1 - 4 of 4
Number of results to display per page
Search Results
2. Understanding and Interrupting Authoritarian Collaboration
- Author:
- Christina Cottiero and Cassandra Emmons
- Publication Date:
- 05-2024
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES)
- Abstract:
- For many decades, autocrats have been considered less cooperative than democrats in international politics. While researchers endeavored to learn how international democratic practices spread through political, economic, and social networks, little attention was paid to autocratic collaboration tendencies. However, growing bodies of evidence from human rights and democracy support to international security and international development demonstrate that authoritarian regimes are collaborating through formal organizations and informal channels to stabilize or entrench their rule, disrupt democratic civil society, and even extend the reach of repressive institutions beyond state boundaries. Autocrats face common threats, including: pro-democracy groups and dissenters at home; stigmatization and illegitimacy of their authoritarian governance tactics abroad; conditionalities on critically needed aid or loans that prioritize democratic governance structures and policies; and evolving and increased security threats. In response, authoritarian regimes are sharing information; working to legitimate (or de-stigmatize) repressive practices; supporting one another as they weather shocks and crises resulting from international integration (economic or political); and even lending resources for co-opting and managing critical constituencies. These and other tactics allow them to entrench authoritarian practices. To enable the democracy support community to effectively bolster democratic resilience in the face of growing authoritarianism, we must better understand these practices. This paper provides an overview of modern authoritarian collaboration, analyzing its purposes and methods. It goes on to consider implications for international order and suggests that democracy defenders challenge pernicious authoritarian collaboration, for instance by leveraging their own transnational networks to disrupt authoritarian collaboration on surveillance and repression; provide compelling counter-narratives and debunk disinformation through effective civic education campaigns; and international standard setting and rule enforcement that cuts off authoritarian actors from financial and other resources.
- Topic:
- Authoritarianism, Resilience, Collaboration, Autocracy, and Democratic Backsliding
- Political Geography:
- Global Focus
3. Paths to Democratic Resilience in an Era of Backsliding
- Author:
- Erica Shein, Cassandra Emmons, Kyle Lemargie, and Fernanda Buril
- Publication Date:
- 12-2023
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES)
- Abstract:
- Despite some bright spots, the anti-democratic challenges of the day are not fading fast. Investing in democratic resilience is increasingly essential, as autocrats — who governed 72 percent of the global population at the close of 2022 — go to ever greater lengths to preserve and expand their power. Unlike in eras past, contemporary autocrats seek not to replace democracy with a competing ideology but to manipulate the democratic system to achieve their own ends. This paper lays out a detailed approach to building democratic resilience in countries facing democratic erosion, democratic breakdown, and autocratic deepening. Investments in resilience may take different forms: In some cases, we may be able to help a democracy “bounce back” from episodes of backsliding; at other times, we may need to support democracy to enable it to persist in diminished form, reinforce what remains of the democratic architecture, or simply preserve the normative foundation and public demand for democracy for a future opening. The paper offers a framework for choosing interventions that are most likely to succeed based on the relevant backsliding context. With this framework, we seek to shift the question from whether support is feasible or desirable in a backsliding context to how the international community can best support a democracy that is encountering any form of backsliding.
- Topic:
- Elections, Democracy, Resilience, and Democratic Backsliding
- Political Geography:
- Global Focus
4. Understanding and Responding to Global Democratic Backsliding
- Author:
- Thomas Carothers and Benjamin Press
- Publication Date:
- 10-2022
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- Abstract:
- Over the past two decades, democratic backsliding has become a defining trend in global politics. However, despite the extensive attention paid to the phenomenon, there is surprisingly little consensus about what is driving it. The most common explanations offered by analysts—ranging from the role of Russia and China and disruptive technologies to the rise of populism, the spread of political polarization, and democracies’ failure to deliver—fall short when tested across a wide range of cases. A more persuasive account of backsliding focuses on the central role of leader-driven antidemocratic political projects and the variety of mechanisms and motivations they entail. This paper identifies and analyzes three distinct types of backsliding efforts: grievance-fueled illiberalism, opportunistic authoritarianism, and entrenched-interest revanchism. In cases of grievance-fueled illiberalism, a political figure mobilizes a grievance, claims that the grievance is being perpetuated by the existing political system, and argues that it is necessary to dismantle democratic norms and institutions to redress the underlying wrongs. Opportunistic authoritarians, by contrast, come to power via conventional political appeals but later turn against democracy for the sake of personal political survival. In still other backsliding cases, entrenched interest groups—generally the military—that were displaced by a democratic transition use undemocratic means to reassert their claims to power. Although motivations and methods differ across backsliding efforts, a key commonality among them is their relentless focus on undermining countervailing governmental and nongovernmental institutions that are designed to keep them in check. As international democracy supporters continue to refine their strategies of responding to democratic backsliding, they must better differentiate between facilitating factors and core drivers. Such an approach will point to the need for a stronger focus on the nature of leader-driven antidemocratic projects, identifying ways to create significant disincentives for backsliding leaders, and bolstering crucial countervailing institutions. Moreover, they should deepen their differentiation of strategies to take account of the diverse motivations and methods among the three main patterns of backsliding. Only in this way will they build the needed analytic and practical capacity to meet the formidable challenge that democratic backsliding presents.
- Topic:
- Science and Technology, Democracy, Populism, and Democratic Backsliding
- Political Geography:
- Global Focus