Authoritarianism: what is it?

Do democracy and dictatorship shake hands sometimes?

The world has seen a decline in democratic institutions and practices, along with a rise in authoritarian leadership and government. This trend has been established by global surveys conducted by the NGOs Freedom House and International IDEA. Other international surveys revealed a rise in dissatisfaction with democracy and democratic “deconsolidation” or backsliding.

Morteza Sharifi and I have completed another one of our discussions: Democracy vs. Authoritarianism: A Global Tug of War. Examining the rise of authoritarian regimes and their impact on democratic values. Watch it on Youtube.

To supplement that, I outline here what “authoritarianism” means in practical terms.

Nowadays authoritarianism is often associated with populism. They’re talked about as if inextricable (just google “authoritarian populism”), but we need to tease them apart.

In an earlier post, I described populism as growing in the gap or distance that emerges in systems of representative government between an elite political class (the representatives and their officials) and the “ordinary” people whom they represent. The populist exploits the incomprehension and indignation of (many of) the people about how things are changing, and they claim to speak directly to and for those disgruntled people. Populists often claim to be restoring democracy, or wanting to return power to the people, through referendums for instance.

As the word itself suggests, populism isn’t inherently anti-democratic. Nor does the populist necessarily threaten anyone’s basic political and civil liberties. But some of them do. For example, in speaking up for a “silent majority”, a populist leader may attack a minority-group, especially immigrants, who are accused of not assimilating into and conforming with (a certain version of) national culture.

If they gain formal power in office, it’s not a big conceptual leap for populists to argue that they need to “crack down on” those who don’t conform, to restore “commonsense” values and to establish law and order. That’s where authoritarianism may come in. Let me add, though, that a leader could be authoritarian without being populist: that is, an elite simply using force to impose its will over an oppressed majority, without any appeal to “the people” for legitimacy.

So, populism and authoritarianism may go together – but they’re not joined at the hip.

All governments need recourse to the use of force, be it police for domestic security or armed forces for defence. That requires authority: i.e., legal authority to act for the safety of the community. When used legitimately, such force is supposed to enhance people’s freedoms by protecting them from harm. The social contract theory (if you decide to accept it*) holds that people are willing to hand over to the state enough power (and no more) for the protection of their lives and properties. This enhances our freedoms, as we live in much less fear of others around us, and we can appeal to the state for justice when things go wrong – but, most of all, we can get on with making a living and enjoying life in peace.

There’s a balance to be found, at least in theory, between the state’s uses of force for everyone’s security and the freedom to do what you want. The latter is restrained by obedience to the law and conformity to social norms, and a greater good is achieved if we all live under a fair rule of law and treat one another respectfully. As I explain in the video, however, there’s no scientific or technical method for finding that “balance”. It’s a political question that needs to be debated over and over again.

Authoritarianism oversteps that notional limit on the state’s use of force; it upsets the balance in favour of blind obedience. Force is used for the perpetuation of a ruling elite, and becomes excessive. It turns into illegitimate state violence. It first manifests itself in the undermining of institutions that play critical roles in the maintenance of freedoms.

Those democratic institutions include:

• Free, fair and competitive elections, held periodically.

• Opposition parties and movements that dissent against and criticise an incumbent government without fear.

• A free press.

• An independent judiciary.

• Independent watchdog organisations such as auditors and human rights organisations.

• A police force that enforces (and acts within) the law to protect the community, not to serve political masters.

• Soldiers who stay in their barracks and don’t interfere in politics.

Authoritarian leaders will use their powers to undermine and control those institutions. They manipulate elections and exert control over journalists and judges. They bribe and threaten people in order to control them, or use violence against them when that doesn’t work. They sometimes stir up mobs. The Jan 6 storming of the US Capitol threatened the lawful conclusion of an election and the transition of power, and threatened the lives of elected officials, and hence it was a step in the direction of authoritarian rule. Will Mr Trump step back from that?

One means for the consolidation of authoritarian government is the declaration of a state of emergency. Under such circumstances, constitutional norms and rule of law may be suspended. This can be tolerated in a democracy if it’s necessary, proportionate and, above all, temporary. Authoritarian rulership, however, seeks to make those emergency powers permanent, by creating emergencies if need be. And there’s nothing like a good war.

---

* Social contract theory is a theory, not a historical fact. There was never actually a “state of nature” as described by Hobbes, Locke or Rousseau. John Rawls’s “original position” is only a thought experiment (making the whole of his theory of justice impractical and pointless). There are alternative theories about how we get to be “free” and about why there’s a government and a rule of law, but that’s for another day.