Tolerance for democratic norm violations increases when sincerity replaces accuracy as a marker of honesty.

People's subjective conceptions of truth and honesty have undergone significant changes in recent decades. Parts of society increasingly favour the sincere expression of personal belief, however inaccurate, as a marker of honesty over verifiable facts. At the same time, political elites in many democracies have been increasingly violating democratic norms. Those violations have been identified as a major contributor to democratic backsliding, highlighting the need for a thorough examination of the nexus between democratic norm violations and conceptions of honesty. We present a series of four preregistered experiments (total n = 1537) that examined the conditions under which people acquiesce to democratic norm violations and politicians' dishonesty. We find that when participants are asked to take a perspective of honesty that emphasises sincerity over accuracy, which we call "belief-speaking", they are more willing to accept norm violations by politicians than if participants take a perspective that emphasizes accuracy as a criterion for honesty, which we call "fact-speaking". When a fictitious politician is presented as telling untruths, tolerance of norm violations is reduced compared to when the politician is presented as truthful. The findings highlight the need to develop a better understanding of how individuals interpret and respond to political leaders' behaviours, especially in a context of widespread democratic backsliding.