近年來，多項專家指標顯示南韓民主出現倒退，但同期民意調查卻呈現穩定評價。本文比較亞洲民主動態調查（ABS）與 V-Dem 資料，發現兩者存在結構性分歧：專家評估與進步派公民感知高度一致，非黨派公民則維持穩定，與精英層次黨派極化形塑專家資訊環境的假說一致。援引Claassen恆溫模型，本文指出民主規範受侵蝕時，公民動員形成修正性反壓力。方法論上，證明專家指標與公民調查分別反映制度供給面與態度需求面，並非等價測量；理論上，提出公眾恆溫韌性為民主穩定的重要自主機制，評估民主倒退應整合制度與公民兩種視角。

While expert indicators signal democratic backsliding in South Korea, citizen surveys reveal stable assessments. Using the Asian Barometer Survey (ABS) and V-Dem data, this paper identifies a systematic divergence: expert ratings track progressive sentiments, while non-partisan citizens report stability, suggesting elite polarization influences expert coding. Applying Claassen’s thermostatic model, this study finds that democratic commitment strengthens as institutional ratings decline—a “bottom-up consolidation” where public demand provides corrective counterpressure. This research contributes by: (1) demonstrating that expert indicators and citizen surveys capture distinct dimensions—institutional supply versus attitudinal demand; and (2) theorizing public thermostatic resilience as an autonomous mechanism for regime stability. Ultimately, accurate assessments of democratic health must integrate both institutional metrics and citizen attitudes to capture the full complexity of regime dynamics.