Some experts warn that the United States is transitioning into a system of “competitive authoritarianism,” where democratic rules and competitive elections exist, but the ruling party uses tactics to maintain power and undermine opponents.
This shift is characterized by the party in power using various methods to tilt the electoral playing field in its favor, according to Steven Levitsky, a professor of government at Harvard who helped develop the concept of competitive authoritarianism.
Competitive Authoritarianism in the US
Levitsky points to President Trump’s pardoning of individuals convicted in the January 6, 2021, assault on the US Capitol as a prime example of this phenomenon, where the state is used as a weapon against political rivals and a shield to protect allies.
Levitsky and Lucan Way, a professor at the University of Toronto, initially coined the term “competitive authoritarianism” in 2002 to describe systems in countries like Serbia, Kenya, and Peru, but they never imagined it would be applied to the US.
However, Levitsky argues that Trump is following a familiar playbook crafted by leaders like former Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, where the cost of opposition is raised through attacks on critics, the media, and universities.
Implications and Reactions
The concept of competitive authoritarianism has gained significant attention since President Trump took office, with searches on Google Trends spiking and the term appearing in numerous publications across the US and internationally.
While some scholars argue that the US remains a democracy, with citizens still able to protest and criticize the government, others warn that the erosion of democratic norms and institutions poses a significant threat to the country’s democratic system.
The fact that a unified opposition was able to sweep Orbán’s party in a landslide in Hungary last month serves as a reminder that competitive authoritarianism does not guarantee permanent rule, and that citizens can still effect change through the democratic process.
The broader significance of this trend lies in its potential to undermine the foundations of American democracy, highlighting the need for continued vigilance and protection of democratic institutions and norms.
