Soft Authoritarianism: A Gradual Erosion of Democratic Institutions

The end of the Cold War widely believed to have ensured the victory of democracy in the world. The notion that liberal democracy is the ultimate destination of human political development was gaining strength. However, in the last two decades, world politics has taken a different direction. Today, the biggest challenge to democracy is not only from military 'coups', direct dictatorships, or constitutional suspensions. Instead, there are increasing examples of leaders who came to power through democratic elections gradually weakening the fundamental institutions of democracy. In political science, this is explained as 'democratic erosion', 'democratic decline', or 'soft authoritarianism'. In this type of governance, regular elections are held. Parliaments function. Courts exist, and the constitution formally remains in place. However, their independence, impartiality, and effectiveness gradually diminish. The external structure of democracy remains, but its soul weakens. This is why today's authoritarianism is considered more complex and dangerous than traditional dictatorships. Harvard University professors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt argue in their famous book 'How Democracies Die' that modern democracies are often weakened not by military intervention, but by the behavior of elected leaders. According to them, democracies do not collapse all at once; rather, they gradually erode through small institutional changes, legal amendments, and the decline of political culture. This is why the death of democracy is often gradual, not dramatic. They mention two fundamental political norms that sustain democracy. First, the acceptance of mutual legitimacy, meaning the culture of accepting political competitors as legitimate rivals, not enemies. Second, institutional restraint, meaning the political culture of using the powers granted by the constitution to the maximum extent within democratic limits, rather than destroying the opposition. When these two norms weaken, democracy, even if legally alive, can move towards authoritarianism in practice. In this context, political scientist Nancy Bermeo, in her influential research 'On Democratic Backsliding', states that the nature of modern authoritarianism has changed. According to her, most democracies today have not ended due to military 'coups', but have been weakened by the process of elected governments reducing the effectiveness of democratic institutions under the guise of constitution and law. She calls this 'executive aggrandizement', where the government uses the legal process itself to concentrate power in its favor. German political thinker Jan-Werner Müller, in his book 'What Is Populism', explains populist politics as a complex challenge to democracy. According to him, populist leaders consider only themselves as representatives of the 'real people' and refuse to consider citizens with different opinions as a real part of the nation. This weakens pluralism. Democracy is the coexistence of different opinions, debates, and diversity. If one group starts declaring itself as the sole representative of the nation, a serious crisis arises in democratic culture. Yashua Maunke analyzes this in 'The People Versus Democracy' from a broader perspective. According to him, although democratic elections are held in many countries, the fundamental values of liberal democracy—protection of minorities, independent judiciary, press freedom, and civil rights—are weakening. He calls this system of governance 'illiberal democracy', where elections occur but liberal democratic values are weakened. Soft authoritarianism refers to a system of governance where leaders legally come to power through elections but then gradually weaken democratic institutions. In this, instead of violent means like military 'coups' to seize power, democracy is hollowed out from within by misusing laws and institutions. The current global political trend appears to be divided into two streams. On one hand, social movements and the younger generation are striving to strengthen democracy, while on the other hand, the spread of right-wing populism and soft authoritarianism is adding challenges to democracy. Harvard University Professor Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt argue in their famous book 'How Democracies Die' that modern democracies are often weakened not by military intervention, but by the behavior of elected leaders. According to them, democracies do not collapse all at once; rather, they gradually erode through small institutional changes, legal amendments, and the decline of political culture. This is why the death of democracy is often gradual, not dramatic. Soft authoritarianism is different from traditional authoritarianism. It cannot be easily detected at the beginning. There are no military 'coups', no tanks on the streets, and no direct seizure of power. These leaders come to power through elections, but once in power, they gradually weaken democratic institutions. Laws are changed through parliament, and democracy is hollowed out from within by interfering with the judiciary and constitutional bodies. This is called 'soft authoritarianism'. In this process, although the changes may not appear overtly oppressive, democratic institutions weaken in the long run. Authoritarian leaders gradually weaken democracy from within. First, they control the judiciary and constitutional courts. Then, they try to make their majority permanent by amending the constitution and election-related laws. Laws are introduced to ensure a favorable outcome for a particular party in the delimitation of constituencies, similar to 'gerrymandering' in America. Then, pressure is put on the media. Independent journalism is weakened by creating a climate of legal penalties, fines, or fear. Media outlets face economic blockades. Civil society