Speaker: Dr. Brendan “Skip” Mark, University of Rhode Island; Spring 2026 Institute for Public Leadership Fellow
Abstract: What happens when citizens in democracies support human rights violations? Democratic peace theory holds that democracy strongly predicts human rights protection: if leaders violate rights, citizens punish them at the ballot box while veto players check executive power. Yet recent immigration enforcement actions, surveillance expansion and restrictions on First Amendment rights in the United States suggest many Americans may be comfortable with government rights violations. This paper explores whether democratic publics demand human rights protection.
Using a survey of 3,333 US citizens conducted in July 2025, we find that most Americans cannot identify what human rights are. In a conjoint experiment varying citizenship status, type of rights violation, and scope of violation, we find three key results. First, Americans show substantially lower support for rights protection than democratic peace theory predicts. Second, support varies dramatically by type of right, with some rights enjoying broad support while others face public indifference. Third, and most strikingly, Americans believe citizens and authorized immigrants deserve equal rights protection, while refugees and unauthorized migrants deserve significantly fewer protections.
Our findings suggest the democracy-human rights link is more fragile than the literature assumes. In polarized democracies where rights violations target outgroups, electoral accountability may fail to prevent—or may even facilitate—government abuses.