There are several specific things on my mind this morning regarding authoritarianism. Let’s start with a proper definition. Authoritarianism is a system of government in which power is concentrated in a single leader or small elite that isn’t meaningfully accountable to the public. It typically limits political freedoms, suppresses opposition, and restricts independent institutions like the press and courts, while often still allowing some private economic and social life. It differs from totalitarianism, which goes further by trying to control nearly every aspect of public and private life, usually through a mass ideology. It also differs from democracy, where leaders are chosen in competitive elections and constrained by law and rights. What has hit my screen this morning are four specific articles I have read over the last day.
The first is about Putin and the Russian elections. Russia’s State Duma elections are underway right now, with results not expected until after voting closes tomorrow. Voting runs three days, September 18-20. It’s the first parliamentary election since the start of the full-scale war against Ukraine. What’s at stake is the 450 Duma seats, with United Russia, the ruling party, having won 49.8% of (324 seats) in 2021. It currently holds 310 seats and needs at least 300 to keep the supermajority that lets it pass constitutional changes without other parties. Half the seats are elected by party-list proportional representation with a 5% threshold, half in single-member constituencies. Eight regions are also holding gubernatorial votes, three will have governors chosen by regional parliaments, and 39 regions are electing regional parliaments. The Kremlin has been pressuring the systemic opposition, mainly Yabloko (which is running on an anti-war platform) and the Communist Party. Yabloko candidates have been pushed out of races over old social media posts showing Alexey Navalny. Election commission chair Ella Pamfilova warned in June that internet disruptions could occur during the vote, citing security concerns. I guess what’s good for the goose sooner or later gets back to the gander. Nevertheless, with independent monitoring very limited, the outcome is widely expected to favor United Russia. So, the question the article posed is why an authoritarian regime bothers with elections.
Despite their ability to squash elections altogether, elections do useful work for authoritarian regimes, even when the outcome isn’t completely assured. Political scientists point to several functions like legitimacy, where a big win lets leaders claim a popular mandate, at home and abroad. Rule by “the will of the people” is easier to sustain than rule by force alone. It is also a show of strength with lopsided margins and high turnout signaling to elites and opponents that resistance is futile. Officials who deliver big numbers in their regions also prove their loyalty. Even a managed vote reveals where support is weak, which regions or officials are underperforming, and where discontent is building. Seats, candidacies, and party lists are rewards that keep insiders invested in the system and competing for favor rather than plotting against the leader. A “loyal opposition” gives voters a controlled outlet for frustration. Parties that look like alternatives but never threaten the ruling party absorb protest energy. And, of course, it always helps to have institutional cover. A parliament that votes on laws lets the regime pass measures, including constitutional changes, with a veneer of legal process. Scholars call these “electoral authoritarian” or “competitive authoritarian” systems. The risk for the regime is that elections can backfire if the opposition unites or fraud triggers protests. That’s why authoritarian regimes invest heavily in controlling who can run, who can observe, and how votes are counted…sound familiar?
Then there are the articles on the most current maneuvers by Donald Trump to solidify his very own authoritarian regime. We’ve recently seen that he’s tried about everything to get control of the midterm elections from Congressional action to limit voting to using the U.S. Postal Service to override state autonomy in managing the electoral process. He has publicly aired his frustration with his hand-picked Supreme Court over their unwillingness to support his blatant efforts at manipulation through the USPS. His primary efforts have focused on gaining executive power over Congress stretching executive authority into areas normally reserved for the legislature, aided by a compliant Republican-led Congress. He has fired inspectors general and politicizing independent institutions as well as targeting opponents like James Comey and John Brennan as well as using the label “domestic terrorism” to target activists. The March 2025 executive order would require proof of citizenship and threaten states’ federal funds for non-compliance in what voting rights groups call an unlawful power grab. But what currently bothers me the most is Trump’s actions vis-a-vis the press. This is part of a sustained campaign against the press, while the administration frames it as security and access decisions. White House access is at the top of the list. In February 2025, AP reporters were barred from some White House events after the outlet declined to adopt “Gulf of America” in its style guide. The White House took over daily press pool assignments from the White House Correspondents’ Association, and Trump said “We’re going to be now calling the shots.” Reporters can no longer enter the press secretary’s office area without an appointment. The White House cited security concerns. The latest is that Trump said yesterday that he is banning MS NOW, CNN and Politico from the White House, citing “cumulative stories.” The correspondents’ association said the outlets are being singled out for doing their jobs. Add to this that Defense Secretary Hegseth imposed credentialing rules that pulled credentials from journalists who refused to affirm they’d report only what the Pentagon authorizes, and virtually every major outlet gave up access rather than sign. Then in March 2026, a federal judge ruled the rules unconstitutional as viewpoint discrimination. The Pentagon is appealing and has said it will remove media offices from the building and require escorts. Courts have sided with the press in some of these disputes, and the Pentagon and AP cases are still being litigated. It should worry us all. The First Amendment of the Constitution says Congress shall make no law “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” It appears alongside protections for religion, assembly, and petition and is central to the American way of life.
Meanwhile, back in North Korea and China, where authoritarianism has been a way of life for 75 years, lots of stuff is coming out. China has been authoritarian since 1949. The Chinese Communist Party won the civil war and founded the People’s Republic and has ruled as a one-party state ever since, with no competitive national elections. That’s about 77 years. Its character has shifted over time. Mao’s rule (1949-76) was totalitarian in scope, with campaigns like the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. After 1978, Deng Xiaoping’s reforms opened the economy while keeping the party’s political monopoly. Since Xi Jinping took power in 2012, and especially after term limits were removed in 2018, power has become more personally concentrated. Meanwhile, North Korea has been dynastically authoritarian since 1948. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was founded under Kim Il Sung, backed by the Soviet Union, and has never held a competitive election. That’s about 78 years. Power has passed within one family: Kim Il Sung (to 1994), Kim Jong Il (to 2011), and Kim Jong Un since. It’s usually described as totalitarian rather than merely authoritarian, given its personality cult, near-total control of information, and the juche ideology. New reporting details the extent to which the North Korean people are all fodder for the goals of the state and, more precisely, Kim Jong Un. The reporting from China is more mixed and ambivalent since the power of authoritarianism is showing itself in areas like China’s new power position in world energy markets while the quality of life of the Chinese population can be said to have benefited materially from all the state actions, even though personal freedom is virtually non-existent.
What all of this is telling me is that the bigger and more pop-updated the world is getting, the more and more likely it is for authoritarianism to keep raising its ugly head. It’s easier to be democratic with three people than with 9 billion. That makes the authoritarian playbook something we should all get very familiar with for our own good.