Democratic backsliding (DB) is commonly defined as a state-led process in which incumbents gradually weaken the institutions that sustain democracy (Bermeo 2016). It typically unfolds through attacks on the rule of law, civil liberties, and electoral competition (Levitsky and Ziblatt 2018; Lührmann and Lindberg 2019). Scholars have highlighted the crucial role of counter-majoritarian actors—courts, bureaucrats, media, and civil society—in resisting such erosive efforts (Ginsburg and Huq 2018). Yet, as Przeworski (2019) reminds us, democracy is stable only when elections put something at stake, but not too much. This balance has been disrupted across much of Central Europe: Hungary and Poland demonstrate how executives can systematically reshape institutions to entrench their dominance (Bozóki and Hegedűs 2018; Sadurski 2019).

Slovakia, however, poses a puzzle. Until the 2023 election, it largely resisted the kind of systematic erosion visible among its neighbours. While attacks on the judiciary, media, and civil society occurred, they did not lead to wholesale institutional dismantling. Slovak institutions were rarely captured in their entirety by the executive, and public mobilisation repeatedly exerted pressure on political elites. Why did Slovakia resist democratic backsliding for so long? To what extent are politicians, historical legacies, and accountability actors responsible—and what does the 2023 election imply for the country’s democratic future?

This paper addresses these questions drawing on preliminary findings from the REDEMP project (2022–2026), which investigates Slovakia’s preparedness to confront democratic backsliding. It focuses on the role of accountability actors—bureaucrats, judges, journalists, and NGOs—and their capacity to resist pressures on democracy. The analysis is based on semi-structured interviews with accountability actors and focus groups with citizens. It examines three dimensions: (a) how accountability actors perceive their role in safeguarding democracy, (b) how they assess the resilience of their institutions against backsliding, and (c) how these perspectives intersect with, and sometimes collide with, citizens’ understandings of democracy.