Modern Authoritarianism: Origins, Anatomy, Outlook

Freedom House Introduction Modern Authoritarianism: Origins, Anatomy, Outlook As the world’s democracies confront a dangerous internal challenge from populist and nationalist political forces, it is imperative that they recognize the simultaneous external threat presented by modern authoritarian regimes. These 21° century authori- tarians developed an arsenal of new tactics to use against their domestic opponents, and gone on the offensive in an effort to subvert and replace the liberal international order. But modern authoritarian systems are not simply adversaries of free societies. They also represent an alternative model—a grim future for beleaguered democracies that have already fallen under the sway of illiberal leaders and have suffered an erosion of freedom. Democracy under siege Global democracy is currently facing the repercus- sions of what has been called the “decade of decline." The phrase describes a 10-year-plus period, from 2006 to 2016, during which the state of freedom experi- enced more reversals than gains as measured by Free- dom in the World, the annual report on political rights and civil liberties published by Freedom House. According to Freedom in the World, the crucial indicators of democracy experienced setbacks in each of the 10 years in question. In all, 105 countries suffered net declines, while 61 showed some mea- sure of improvement. The decade marked the longest democratic slump of its kind in more than 40 years of Freedom House analysis.’ The decade of decline has been principally character- ized by a steady erosion of political institutions in es- tablished authoritarian countries, or in countries that were clearly headed in that direction. In other words, repressive countries became even more repressive— the bad became even worse.’ However, a parallel pattern of institutional erosion has affected some more democratic states, pushing them into the category of “illiberal democracies.” In these so- cieties, elections are regularly conducted, sometimes under conditions that are reasonably fair. But the state, usually under the control of a strong party or leader, applies much of its energy to the systematic weaken- ing of political pluralism and the creation of a skewed electoral playing field. Opposition parties are often impotent, freedom of the press is circumscribed, and the judiciary tends to be dominated by the ruling party. Countries that fit this description include Hungary, Bolivia, Ecuador, and, if recent trends continue, Poland. There are many reasons for the global decline in dem- ocratic indicators, but the statistical evidence from Freedom in the World suggests that modern author- itarian regimes have found a way to survive without resorting to democratic reforms, and that a number of democracies—as part of the general loss of liberal consensus—are engaging in their own antidemocratic experiments. Modern authoritarianism The traditional authoritarian state sought monopolis- tic control over political life, a one-party system orga- nized around a strongman or military junta, and direct rule by the executive, sometimes through martial law, with little or no role for the parliament. Traditional dictatorships and totalitarian regimes were often defined by closed, command, or autarkic econo- mies, a state media monopoly with formal censorship, and “civil society” organizations that were structured as appendages of the ruling party or state. Especially in military dictatorships, the use of force—including military tribunals, curfews, arbitrary arrests, political detentions, and summary executions—was pervasive. Often facing international isolation, traditional dictator- ships and totalitarian regimes forged alliances based on www.freedomhouse.org HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019239