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.
One thought on “Why Some Democracies Aren’t Really Democracies”