In the realm of political discourse, the concept of 'competitive authoritarianism' has emerged as a thought-provoking lens through which to view the state of democracy in the United States. This term, coined by Harvard professor Steven Levitsky and his colleague Lucan Way, initially described political systems in countries like Serbia, Kenya, and Peru. However, its application to the U.S. political landscape has sparked intense debate and raised important questions about the nature of power and governance.
The Rise of Competitive Authoritarianism
At its core, competitive authoritarianism refers to a political system where democratic rules and competitive elections coexist with tactics employed by the ruling party to tilt the electoral playing field in their favor. This strategy aims to maintain power by converting the state into both a weapon and a shield, as Levitsky explains. The recent pardon of individuals convicted in the January 6th Capitol assault by former President Trump serves as a prime example of this dynamic.
A Familiar Playbook
What makes this development particularly fascinating is the resemblance it bears to the playbooks of leaders like Viktor Orbán and Recep Tayyip Erdogan. These figures have mastered the art of consolidating power through strategic attacks on political rivals and the protection of allies engaged in questionable behavior. When we see the U.S. Justice Department targeting critics of the former administration, or lawsuits against media outlets and universities perceived as critical of the government, it's hard not to draw parallels with these authoritarian regimes.
The Misnomer and Its Impact
The term 'competitive authoritarianism' itself is an intriguing misnomer. Way and Levitsky initially referred to this phenomenon as 'contested autocracy,' a phrase that, in hindsight, was perhaps too on-the-nose. The accidental coinage of 'competitive authoritarianism' by Way's faculty adviser, Timothy Colton, offered a more palatable and, ironically, more accurate description. The term's increasing popularity, as evidenced by its surge in Google searches and media mentions, underscores the growing concern over the erosion of democratic norms in the U.S.
A Democracy in Question
Despite the arguments presented by scholars like Levitsky, there are those who maintain that the U.S. remains a functioning democracy. They point to the continued presence of late-night host Jimmy Kimmel, despite former President Trump's repeated calls for his firing, as evidence of a robust system. Additionally, the ability of citizens to protest and criticize the government both online and on the streets is seen as a hallmark of a healthy democracy. However, what many people don't realize is that the presence of these democratic institutions doesn't necessarily guarantee their effectiveness or immunity from manipulation.
The Orbán Effect
The case of Viktor Orbán provides an intriguing counterpoint. Orbán, who was seen as a master of competitive authoritarianism during his 16-year reign, ultimately faced defeat due to a combination of economic woes and widespread corruption. This outcome serves as a reminder that even the most seemingly entrenched authoritarian regimes are not immune to the will of the people. It also raises the question of whether the U.S. could experience a similar shift if the right conditions were to arise.
A Deeper Reflection
As we contemplate the implications of competitive authoritarianism, it's essential to take a step back and consider the broader trends at play. The erosion of democratic norms is not an isolated incident but rather a symptom of a deeper crisis of confidence in institutions and a growing polarization within society. It's a reminder that democracy is not a static state but a constant struggle to uphold the values and principles upon which it is founded. In my opinion, the rise of competitive authoritarianism in the U.S. should serve as a wake-up call, prompting us to reflect on the health of our democracy and the actions needed to preserve it.
