Despite the diverse political landscapes across the globe and growing fears of democratic decline, a multinational study reveals a surprising truth: people around the world still agree on a clear and consistent definition of what democracy means.
In a sweeping survey of over 6,000 participants spanning six politically diverse countries — Egypt, India, Italy, Japan, Thailand, and the United States — respondents overwhelmingly identified free and fair elections and strong civil liberties as the most important components of a democratic society. The research was led by Assistant Professor Jonathan Chu, Presidential Young Professor in International Affairs at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (LKYSPP), National University of Singapore (NUS); along with Dr Scott Williamson, Associate Professor in the Department of Politics and International Relations at the University of Oxford, and Eddy S. F. Yeung, PhD Candidate in Political Science at Emory University.
This consensus remained across borders as well as across subgroups within societies. Whether young or old, male or female, college-educated or not, left-leaning or right-leaning, participants prioritised the same democratic fundamentals. That consistency, the authors argue, is critical — because democracy is more resilient when citizens share a clear and common understanding of it.
A shared understanding of democracy
This alignment is particularly striking given the vastly different political environments represented in the study. Egypt and Thailand are classified as electoral autocracies; India and the United States have experienced notable democratic backsliding; and Italy and Japan are established democracies. Yet across these contexts, respondents agreed that a system without fair elections and civil liberties cannot truly be called democratic, and in turn rejected authoritarian reinterpretations of democracy that endorse unchecked leaders or blind obedience to the state. This suggests a global resistance to attempts by authoritarian leaders to reshape the concept of democracy to fit their governance models.
The findings offer a rebuttal to the growing narrative that democracy is losing its meaning, even as the foundations of democracy have come under stress in recent years. In some countries, leaders have tightened control over courts and media. Elsewhere, free elections are held but plagued by disinformation or intimidation. Meanwhile, powerful regimes like China and Russia are actively promoting alternative models of governance they label ‘democratic’. However, the survey respondents, who come from around the world, remain unconvinced.
“We found little evidence that an ‘authoritarian’ redefinition of democracy has taken root,” Professor Chu said. “The presence of an unchecked ruler and mass obedience to the government have little bearing on how people evaluate democracy.”
Interestingly, the study also found growing expectations of what democracy should deliver. After elections and liberties, gender equality emerged as the third most important attribute, especially in countries like India, Italy, Japan, and Thailand. Economic equality was also considered relevant, though to a lesser extent.
This broadening of democratic expectations suggests a subtle but important shift that while institutions and processes remain crucial, people are also beginning to expect democratic systems to ensure fairness and inclusion. Increasingly, these factors are seen as central to a democracy’s legitimacy.
Yet the findings also reveal a vulnerability. Institutional checks and balances, such as judicial independence or legislative oversight, ranked lower in salience. This can be concerning, given that these institutions are often the first targets when elected leaders begin to undermine democratic norms. Their invisibility may be precisely what makes them fragile.
The debate over what democracy means is not simply an academic one. It can shape how governments are judged, how political legitimacy is claimed, and how citizens react when their rights are under threat.
This clarity of understanding is critical, especially in Asia, where democratic systems vary widely and where authoritarian models often coexist with electoral rituals. In Egypt, for example, President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi declared after his rigged 2023 re-election, widely criticised as neither free nor fair, that he was committed to “building a democratic state that protects its citizens”. Such claims may hold sway in international rhetoric, but the study suggests that people on the ground remain anchored in more substantive definitions.
However, Professor Chu cautioned, “Just because people generally agree on what democracy means does not necessarily mean they will continue to support it. If democracies fail to perform effectively or represent their citizens well, people may be persuaded to accept more authoritarian models of governance.”
In short, democracy is expected to uphold and deliver elections and civil rights; legitimacy without performance is fragile.
A mandate for policymakers and reformers
For policymakers, civil servants, and civic leaders across Asia and beyond, the message is clear: Defending elections and civil liberties is deeply aligned with how people around the world define democratic legitimacy. Citizens may not agree on tax policy or climate reform, but they know what it looks like when their freedoms are curtailed, or elections are rigged.
In a region where democracy is often measured against competing models of governance, this study offers the hopeful reminder that the public still knows what democracy looks like. and more importantly, what it doesn’t. If a shared understanding of democracy exists globally — as this study strongly suggests — then there is also shared ground for defending it.
As global norms shift and regimes attempt to redefine what counts as democratic, the clearest standard may come not from governments or constitutions, but from the people themselves.