Authoritarianism Is Here

We must act accordingly.

“The USA now seems to be heading towards a transition away from democracy under President Trump.”

“The United States now faces the grave and imminent danger of democracy decaying into a hollow shell of ‘competitive authoritarianism’.”

America is “certainly headed toward” authoritarianism.

“Donald Trump has already moved strongly in this direction.”

The United States is on the path to authoritarianism, according to experts. So worrying are the signs, in fact, that American democracy may cease to exist in the near future.

I respect the scholars who have offered these warnings and agree with them in the main. Recent developments are indeed dire, and it is important for those with the relevant expertise to speak out.

At the same time, I differ from them on a point which might seem trivial but holds important implications. Contrary to what many are saying, the United States is not in danger of succumbing to authoritarianism; it already has.

To be sure, full authoritarianism in the mode of Russia and China is not a real possibility. In those places, opposition activity has been forced underground while elections are performative rituals with predetermined results.

What we are seeing instead is competitive authoritarianism, a concept first devised by political scientists Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way. Unlike full authoritarianism, competitive authoritarianism features genuine electoral competition in which the opposition can both participate and prevail. People can openly criticize the authorities, hold rallies, and engage in political organizing. Nevertheless, incumbents, through fraud, repression, and other illegitimate means, are able to structure the political environment to their advantage. Hungary, India, Turkey, and Venezuela are all examples of such regimes.

---

If weather radars show a hurricane approaching, would you sit there as your neighbors board up their homes and argue that wind speeds have not yet reached hurricane levels? Of course not. You would do exactly as they are and get the hell out.

---

The question is whether the U.S. is already a competitive authoritarian regime or does not yet qualify, however grave the indicators may be.

Is It Authoritarianism?

To answer this question, we can use Levitsky and Way’s own framework. According to their model, competitive authoritarianism exists when at least one of the following conditions are present:

Elections, while competitive, are unfair: Elections under competitive authoritarianism are often free to the extent that most citizens can vote without fear of coercion. They are nevertheless unfair in that the opposition is barred from competing on equal terms.

Electoral irregularities might take overt forms such as ballot-box stuffing and the intimidation of opposition activists. Other times, it is more subtle—say, by denying campaign resources and equal media coverage to the opposition. One way or another, incumbents retain a significant advantage over their rivals.

Obviously, there has not been a national election since Trump’s inauguration, so this particular feature of competitive authoritarianism does not yet obtain. But going by his public statements, not to mention his past conduct, we can safely assume he will try to rig elections going forward.

He has already gotten started. In the past few weeks, his administration has disbanded two longstanding advisory committees tasked with helping administer the 2030 Census. The Census is critical for determining the number of House seats allotted to each state and ensuring that electoral districts are fairly drawn.

For good measure, Trump unveiled a sweeping—and very unlawful—executive order yesterday which drastically increases the federal government’s role in elections. It mandates proof of citizenship for anyone registering to vote, prohibits the counting of ballots past Election Day, requires states to purge voter rolls in cooperation with federal agencies, and threatens the withdrawal of election funds to states that do not comply. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which is responsible for countering cybersecurity threats, has already cut funding for election security to state and local election offices.

The playing field is uneven: Election rigging, while important, is not the only way in which competitive authoritarian regimes subvert the democratic process. They can cause plenty of trouble between elections, too. By stacking the judiciary and other arbitration bodies with loyalists, the government can manipulate the political environment and trample on rights without fear of sanction. Another favorite tactic is to initiate criminal prosecutions and regulatory actions against businesses that finance the opposition.

Just two months into his term, Trump has moved decisively in this direction. He has purported to fire the chair of the Federal Election Commission, which is illegal under federal law. In a revival of Jim Crow tactics, he has threatened law firms that have filed suits against executive overreach. He has also tried to intimidate judges who rule against him. His sycophants in Congress have begun investigating companies that provide the Democratic Party with fundraising and other services and have even floated the prospect of criminal prosecutions.

Violations of civil liberties are common: The existence of an uneven playing field already satisfies Levitsky and Way’s conditions—and we have not even finished going through the list.

---

In reality, Trump’s assault on democracy is proceeding far more rapidly than in other competitive authoritarian regimes. This makes it all the more important to align our conceptual frame with the evolving landscape.

---

The last of their three criteria is the violation of civil liberties, particularly the freedoms of speech, association, and the press. On this score, too, the U.S. arguably qualifies as a competitive authoritarian regime. The intimidation of lawyers and judges not only makes for an uneven playing field but also infringes on the rights to speech and association. On top of that, the administration is investigating media companies and universities in textbook violation of the First Amendment.

Since detaining a Columbia University student and green card holder, the government has scrambled to find some post hoc pretext to justify an obviously lawless act of repression. Such measures, together with other enforcement actions against pro-Palestine academics and students, amount to the selective targeting of individuals on speech grounds.

What is more, the administration, in proud defiance of court orders, has expelled scores of others who had been residing legally in the country, many of whom now face torture in foreign jurisdictions apparently chosen for that purpose.

But Is It Really Authoritarianism?

Some might deem it premature to say that competitive authoritarianism exists; Trump’s actions might portend troubling developments but do not yet constitute the widespread and systematic pattern typical of such regimes. I would disagree with that assessment, but one can make it nonetheless.

Still, even if you think we have not entered competitive authoritarian territory, it is useful to assume that we have.

If weather radars show a hurricane approaching complete with thunderstorms, gale-force winds, and fleeing residents, what would you do? Would you sit there as your neighbors board up their homes and argue that wind speeds have not yet reached hurricane levels? Of course not. You would do exactly as they are and get the hell out. There is a f*****g hurricane, after all.

For the same reason, it makes little sense to debate whether competitive authoritarianism has arrived. At some point in the near future, it will. So it is better to act as if it has.

Academics, businesses, and universities are doing just that. Leading scholars of fascism are moving to Canada. Prominent companies have settled Trump’s dubious libel lawsuits in hopes of avoiding future reprisals. The owners of the Washington Post and L.A. Times have debased themselves in servile obedience to his wishes. Columbia University, at his behest, is attacking the rights of its own students and trashing every one of its ostensible values in the process. Scores of other institutions have abandoned diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.

We are well past the point of debate: Authoritarianism is here.

In reality, Trump’s assault on democracy is proceeding far more rapidly than in other competitive authoritarian regimes. This makes it all the more important to align our conceptual frame with the evolving landscape. “It’s the pace,” notes Staffan Lindberg of the Varieties of Democracy project. "He's trying to do in a few months what it took [other regimes] eight to 10 years to achieve…It’s very dire.” Levitsky agrees; “these first two months have been much more aggressively authoritarian than almost any other comparable case I know of democratic backsliding.”

The fact that competitive authoritarianism has taken hold so quickly is due in part to Trump’s brazenness. But it is not only that. Enabling this blitzkrieg in the first place is the disappearance of the traditional guardrails that once prevented such abuses. Some of those guardrails, like Congressional oversight and judicial review, were never really capable of checking a determined autocrat. Others, like forbearance, a longstanding norm by which the powerful refrained from exploiting the full powers available to them, have disappeared altogether.

With the guardrails gone, there is little that stands in Trump’s way. Consequently, things are likely to get much worse from here.

The arrival of competitive authoritarianism changes everything in terms of how Trump can be stopped. Fine-tuning the Democrats’ messaging strategy will not get us out of this mess. Nor will a change in legislative tactics. Defeating authoritarianism requires a different set of tools and actors altogether. We will take this matter up next time.