Would People Sacrifice Elections to Avoid Crime? Evidence From Six Countries

🔎 The Question

To what extent do citizens prefer living in a democracy over other markers of good governance or personal well-being? This study tests whether people trade off democratic institutions for outcomes such as safety, wealth, or access to services.

🧪 How choices were measured across six countries

Conjoint experiments presented respondents with pairs of hypothetical countries that varied on societal attributes and the respondent’s personal outcomes. Key features included:

• Societal attributes: presence of free and fair elections, civil liberties, checks and balances, public safety, health care.
• Individual outcomes: expected personal wealth, minority status, and other goods the respondent would experience.
• Sample locations: Egypt, India, Italy, Japan, Thailand, and the United States.

📈 Key findings

• Across all six countries, respondents consistently prioritized living in a safe country with free and fair elections over most other factors.
• Electoral democracy (free and fair elections) was preferred even relative to other democratic components such as civil liberties and checks and balances.
• Many respondents indicated a willingness to forfeit democratic elections to avoid living in a dangerous society, but not to gain wealth or other private goods.
• Results imply that concerns about crime and safety can undermine support for electoral democracy even where elections remain attractive.

⚖️ Why this matters

These findings show a trade-off in public priorities: while free elections enjoy broad appeal, immediate threats to security can eclipse commitment to electoral institutions. The pattern has implications for democratic resilience and for policies that link public safety and democratic legitimacy.