and non-governmental organizations are also targeted. Through defamation, accusations, and counter-accusations, under the guise of controlling 'foreign agents', laws are made to reduce their credibility and punish them. Universities are controlled. Two main methods are employed here. First, their close associates are appointed within institutions. Second, institutions are used in such a way that their original purpose is lost. All these processes do not completely destroy democratic institutions. The structure remains, but the purpose of the institution is killed by hollowing it out from within. Institutions like the judiciary, police, and universities appear alive externally, but their democratic spirit is lost. Various narratives are used for this. The most effective narrative is 'national security'. Often, citizens' resistance, protests, or demonstrations are presented as a threat to national security. In some cases, protesters are even called 'domestic terrorists'. By portraying dissent or criticism as a security problem, hard-right soft authoritarians try to legitimize the steps they have taken. Another important strategy is to mobilize the voter base. Right-wing populist politics often advances by centering the identity of the majority group. They send the message that the country 'belongs only to a few specific groups'. This creates dissatisfaction and anger among voters. They are told that the country is yours, but resources and opportunities are being snatched away by others. In this way, minorities, immigrants, or refugees are used as scapegoats to increase polarization in society. This helps in politically mobilizing feelings of fear, anger, and insecurity. Using the narratives of national security, majority identity, and public dissatisfaction, the interference in democratic institutions is presented as a legitimate and necessary step. In the initial stage, its nature is very soft and appealing, so it is not easily perceived. This is a very dangerous phase. Changes are often implemented gradually and comprehensively but systematically. Long legal texts, bills, or constitutional amendments are usually not read carefully by ordinary citizens. Since such changes are presented in technical and complex language, their real impact cannot be understood immediately. These leaders initially come with positive hope and a sense of identity. They say, 'We have come to correct past injustices, your rights will now be protected. The country is yours, you are its true owner.' Such speeches initially attract the public greatly. However, this positive identity is linked with division and polarization. The idea that 'the country belongs only to a few groups' is spread. Others besides them are portrayed as outsiders or second-class citizens. In this way, dissatisfaction, anger, and the feeling of 'our rights have been taken away' are generated among the majority. Such leaders present themselves personally as 'protectors' or 'saviors'. The public is initially attracted by emotional appeals. However, this process makes it clear much later that democratic institutions are weakening and its real impact is significant. Soft authoritarianism expands based on attractive and emotional appeals. It is difficult to sense the danger at the beginning, but over time, it has a profound impact on democracy. Populist politics is often based on exclusion, where the idea that the country belongs only to a few limited groups and others should be kept out is spread. Authoritarian leaders who believe in populism present themselves in a style of 'I am the people' and build personality-centric power. These leaders present themselves as the sole problem solvers, the 'heroes' who have the answer to every problem. They present themselves as extraordinary personalities, as if only they can solve all problems. The public also starts placing all their hopes in one person. This 'heroism' is a significant characteristic of authoritarian leaders. It prioritizes personality-centric leadership over institutional processes. It disregards the need for democratic institutions. Politics centered on individual charisma and power weakens democratic institutions, collective decision-making processes, and oversight bodies. This personality-centric 'hero' image is a major sign of soft authoritarianism. Technology is neutral, but its impact depends on its use. Social media, on one hand, plays an important role in organizing student and youth movements, facilitating rapid information exchange, and mobilizing public support. In some countries, rebellions have occurred in protest against social media bans. On the other hand, misinformation and hatred are spread rapidly and widely through the same medium. The 'echo chamber' of algorithms tries its best to spread negative emotions of fear, anger, and hatred. In this way, by keeping users engaged for a long time, companies increase their profits through advertising. The current divisive politics has created an environment of distrust towards politics, media, and non-governmental organizations among the public. In such a situation, when a so-called 'great' or powerful leader emerges, people start trusting them excessively. It creates blind faith as if all problems will be solved immediately. However, the failure of past democratic governments to fulfill their commitments has also increased public frustration and distrust. Such dissatisfaction is expressed in two ways. One, 'resentment', which can be called anger, dissatisfaction, or malice in Nepali, making one feel left behind and exploited by others. It is the indifference or inactivity of citizens, who see no meaning in their participation in the political process. Soft authoritarianism is not just a theoretical concept. In the last two decades, political developments in various countries around the world have confirmed it in practice. Although the history, constitution, and political circumstances