{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014084507042253521, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004024144869215292, 'mean_word_length': 5.461038961038961, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Denmark and the United Kingdom

Denmark and the United Kingdom are analyzed in-depth as examples of clear positive cases, i.e. surviving democracies with substantial democratic legacies and vibrant associational landscapes. The two case studies show how Denmark and the UK had developed consolidated democracies on the eve of the interwar era. These democracies were bolstered by broad acceptance of democratic procedures among elites and masses as well as strong parties interlaced with lively civil societies. The result of this combination was political regimes, which were immune to the political radicalization of the day. Antidemocratic movements and parties found preciously little support, the established parties remained loyal to democracy, and they came together to strike political agreements in order to counter economic crisis and anti-democratic mobilization in the 1930s. The evidence offered by these case studies thus provide additional support for our theoretical mechanisms.