of the opposition, which then further leads back to the election of anti-democratic candidates.
I actually think there are more feedback loops in this system than are shown. Polarization is shown to be caused by reduced commitment to democratic norms and values, but it also contributes to that diminished commitment. Likewise, polarization is shown to lead to appeals to grievances and evolutionary nationalism, but such appeals also increase polarization.
This is a typical occurrence with conflict mapping: no two people will do it the same way. And that's part of what makes it a powerful learning experience. I always had students work in teams to create their conflict maps, because they would each see things in different ways, and would learn from each other as they decided how to draw their maps. Similarly, when mediators get disputants to work together to draw conflict maps, the discussions are always very useful—sometimes heated—but very eye-opening. They can be done in work groups with each side to the conflict working separately, or disputants from multiple "sides" can be put together. Both approaches are powerful ways to get people to better understand what is going on, but for obvious reasons, more stereotypes are broken and assumptions challenged when people from different sides of a conflict are asked to work together.
In addition to separating out the five feedback loops listed above, the Toda map explores thirteen conditions that lead to democratic erosion: demographic change, fractured and polluted information environment, geopolitical change, unresolved divisions, polarization, corruption, economic inequality, crisis, cultural and social change, ineffective governance, citizen disaffection and apathy, distrust in institutions, and technological disruption. They also consider the impact of thirteen different types of actors: executive, legislative, and the judicial branches of government, bureaucracy, regulatory and statutory bodies, the business sector, social movements, influencers, educators, media, citizens, political parties and the military. All of these factors and actors appear in the maps and in text-based explanations of their role in contributing to democratic backsliding.
The map commentary concludes by saying:
For democratic erosion to occur, there first must be a set of underlying or facilitating conditions. However, these conditions are not determinative. Democracy is a system of government “for the people, by the people, and of the people”. From political leaders to average citizens, the choices and actions that people make within a democracy are instrumental to either its erosion or its safeguarding. It is only when these conditions are exploited by motivated anti-democratic actors or create a situation where enough citizens lose faith in their democracy, that democratic erosion occurs.
Each element of democratic erosion can seem inconsequential on its own. Its impact is often only perceived over time and in combination with other factors, which is why systems mapping is useful to understand and illustrate the phenomenon. The cumulative effect of the processes described is an erosion of checks and balances, rule of law, normative commitments to democracy, equal opportunities, and the other freedoms and guarantees that are the defining features of democracy, ultimately leading to the arbitrary exercise of power by an executive.
The systems map included in this interactive feature is conceptual. To apply accurately to any specific country, the map can be adapted to draw on an understanding of local actors, contexts, and dynamics. But the patterns depicted in the systems map occur in multiple backsliding democracies around the world. The five reinforcing loops identified in the map — 1) anti-democratic actors gain and consolidate power; 2) weakening of balancing institutions, guardrails, and norms; 3) entrenched division; 4) loss of faith in democracy; and 5) support for and use of political violence — are common features of democratic erosion worldwide.
The challenge is how to promote more robust and resilient democratic institutions, practices, and norms that can not only survive democratic erosion but bounce back and thrive in an era of democratic backsliding. None of the dynamics examined here is inevitable or irreversible. By more comprehensively illustrating the problem, systems mapping can better depict opportunities for intervention and offer an understanding of how one set of actions taken to counter one aspect of democratic erosion relates to the whole. The systems map can help us understand how the erosion of democracy works, so that democratic societies can guard against it.
We are really impressed with the map that Peter, Lydia, James and Bob created. It is far more clear and understandable than the drafts we started with. So we encourage all of our readers who are interested in the problem of democratic backsliding to give a careful look at this map, think about how it relates to what you are seeing wherever you are, and what it might imply about intervention opportunities that you and others could undertake to begin to break some of these reinforcing feedback loops. (I always asked my students to find places where they could "throw a monkey-wrench in the works" to stop the feedback loop from cycling, or at least slow it down.) There's tons of information here and and lots more to be had by putting your own ideas into this map.
Please Contribute Your Ideas To This Discussion!
In order to prevent bots, spammers, and other malicious content, we are asking contributors to send their contributions to us directly. If your idea is short, with simple formatting, you can put it directly in the contact box. However, the contact form does not allow attachments. So if you are contributing a longer article, with formatting beyond simple paragraphs, just send us a note using the contact box, and we'll respond via an email to which you can reply with your attachment. This is a bit of a hassle, we know, but it has kept our site (and our inbox) clean. And if you are wondering, we do publish essays that disagree with or are critical of us. We want a robust exchange of views.
About the MBI Newsletters
BI sends out newsletter 2-3 times a week. Two of these are substantive articles. Once a week or so we compile a list of the most interesting reading we have found related to our topics of interest: intractable conflict, hyper-polarization, and democracy, and we share them in a "Massively Parallel Peace and Democracy Building Links” newsletter. These links include articles sent by readers, information about our colleagues’ activities, and news and opinion pieces that we have found to be of particular interest. Each Newsletter will be posted on BI, and sent out by email through Substack to subscribers. You can sign up to receive your copy here and find the latest newsletter here or on our BI Newsletter page, which also provides access to all the past newsletters, going back to 2017.
NOTE! If you signed up for this Newsletter and don't see it in your inbox, it might be going to one of your other emails folder (such as promotions, social, or spam). Check there or search for beyondintractability@substack.com and if you still can't find it, first go to our Substack help page, and if that doesn't help, please contact us.
If you like what you read here, please ....