of each country are different, there are many similarities in the strategy of gradually weakening democratic institutions. This is why political scientists consider Hungary, Poland, and Turkey as important examples when studying the state of democratic institutions. Hungary: A Laboratory of Illiberal Democracy When discussing soft authoritarianism, Hungary is the first example mentioned. After Prime Minister Viktor Orbán returned to power in 2010 with a two-thirds parliamentary majority, extensive changes were made to the constitution, judiciary, electoral system, media, and public institutions. Orbán publicly described his governance as 'illiberal democracy'. Although elections continued, the executive power's influence grew in key state institutions. The powers of the Constitutional Court were limited, the structure of public broadcasting was changed, and economic and administrative pressure was increased on private media. Another notable event in Hungary was forcing Central European University to leave the country. In Hungary, Central European University was forced to leave, and 'trustees' were appointed to public universities. Educational freedom was curtailed, and some subjects were banned, with curriculum control also imposed. Therefore, control over universities is considered an important indicator of democratic erosion. Poland: Control over the Judiciary The European Union repeatedly expressed concern about the independence of the judiciary and the Constitutional Court after the Law and Justice party came to power in Poland. Changes in the judicial appointment process, attempts to lower the retirement age of Supreme Court judges, and increasing political influence over the judiciary through disciplinary mechanisms generated international debate. In the view of political scientists, the judiciary is the last line of defense of democracy. If the courts are not independent, the constitutional protection of citizens' rights can be weakened. Therefore, Poland's experience is seen as a study of how the balance of democratic institutions can be affected. Turkey: State of Emergency and Expansion of Executive Power The rule of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Turkey is a widely studied subject regarding the transformation of democratic institutions. Following the failed military 'coup' in 2016, thousands of government employees, teachers, judges, soldiers, and journalists were dismissed or arrested during the declared state of emergency. The government took harsh measures citing national security needs, while critics argued that civil liberties and press freedom were severely affected. After the recent constitutional amendment, the president's executive powers were significantly expanded. This has altered the traditional structure of power balance, as analyzed in various research. Turkey's experience shows how sensitive the issue of maintaining balance between national security and democratic freedoms is for democracy. Hungary, Poland, or Turkey, the experiences of these countries are not all the same. Their political history, constitution, and institutional structures are different. However, one common aspect is visible—the erosion of democracy is usually not sudden. It happens gradually. Through a series of legal processes, administrative decisions, political narratives, communication strategies, and institutional appointments, the quality of democracy can gradually change. Nepal: Democratic Challenges and the Path Forward The experiences of various countries around the world show that the greatest strength of democracy lies not only in the constitution but also in institutional culture, citizen awareness, and the democratic commitment of political leadership. In this context, Nepal also has an opportunity for self-reflection. Nepal's political history is built on a long journey of struggle, popular movements, and inclusive democracy. From the 1951 democratic movement to the 2046 People's Movement, the 2062/63 People's Movement, and the 2015 constitution, Nepali society has paid a great price to institutionalize democracy. Therefore, it is necessary to be vigilant in time against any form of institutional erosion or authoritarian tendencies towards democracy. Democracy is not a static state; it is a continuous process of strengthening. Constitution, elections, and government are necessary bases for democracy, but not sufficient bases. The real strength of democracy lies in an independent judiciary, impartial elections, accountable governance, free journalism, critical education, active civil society, and democratic culture. The biggest challenge of soft authoritarianism is that it does not destroy democracy all at once. While democratic structures are maintained, their effectiveness is gradually weakened. Therefore, the most effective way to protect democracy is to build strong institutions, implement the rule of law in practice, develop political tolerance, strengthen civic education, and promote fact-based public debate. Therefore, Nepal has struggled greatly for democracy. Now, the responsibility to protect the achievements of that struggle in the long term rests with the entire society. Democracy is not a project of one leader, one party, or one government; it is a continuous practice of citizens, institutions, and shared democratic values. The strongest foundations for preserving democracy are conscious citizens, responsible leadership, and independent institutions. Ultimately, identifying the challenge of soft authoritarianism in time is the first condition for preserving democracy. Democracy does not end in a day. Similarly, its protection cannot be achieved in a day's effort. Only strong institutions, responsible leadership, conscious citizens, fact-based public debate, and unwavering commitment to the rule of law can ensure democracy in the long term. This awareness is the common need of the world and Nepal today.