Document Text Content
June 2017
Breaking Down Democracy:
Goals, Strategies, and Methods
of Modern Authoritarians
by Arch Puddington
CONTENTS
Executive Summary 1
Introduction: Modern Authoritarians: Origins,
Anatomy, Outlook 5
Chapters
1. Validating Autocracy through the Ballot 10
2. Propaganda at Home and Abroad 15
3. The Enemy Within: Civil Society at Bay 22
4. The Ministry of Truth in Peace and War 29
5. The Rise of ‘Illiberal Democracy’ 35
6. Flacks and Friends 41
7. Bullying the Neighbors: Frozen Conflicts,
the Near Abroad, and Other Innovations 47
8. Back to the Future 52
Conclusion: Authoritarianism Comes Calling 57
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report emerged from a presentation on the state of global freedom conducted by the author and David J. Kramer, former
president of Freedom House. The major source of data and analysis is Freedom in the World, the report on political rights and
civil liberties published annually by Freedom House. The author wishes to thank the Freedom House analysis staff and the
many scholars who have participated in Freedom House assessments of global democracy. The author also extends special
thanks to Elen Aghekyan, Tyler Roylance, Alexandra Cain, Danielle Recanati, Amy Slipowitz, Alan Williams, Christopher Walker,
Bret Nelson, Michael Johnson, Rebeka Foley, Zselyke Csaky, Sarah Repucci, Vanessa Tucker, Robert Ruby,
and Daniel Calingaert.
THE AUTHOR
Arch Puddington is Distinguished Scholar for Democracy Studies at Freedom House and a co-editor of Freedom in the World.
ON THE COVER
Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Beijing, 2016. Lintao Zhang/Getty Images
Executive Summary
Breaking Down Democracy: Goals, Strategies,
and Methods of Modern Authoritarians
by Arch Puddington
The 21st century has been marked by a resurgence of authoritarian
rule that has proved resilient despite economic fragility and
occasional popular resistance. Modern authoritarianism has
succeeded, where previous totalitarian systems failed, due to refined
and nuanced strategies of repression, the exploitation of open
societies, and the spread of illiberal policies in democratic countries
themselves. The leaders of today’s authoritarian systems devote fulltime
attention to the challenge of crippling the opposition without
annihilating it, and flouting the rule of law while maintaining a
plausible veneer of order, legitimacy, and prosperity.
Central to the modern authoritarian strategy is the
capture of institutions that undergird political pluralism.
The goal is to dominate not only the executive
and legislative branches, but also the media, the
judiciary, civil society, the commanding heights of the
economy, and the security forces. With these institutions
under the effective if not absolute control of an
incumbent leader, changes in government through fair
and honest elections become all but impossible.
Unlike Soviet-style communism, modern authoritarianism
is not animated by an overarching ideology or
the messianic notion of an ideal future society. Nor
do today’s autocrats seek totalitarian control over
people’s everyday lives, movements, or thoughts.
The media are more diverse and entertaining under
modern authoritarianism, civil society can enjoy an
independent existence (as long as it does not pursue
political change), citizens can travel around the country
or abroad with only occasional interference, and
private enterprise can flourish (albeit with rampant
corruption and cronyism).
This study explains how modern authoritarianism defends
and propagates itself, as regimes from different
regions and with diverse socioeconomic foundations
copy and borrow techniques of political control.
Among its major findings:
• Russia, under President Vladimir Putin, has
played an outsized role in the development of
modern authoritarian systems. This is particularly
true in the areas of media control, propaganda,
the smothering of civil society, and the
www.freedomhouse.org
1
BREAKING DOWN DEMOCRACY: Goals, Strategies, and Methods of Modern Authoritarians
MAJOR DECLINES FOR INFLUENTIAL COUNTRIES OVER THE PAST 10 YEARS
0
Change in Freedom in the World Aggregate Score, 2007-2016
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
Turkey
Bahrain
-25
Ethiopia
-21
Azerbaijan
Venezuela
-17 -17
Hungary
-16
Ecuador
Russia
Ukraine
-12 -12 -12
Afghanistan
-10
-30
-28
weakening of political pluralism. Russia has also
moved aggressively against neighboring states
where democratic institutions have emerged or
where democratic movements have succeeded
in ousting corrupt authoritarian leaders.
• The rewriting of history for political purposes is
common among modern authoritarians. Again,
Russia has taken the lead, with the state’s assertion
of authority over history textbooks and the
process, encouraged by Putin, of reassessing
the historical role of Joseph Stalin.
• The hiring of political consultants and lobbyists
from democratic countries to represent the
interests of autocracies is a growing phenomenon.
