The second indicator relates to the recognition of democratic rules. An individual, or groups of power that are contestants or stakeholders in the election, fall into the anti-democracy category if what they do undermines the credibility of the democratic system’s implementation. Viewing the election as illegitimate if the results do not match their expectations is part of this indicator. Statements we often hear like “I can only be defeated by cheating” or “Because the election was rigged, I lost” or “I was thwarted” are simple illustrations of anti-democratic behavior.
In essence, being unprepared for loss is not a part of democracy. It becomes anti-democratic and has the potential to decay democracy if this unpreparedness to lose is escalated into a movement to cancel (the result of) the election — which could potentially incite chaos.
The third indicator pertains to respecting other contestants. Disrespecting political opponents is part of the anti-democratic indicator. This can intertwine with the first indicator. For instance, labeling opponents as foreign agents or shared enemies based on religion and identity is considered seeds of anti-democracy that could ignite hatred and hostility.
The fourth indicator relates to the issue of civil liberties. This is deemed a key indicator, for without civil liberties, democracy becomes problematic. Therefore, individuals or groups that tend to dislike civil liberties fall into the anti-democracy category with the potential to decay democracy.
These four key indicators were compiled by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt to prevent anti-democratic forces from internally decaying democracy. In the context of Indonesia, for example, if intolerant groups are given the stage to wield power, it could jeopardize our future diversity; if the proponents of the caliphate are given the opportunity to rule, it could endanger the future of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia (NKRI).