Does weak Economy leads to weak Democracy?

Throughout the history of humans, there have been many things that affect Democracy in an area. But could the economy be a leading factor? It is very common for weak economies to make people demand a very drastic change. According to the article by Abby Cordova and Mitchell A. Selingson, Economic Shocks and Democratic Vulnerabilities in Latin America and The Caribbean,”  since the World War II “’Countries that in which democracy is ultimately reversed show a trend of stagnant or falling growth.” Obviously this can lead someone to come to that conclusion. However, there may be other underlying factors which could ultimately lead to it. In their article they also mention how a negative view of the government can cause great dissatisfaction.

If the citizens don’t approve of where the government seems to be heading, then they’ll be more inclined to favor a complete turnaround (in some cases even a military coup). What causes this doesn’t have to be a drastic performance or lack thereof, but it could be that some people were just “democracy’s fickle friend’s”. This means that anything, big or small, can change the minds of some people. While, it is hard to determine if the economy does indeed play a large role in the support for Democracy, this doesn’t mean that there aren’t studies that support this claim.

One of the theories supporting such a claim does not focus exactly on the individuals but on the countries. They argue that weak economies affect the democracies in three ways: 1) Even though there has been advances in living conditions in the area, it continues to be characterized by underdevelopment, a factor associated with instability which makes them vulnerable to a complete change 2) Economic development and growth are shown to affect democracy which, in short, means that in a wealthy country Democracy should be safe and 3) High income gaps can lead to democratic decline.

When it comes to attempting to describe how the individuals themselves contribute the theory, it becomes more complex. You have to study their tendencies and beliefs. When Latin American citizens were asked how much they believed in democracy, a noticeably high number of people seemed to disbelieve in democracy. This study goes into further depth when analyzing the individuals’ perception of their economic conditions. The people who perceived their own situation or the national situation as deteriorating tended to have a weaker support when compared to the ones who saw improvement.

When it came to approving violent participation, another factor seemed to emerge when considering individuals, which was age. Of course based on the previous studies you would assume that those living in poverty would generally be more likely to approve violent acts, but age also seemed to play a role. In the studies it showed that people “between 16 and 30 years old who are part of the poorest 20 percent of the population show the highest levels of approval of violent participation” (Glover 2010). It shows that younger people who came into poverty for whatever reason tend to turn their back on democracy and support a violent transition to get rid of it because they think that they won’t have a future under the current format.

On the whole, even though it might be hard to study such a claim due to the fact that the measure of support for a system is not really quantifiable, there are arguments that claim this nonetheless. There are many factors that can affect this, both on the national stage and on the individual one, but they all point to the same conclusion. Hard economic times can lead to less support for current government regime because there’s a lack of trust between the citizens and their government. This lack of trust can lead people to support a violent transition (especially if you’re a younger person) and a complete turnaround. This makes it harder for democracy to flourish and makes it more vulnerable.