China is clearly in the vanguard, with multiple
representatives working for the state and for
large economic entities closely tied to the state.
But there are also K Street representatives for
Russia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Turkey, Ethiopia,
and practically all of the authoritarian states in
the Middle East.
• The toxic combination of unfair elections and
crude majoritarianism is spreading from modern
authoritarian regimes to illiberal leaders in what
are still partly democratic countries. Increasingly,
populist politicians—once in office—claim
the right to suppress the media, civil society,
and other democratic institutions by citing
support from a majority of voters. The resulting
changes make it more difficult for the opposition
to compete in future elections and can pave
the way for a new authoritarian regime.
• An expanding cadre of politicians in democracies
are eager to emulate or cooperate with
authoritarian rulers. European parties of the
nationalistic right and anticapitalist left have
expressed admiration for Putin and aligned
their policy goals with his. Others have praised
2
Freedom House
EVERY INDICATOR HAS DECLINED OVER THE PAST 10 YEARS
0.0
Electoral
Process*
Pluralism and
Participation
Functioning of
Government*
Expression and
Belief
Association and
Assembly*
Rule of Law
Personal and
Individual Rights
-0.1
-0.2
Change in Score, 2007-2016
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
-0.6
-0.7
*Denotes indicators scored on a 12-point scale. All others are scored on a 16-point scale.
illiberal governments in countries like Hungary
for their rejection of international democratic
standards in favor of perceived national interests.
Even when there is no direct collaboration,
such behavior benefits authoritarian powers by
breaking down the unity and solidarity of the
democratic world.
• There has been a rise in authoritarian internationalism.
Authoritarian powers form loose
but effective alliances to block criticism at the
United Nations and regional organizations like
the Organization for Security and Co-operation
in Europe and the Organization of American
States, and to defend embattled allies like Syria’s
Bashar al-Assad. There is also growing replication
of what might be called authoritarian best
practices, vividly on display in the new Chinese
law on nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)
and efforts by Russia and others to learn from
China’s experience in internet censorship.
• Modern authoritarians are working to revalidate
the concept of the leader-for-life. One of the
seeming gains of the postcommunist era was
the understanding that some form of term limits
should be imposed to prevent incumbents from
consolidating power into a dictatorship. In recent
years, however, a number of countries have
adjusted their constitutions to ease, eliminate,
or circumvent executive term limits. The result
has been a resurgence of potential leaders-forlife
from Latin America to Eurasia.
• While more subtle and calibrated methods of repression
are the defining feature of modern authoritarianism,
the past few years have featured
a reemergence of older tactics that undermine
the illusions of pluralism and openness as well
as integration with the global economy. Thus
Moscow has pursued its military intervention in
Ukraine despite economic sanctions and overseen
the assassination of opposition figures;
www.freedomhouse.org
3
BREAKING DOWN DEMOCRACY: Goals, Strategies, and Methods of Modern Authoritarians
Beijing has revived the practice of coerced public
“confessions” and escalated its surveillance
of the Tibetan and Uighur minorities to totalitarian
levels; and Azerbaijan has made the Aliyev
family’s monopoly on political power painfully
obvious with the appointment of the president’s
wife as “first vice president.”
• Modern authoritarian systems are employing
these blunter methods in a context of increased
economic fragility. Venezuela is already in the
process of political and economic disintegration.
Other states that rely on energy exports
have also experienced setbacks due to low oil
and gas prices, and China faces rising debt and
slower growth after years of misallocated investment
and other structural problems. But these
regimes also face less international pressure to
observe democratic norms, raising their chances
of either surviving the current crises or—if
they break down—giving way to something even
worse.
In subsequent sections, this report will examine the
methods employed by authoritarian powers to neutralize
precisely those institutions that were thought
to be the most potent weapons against a revitalized
authoritarianism. The success of the Russian and
Chinese regimes in bringing to heel and even harnessing
the forces produced by globalization—digital
media, civil society, free markets—may be their most
impressive and troubling achievement.
Modern authoritarianism is particularly insidious in its
exploitation of open societies. Russia and China have
both taken advantage of democracies’ commitment to
freedom of expression and delivered infusions of propaganda
and disinformation. Moscow has effectively
prevented foreign broadcasting stations from reaching
Russian audiences even as it steadily expands the
reach of its own mouthpieces, the television channel
RT and the news service Sputnik. China blocks the
websites of mainstream foreign media while encouraging
its corporations to purchase influence in
popular culture abroad through control of Hollywood
studios. Similar combinations of obstruction at home
and interference abroad can be seen in sectors including
civil society, academia, and party politics.
