Join Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Anne Applebaum and Harvard professor Steven Levitsky as they dissect the mechanics of modern autocracy. They explore how figures like Trump manipulate government to curb dissent, drawing parallels with regimes in Hungary and India. The conversation delves into competitive authoritarianism, the erosion of democratic norms, and the influence of factionalism. Applebaum and Levitsky discuss the vital lessons from history that can help recognize and combat rising authoritarian trends in today's political climate.
Autocracy relies on the concentration of power without opposition, often adapting across political ideologies to maintain control over citizens.
The concept of competitive authoritarianism highlights regimes that appear democratic yet systematically undermine true political opposition and civil liberties.
Deep dives
Defining Autocracy and Authoritarianism
Autocracy is characterized by the concentration of power in the hands of a single ruler or a political clique, devoid of checks and balances. Unlike broader authoritarianism, which can manifest in various forms, autocracy seeks to govern without opposition, free media, or an independent judiciary. In a discussion of governance models, it is emphasized that autocracy has the potential to adapt across political ideologies, with no specific ideological attachment required. Examples are given of both left-leaning and right-leaning autocrats, illustrating how their methods may differ but their core objective of maintaining unchecked power remains consistent.
Competitive Authoritarianism in the Modern Era
The evolution of authoritarian regimes has led to a phenomenon termed 'competitive authoritarianism,' where such regimes maintain the façade of democracy through elections and multiple parties, yet operate within a heavily skewed framework that stifles genuine opposition. Countries like Turkey and Hungary represent cases where autocratic tendencies have emerged alongside democratic structures, making it challenging for citizens to recognize their descent into authoritarianism. The concept highlights how elections can exist without representing the will of the people, as seen in historical contexts like Mexico under the PRI. The discussion underscores that authoritarianism today can be more insidious than in the past, often masquerading under the guise of democratic norms.
Factions Within the Current Administration
The Trump administration encompasses various factions with differing approaches to governance, particularly in the context of using state power. One faction, termed 'techno-authoritarians,' seeks to dismantle existing government structures, while another group aims to consolidate power in a manner reminiscent of historical autocrats like Viktor Orban. There is concern over how different factions within the administration may pursue conflicting objectives, ranging from outright destruction of governmental entities to strategic weaponization against perceived rivals. This internal struggle illustrates the complexities and dangers of a divided approach to authority where some prioritize radical change and others seek to entrench oneself in established power structures.
The Normalcy of Life Amidst Authoritarian Decline
The gradual erosion of democratic principles often allows citizens to continue their daily lives without immediate repercussions, creating a false sense of normalcy. The discussion references historical instances, like Brazil's dictatorship, where citizens engaged in ordinary activities while repression loomed quietly in the background. This dissonance complicates public recognition of authoritarian decline, making it hard to mobilize against encroachments on democracy. Ultimately, the conversation suggests that while many Americans may not feel the immediate effects, the cumulative impact of governmental overreach and the shifting political landscape could lead to severe repercussions for civil liberties and democratic norms.
Since taking office, President Trump has taken aim at the constitutional order. By conducting mass firings of civil servants, investigating and prosecuting rivals and critics and pardoning insurrectionists, Trump has plunged the country into what political scientist Steven Levitsky argues is an authoritarianism that, unlike a full dictatorship, allows for opposition but deploys “the machinery of government to punish, harass, co-opt, or sideline their opponents—disadvantaging them in every contest, and, in so doing, entrenching themselves in power.” And this playbook has been used in countries like Hungary, El Salvador, India, Turkey and others. We talk to Levitsky and historian Anne Applebaum about the lessons other countries can teach us about recognizing authoritarianism at home.
Guests:
Anne Applebaum, author, "Autocracy, Inc.: The Dictators Who Want to Run the World"; staff writer for The Atlantic and a Pulitzer-prize winning historian. She is also a Senior Fellow at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and the SNF Agora Institute.
Steven Levitsky, professor of government, Harvard; co-author of "Why Democracies Die" and "Tyranny of the Minority: Why American Democracy Reached the Breaking Point."
