Abstract

This article elaborates the argument that a group committed to a democratic mode of governance is likely to experience incapacitating collective action problems when caught off guard by an authoritarian bid to state power. Unless they have a mandate to this effect, office holders cannot a priori presume the capacity or the right to determine the group stance. The rank and file for their part are likely to make their behavior conditional on one another’s in order to fend off the risks inherent to a critical decision. In these conjunctures, democratic renunciation may arise from collective irresolution and indeterminacy. Investigating collective action challenges in times of authoritarian threats complements militant democracy arguments about legal and constitutional tools for democratic self-defense.