The report draws on examples from a broad group
of authoritarian states and illiberal democracies, but
the focus remains on the two leading authoritarian
powers, China and Russia. Much of the report, in
fact, deals with Russia, since that country, more than
any other, has incubated and refined the ideas and
institutions at the foundation of 21st-century authoritarianism.
Finally, a basic assumption behind the report is that
modern authoritarianism will be a lasting feature of
geopolitics. Since 2012, both Vladimir Putin and Xi
Jinping have doubled down on existing efforts to
stamp out internal dissent, and both have grown more
aggressive on the world stage. All despotic regimes
have inherent weaknesses that leave them vulnerable
to sudden shocks and individually prone to collapse.
However, the past quarter-century has shown that
dictatorship in general will not disappear on its own.
Authoritarian systems will seek not just to survive, but
to weaken and defeat democracy around the world.
4
Freedom House
Introduction
Modern Authoritarianism: Origins, Anatomy, Outlook
As the world’s democracies confront a dangerous
internal challenge from populist and nationalist
political forces, it is imperative that they recognize the
simultaneous external threat presented by modern
authoritarian regimes. These 21 st century authoritarians
developed an arsenal of new tactics to use
against their domestic opponents, and gone on the
offensive in an effort to subvert and replace the liberal
international order.
But modern authoritarian systems are not simply
adversaries of free societies. They also represent an
alternative model—a grim future for beleaguered
democracies that have already fallen under the sway
of illiberal leaders and have suffered an erosion of
freedom.
Democracy under siege
Global democracy is currently facing the repercussions
of what has been called the “decade of decline.”
The phrase describes a 10-year-plus period, from 2006
to 2016, during which the state of freedom experienced
more reversals than gains as measured by Freedom
in the World, the annual report on political rights
and civil liberties published by Freedom House. 1
According to Freedom in the World, the crucial
indicators of democracy experienced setbacks in
each of the 10 years in question. In all, 105 countries
suffered net declines, while 61 showed some measure
of improvement. The decade marked the longest
democratic slump of its kind in more than 40 years of
Freedom House analysis. 2
The decade of decline has been principally characterized
by a steady erosion of political institutions in established
authoritarian countries, or in countries that
were clearly headed in that direction. In other words,
repressive countries became even more repressive—
the bad became even worse. 3
However, a parallel pattern of institutional erosion has
affected some more democratic states, pushing them
into the category of “illiberal democracies.” In these societies,
elections are regularly conducted, sometimes
under conditions that are reasonably fair. But the state,
usually under the control of a strong party or leader,
applies much of its energy to the systematic weakening
of political pluralism and the creation of a skewed
electoral playing field. Opposition parties are often
impotent, freedom of the press is circumscribed, and
the judiciary tends to be dominated by the ruling party.
Countries that fit this description include Hungary,
Bolivia, Ecuador, and, if recent trends continue, Poland.
There are many reasons for the global decline in democratic
indicators, but the statistical evidence from
Freedom in the World suggests that modern authoritarian
regimes have found a way to survive without
resorting to democratic reforms, and that a number
of democracies—as part of the general loss of liberal
consensus—are engaging in their own antidemocratic
experiments.
Modern authoritarianism
The traditional authoritarian state sought monopolistic
control over political life, a one-party system organized
around a strongman or military junta, and direct
rule by the executive, sometimes through martial law,
with little or no role for the parliament.
Traditional dictatorships and totalitarian regimes were
often defined by closed, command, or autarkic economies,
a state media monopoly with formal censorship,
and “civil society” organizations that were structured
as appendages of the ruling party or state. Especially
in military dictatorships, the use of force—including
military tribunals, curfews, arbitrary arrests, political
detentions, and summary executions—was pervasive.
Often facing international isolation, traditional dictatorships
and totalitarian regimes forged alliances based on
www.freedomhouse.org
5
BREAKING DOWN DEMOCRACY: Goals, Strategies, and Methods of Modern Authoritarians
common ideologies, whether faith in Marxist revolution
or ultraconservative, anticommunist reaction.
As the 20th century drew to a close, the weaknesses
of both communist systems and traditional dictatorships
became increasingly apparent. Front and center
was the growing economic gap between countries
that had opted for market economies and regimes
that were committed to statist economies.
The political and economic barriers that had long sheltered
the old dictatorships were soon swept away, and
those that survived or recovered did so by making a
series of strategic concessions to the new global order.
