Category: Authoritarianism

Why some embrace it — a guest post by Paul Edward Robinson
(Inspired by Anne Applebaum’s Twilight of Democracy)

Over the past weeks, I’ve written about competitive authoritarianism—how democracies don’t always die with a bang, but erode bit by bit as leaders tilt the playing field to keep power. We’ve seen real-world examples of this in action and explored ways to resist it.

But here’s the uncomfortable question: Why do so many people—sometimes even former democrats—go along with this shift? Why do some actively support leaders who dismantle democratic norms?

Anne Applebaum tackles this in Twilight of Democracy. She doesn’t just examine how authoritarianism rises—she asks why people welcome it. And the answer is unsettling.

1. The Allure of Stability and Order

Democracy is messy. It thrives on debate, disagreement, and compromise.

Authoritarian-leaning leaders promise to “cut through the noise” and restore order—something that appeals to those tired of political chaos.

Many believe that a strong leader is the answer to polarization, unaware that this “order” comes at the cost of rights and freedoms.

2. The Comfort of a Simplified Worldview

Democracy requires critical thinking, engagement, and accepting uncertainty.

Competitive authoritarian regimes, on the other hand, offer easy answers—blaming outsiders, the media, or political opponents for all problems.

This attracts those who find it exhausting to navigate a world where truths are complex and policies require debate.

3. The Role of Political and Media Elites

Applebaum, like Levitsky & Way, emphasizes that democratic decline isn’t just about the leader—it’s about the elites who enable them.

Politicians, journalists, and intellectuals sometimes choose to support an emerging autocrat—not because they are forced to, but because it benefits them.

Whether it’s access to power, wealth, or ideological alignment, many will rationalize their support even as democracy erodes.

4. The Fear of Losing Power

Not everyone supports authoritarianism because they like it—some do it because they fear what happens if the “other side” wins.

Many competitive authoritarian regimes exploit this fear, convincing supporters that democracy will lead to their marginalization.

This fear—of demographic shifts, cultural change, or economic uncertainty—often overrides concerns about democratic principles.

5. The Slow Normalization of Autocracy

Applebaum warns that the transition from democracy to authoritarianism often feels normal to those experiencing it.

At first, it’s just small changes—the courts get reshaped, the media shifts, elections still happen but feel less meaningful.

By the time people realize what’s happened, it’s too late to easily reverse course.

Final Thought: The Fight for Democracy Is Also a Fight for Minds

Levitsky & Way help us understand how competitive authoritarianism works. Applebaum helps us understand why people let it happen.

Resisting authoritarianism isn’t just about policies and elections—it’s also about pushing back against the narratives that make people want a strongman, that make them fear open debate, or that convince them democracy isn’t worth the trouble.

History shows that no country is immune. The best defense isn’t just voting or protesting—it’s challenging the mindsets that make democracy vulnerable in the first place.

Real-World Examples — a guest post by Paul Edward Robinson

In my last post, we talked about the warning signs of competitive authoritarianism—how leaders can tilt the playing field just enough to stay in power while keeping a democratic façade. But this isn’t just a theory. It’s happening in real countries, right now.

Here are some examples of how competitive authoritarianism has played out across the world:

Russia (Early 2000s–Today)

Elections still happen in Russia, but can anyone really challenge Putin? Opposition figures are either harassed, jailed (like Alexei Navalny), or mysteriously fall out of windows. State-controlled media drowns out alternative voices, and new laws make it nearly impossible for independent political parties to operate freely. The illusion of democracy remains, but the outcome is never in doubt.

Hungary (2010–Today)

Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and his party, Fidesz, have systematically weakened Hungary’s democracy. They changed election laws to favor their party, took over independent media, and stacked courts with loyalists. Orbán still holds elections, but with a system designed to ensure he wins—classic competitive authoritarianism in action.

Turkey (2010s–Today)

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan started out as a democratically elected leader, but over time, he concentrated power. After a failed coup attempt in 2016, he used emergency powers to silence critics, arrest thousands of journalists and academics, and rewrite the constitution to extend his rule. Elections still happen, but opposition parties face constant legal and political obstacles.

Venezuela (2000s–Today)

Hugo Chávez was elected democratically, but his government gradually chipped away at checks and balances. His successor, Nicolás Maduro, took it further—jailing opposition leaders, rigging elections, and rewriting the constitution to maintain power. Despite elections and opposition movements, Venezuela operates under a thin veil of democracy while functioning as an authoritarian state.

Malaysia (1990s–2018)

For decades, Malaysia had elections, but they were skewed in favor of the ruling coalition. The government controlled the media, gerrymandered districts, and used corruption investigations to weaken opponents. It wasn’t until 2018 that a massive political shift finally broke this cycle—showing that competitive authoritarian regimes aren’t always permanent.

So, what can we learn from these cases?

Democracy doesn’t usually die in one big moment—it erodes slowly.

Leaders often use legal means to stay in power, making it hard to push back.

Even in competitive authoritarian regimes, change is possible—but it takes persistence and pressure.

A guest post by Paul Edward Robinson

We like to think of democracy as a clear-cut system—either you have free and fair elections, or you don’t. But what if I told you there’s a gray area?

In The Rise of Competitive Authoritarianism (PDF, free download), Steven Levitsky and Lucan A. Way explain how some governments appear democratic on the surface but are actually rigged to keep those in power from ever losing.

They call this competitive authoritarianism—a system in which opposition parties exist, elections are held, and the media operates, but everything is stacked against real political competition. Think of it as a game in which one team owns the referees, controls the scoreboard, and rewrites the rules as they go.

These regimes use subtle, legal means to tilt the playing field—harassing opposition leaders with lawsuits, controlling state media, or tweaking election laws just enough to ensure the ruling party stays in power. Unlike full-blown dictatorships, they can’t just jail opponents outright (without consequences), but they don’t have to play fair either.

The scary part is that this isn’t just a phenomenon in weak states or failed democracies. It happens in places that were once solidly democratic but started sliding toward authoritarian tactics, eroding checks and balances over time.

So, next time you hear about an election that seems “free” but not quite “fair,” remember—real democracy isn’t just about voting. It’s about competition that actually gives people a real choice.