BREAKING DOWN DEMOCRACY: Goals, Strategies, and Methods of Modern Authoritarians
Chapter 8 Back to the Future
Until recently, a distinguishing feature of modern authoritarianism was the ruling group’s ability to con- solidate political power without resorting to the brutal tactics that defined the mainstream dictatorships of the 20th century.
The political leadership maintained control of the commanding heights of the media while tolerating
a small group of critical outlets as a safety valve for dissent and in order to tout the existence of diverse opinions in the news. Reformist nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) were allowed to operate, but not to grow or gain traction. The regime used violence against its critics, but only sparingly, targeting a few dissidents or independent journalists as a deterrent to others. And they were careful to keep the number of political prisoners to a minimum.
Perhaps most importantly, modern authoritarian regimes generally refrained from overt acts of hostility toward their neighbors. Some, such as China, boasted of a policy that sought harmonious, mutually ben- eficial relations with other regional states. Turkey similarly claimed a policy of “zero problems” with its neighbors in the period before the Syrian civil war.
Freedom House's Tyler Roylance has described a “common set of concessions" that 21st-century au- thoritarians made to the prevailing democratic ethos in the wake of the Cold War, when these regimes were balancing domestic political control with the need
for deeper integration into the global diplomatic and economic systems:
e Economic openness: Rather than attempting to preserve a closed, command, or autarkic economy, the typical “modern authoritarian” regime cultivated extensive connections with the outside world, creating a sense of freedom and prosperity. However, state enterprises and crony tycoons retained a dominant position, and pliant legal systems allowed the leadership and other corrupt officials to set and routinely reset the terms of economic participation for foreign companies, investors, and local entrepreneurs.
e Pluralistic media: Formal prepublication censor- ship and media monopolies were abandoned in most cases, clearing the way for a proliferation
of commercialized, well-produced, and often entertaining media outlets. But the state and its agents retained direct or indirect control of key sectors, manipulated mainstream news cover- age, and kept truly independent journalism on the margins of the information landscape.
Political competition: Most regimes allowed multiparty systems to emerge, and held regular elections, but opposition parties were fabricat- ed, coopted, or defanged in practice, allowing the ruling group to retain a de facto monopoly on power.
Civil society: Nongovernmental organizations were permitted to operate, but they were kept under close watch and forced to compete with state-sponsored groups. Organizations focusing on apolitical topics like public health or educa- tion often received less scrutiny than critical human rights activists, who were variously belittled, harassed, or suppressed.
Rule of law: Twentieth-century authoritarian sta- ples like martial law, curfews, mass arrests, and summary executions were largely left behind, and force began to be used more selectively,
so that most of the population rarely experi- enced state brutality. Dissidents were punished through the legal system, with its vaguely word- ed laws and obedient judges, and in cases where extralegal violence was used, state authorship was either hidden or not acknowledged. Only certain ethnic minorities faced naked military force or deadly police tactics.‘
While more calibrated and less expansive methods of repression are the defining feature of modern authoritarianism, the past few years have seen a reemergence of older methods that undermine the illusions of pluralism, openness, and integration into the global economy.
The most extreme departure from the modern authoritarian policy of balancing national am- bitions with participation in global governance was Russia's invasion of Ukraine and annexation of Crimea. No breach of international standards of that magnitude had been committed since
bz
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019286