Modern authoritarianism has a different set of defining
features:
• An illusion of pluralism that masks state control
over key political institutions, with co-opted or
otherwise defanged opposition parties allowed
to participate in regular elections
• State or oligarchic control over key elements of
the national economy, which is otherwise open
to the global economy and private investment,
to ensure loyalty to the regime and bolster
regime claims of legitimacy based on economic
prosperity
• State or oligarchic control over information on
certain political subjects and key sectors of the
media, which are otherwise pluralistic, with high
production values and entertaining content; independent
outlets survive with small audiences
and little influence
• Suppression of nongovernmental organizations
(NGOs) that are focused on human rights or
political reform, but state tolerance or support
for progovernment or apolitical groups that work
on public health, education, and other development
issues
• Legalized political repression, with targets punished
through vaguely worded laws and politically
obedient courts
• Limited, selective, and typically hidden use of
extralegal force or violence, with a concentration
on political dissidents, critical journalists, and
officials who have fallen from favor
• Opportunistic, non-ideological cooperation with
fellow authoritarian states against pressure
for democratic reform or leadership changes,
international human rights norms and mechanisms,
and international security or justice
interventions
• Knowledge-sharing with or emulation of fellow
authoritarian states regarding tactics and legislation
to enhance domestic control
China and Russia
The two major modern authoritarian powers are China
and Russia.
Until fairly recently, the conventional wisdom was that
China’s one-party authoritarian system would gradually
relax as the middle class expanded and the country
became fully integrated into the global economic
and diplomatic systems. The leadership did expand
citizens’ freedom to travel, make money, and access
information and entertainment that did not touch on
sensitive subjects. But it has resolutely refused to give
up control over the political sphere.
In fact, the state has become increasingly aggressive
in its suppression of political dissent and information
that might challenge the Communist Party narrative.
The regime’s rhetoric and policies have become more
hostile to democracy and “Western” values. Its propaganda
asserts the superior efficiency of the one-party
system and sneers at the messiness of democracy.
And the focus of its repressive apparatus has steadily
expanded from a relatively narrow segment of political
opposition figures to encompass a broad collection of
target groups, including human rights lawyers, ethnic
minorities, Christians, women’s rights advocates, liberal
academics, and independent journalists.
Russia is much smaller than China in terms of population
and economic might, but it has emerged as
a leader of modern authoritarian innovation. Under
Vladimir Putin, the Russian regime pioneered the
capture of the media through state enterprises and
oligarchic cronies, the adoption of laws designed to
dismember civil society, the use of the judiciary as
an instrument of political harassment, and, perhaps
most importantly of all, the development of modern
propaganda and disinformation.
Russia has also been in the vanguard of a relentless
campaign against liberal values, and has moved
relentlessly to export authoritarian ideas and techniques
to other societies, both in neighboring
6
Freedom House
Eurasian countries and elsewhere in the world. While
today there is nothing that resembles the Comintern
of Soviet times, authoritarian countries have developed
an ad hoc network of cooperation that has
proven effective at the United Nations and in regional
bodies like the Organization of American States.
Adapting to survive
Modern authoritarianism matured as regimes sought
to defend themselves against the sorts of civil society
movements that triggered “color revolutions” in
Georgia, Ukraine, and elsewhere in the early 2000s.
On their own, formal opposition parties were relatively
easy to marginalize or co-opt, and traditional mass
media could be brought to heel through pressure on
private owners, among other techniques. But civil
society organizations presented a formidable challenge
in some settings, as they were able to mobilize
the public—especially students and young people—
around nonpartisan reformist goals and use relatively
open online media to spread their messages.
It is now a major objective of modern authoritarian
states to suppress civil society before it becomes
strong enough to challenge the incumbent political
leadership. Yet whereas dissidents were dispatched
to the gulag or explicitly exiled by the Soviets, or jailed
and murdered by traditional dictatorships like Augusto
Pinochet’s Chile, today’s activists are checked by
NGO regulations that control registration and foreign
funding, laws that allow arbitrary restrictions on public
protest, and trumped-up criminal charges for key
organizers that serve to intimidate others.
Modern authoritarianism has also devised special
methods to bring the internet under political control
without shutting it down entirely. While old-style dictatorships
like Cuba long prevented the widespread
use of the internet out of fear that online communications
would pose a threat to the state’s monopoly
on information, modern authoritarians understood
that a high rate of internet penetration is essential to
participation in the global economy. However, once
online media emerged as a real alternative to traditional
news sources and a crucial tool for civic and
political mobilization, these regimes began to step up
their interference.
The Chinese government has developed the world’s
most sophisticated system of internet controls. Its socalled
Great Firewall, a censorship and filtering apparatus
designed to prevent the circulation of information
that the authorities deem politically dangerous
without affecting nonsensitive information, requires