Category: Authoritarianism

Real-World Examples — a guest post by Paul Edward Robinson

In my last post, we talked about the warning signs of competitive authoritarianism—how leaders can tilt the playing field just enough to stay in power while keeping a democratic façade. But this isn’t just a theory. It’s happening in real countries, right now.

Here are some examples of how competitive authoritarianism has played out across the world:

Russia (Early 2000s–Today)

Elections still happen in Russia, but can anyone really challenge Putin? Opposition figures are either harassed, jailed (like Alexei Navalny), or mysteriously fall out of windows. State-controlled media drowns out alternative voices, and new laws make it nearly impossible for independent political parties to operate freely. The illusion of democracy remains, but the outcome is never in doubt.

Hungary (2010–Today)

Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and his party, Fidesz, have systematically weakened Hungary’s democracy. They changed election laws to favor their party, took over independent media, and stacked courts with loyalists. Orbán still holds elections, but with a system designed to ensure he wins—classic competitive authoritarianism in action.

Turkey (2010s–Today)

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan started out as a democratically elected leader, but over time, he concentrated power. After a failed coup attempt in 2016, he used emergency powers to silence critics, arrest thousands of journalists and academics, and rewrite the constitution to extend his rule. Elections still happen, but opposition parties face constant legal and political obstacles.

Venezuela (2000s–Today)

Hugo Chávez was elected democratically, but his government gradually chipped away at checks and balances. His successor, Nicolás Maduro, took it further—jailing opposition leaders, rigging elections, and rewriting the constitution to maintain power. Despite elections and opposition movements, Venezuela operates under a thin veil of democracy while functioning as an authoritarian state.

Malaysia (1990s–2018)

For decades, Malaysia had elections, but they were skewed in favor of the ruling coalition. The government controlled the media, gerrymandered districts, and used corruption investigations to weaken opponents. It wasn’t until 2018 that a massive political shift finally broke this cycle—showing that competitive authoritarian regimes aren’t always permanent.

So, what can we learn from these cases?

Democracy doesn’t usually die in one big moment—it erodes slowly.

Leaders often use legal means to stay in power, making it hard to push back.

Even in competitive authoritarian regimes, change is possible—but it takes persistence and pressure.

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.