FSCJ professor: U.S. foolish to ignore the world's signs of rising authoritarianism

The death of Alexei Navalny, the Russian opposition leader, will have far-reaching implications for his homeland and for the world. While it stifles the voice of democracy in Russia and bolstered Vladimir Putin’s authoritarian regime, in larger terms it shows how antidemocratic forces are gaining ascendency.

Countries like Russia and China are classic examples of authoritarian political systems where dialogue, debate and the spirit of “agree to disagree” are not tolerated. Yet the world has in recent years witnessed an increase in authoritarian forces. The rise of these forces has pushed leaders of democratic countries to devise innovative ways to uphold the values of democracy that appeared bright on the horizon after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

In 1991 political scientist Samuel Huntington argued that since the 19^th century, the world has slowly moved toward democracy. He wrote, “For a century and a half after Tocqueville observed the emergence of modem democracy in America, successive waves of democratization have washed over the shore of dictatorship.”

This global democratic revolution passed through successive waves, more steadily after the 1970s. He noted that by 1990, at least 30 countries transitioned to democracy, which nearly doubled the number of democratic governments in the world.

Huntington was not oblivious of authoritarian forces but hoped that “skilled and determined leaders at the helm” would navigate various challenges to realize democratic goals. The 1990s witnessed more countries joining this democratic revolution. It appeared the world became safer and democratic values were cherished with countries like the United States becoming torchbearers of these values.

But as the 1990s moved forward, Huntington’s optimism for a democratic world appeared fraught with challenges. The liberal world order was broadly based on Immanuel Kant’s vision of democratic peace, where trade and commerce, international institutions like the United Nations and republican state structure complement each other toward making the world peaceful.

This vision, however, was increasingly challenged. Though the end of the Cold War led to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the socialist bloc, unleashing democratic forces in Eastern Europe and some other parts of the world, it also witnessed the rapid rise of intra-state conflicts, authoritarianism in Central Asia and other parts of the world and governability crises in the developing world.

It appeared rather that, in contrast to Kant’s vision of liberal peace based on an optimistic assessment of human nature and society, Machiavellian ideals were on ascendancy. In his classic book “The Prince,” Machiavelli advised the king (equivalent to modern-day president or prime minister) to adopt all means, fair and foul, to preserve and expand power.

He advised the king that when all else failed, it was better to be feared than loved because “love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails.”

Authoritarian leaders feed on this fear factor to cling to power. They capitalize on the fear of the people, accentuated by factors such as volatile economy, unemployment, corruption and personality cult. They often make the case that only strong leaders like them can properly address such problems.

Local foreign relations consultant: Stripping away flimsy arguments against U.S. support for Ukraine

Particularly in the case of Russia, the demise of the Soviet Union and loss of superpower status have often been harped on by authoritarian leaders like Vladimir Putin to garner popular support. According to Putin, the Soviet Union's collapse was "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century,” and he is the leader who could restore Russia to its lost glory.

In this process, it does not matter if it leads to suppression of democracy and silencing of opposition leaders like Navalny. Such tendencies one could come across in other parts of the world — including in Eastern Europe — which Huntington had counted as an emerging beacon of democracy.

Letters: TikTok fears are not unfounded, but U.S. tech innovators can handle it

Manipulators in authoritarian states point to regular elections and existence of political parties as signs of democracy. However, it is common knowledge how democracy is managed in those countries and how peaceful dissent is suppressed.

Authoritarian leaders turn a blind eye to the democratic aspirations of their people. They do not consult the best minds in their societies as they are surrounded by cliques. In her 1951 book, “The Origins of Totalitarianism,” Hannah Arendt used the onion metaphor to describe such leaders: Generally, whoever is most radicalized at the innermost layer controls the outer layers.

Authoritarian leaders, as they lack a wider democratic vision, are prone to plunge the neighbors and the world into crises. The recent threat by Putin to use nuclear weapons is an ominous sign of this trend.

Debidatta Mahapatra, Ph.D., professor of political science, Florida State College at Jacksonville

This guest column is the opinion of the author and does not necessarily represent the views of the Times-Union. We welcome a diversity of opinions. 

This article originally appeared on Florida Times-Union: Russia, China classic examples of authoritarianism, U.S. must pay heed