The article examines why autocratic leaders, despite undermining democratic principles, often retain popular support. The author argues that voters prioritize tangible economic benefits, like increased wages or pensions, over abstract concepts such as democratic governance. This prioritization is exacerbated by autocrats’ manipulation of media and the use of scapegoating narratives to deflect blame for economic hardships. Furthermore, the article highlights how appeals to national identity and the cultivation of fear and resentment can further solidify support for such leaders, even among those who recognize the erosion of democracy. Finally, the piece suggests that progressive actors must address both the emotional appeals of autocrats and the need for concrete economic improvements to counter this trend.

FAQ: The Allure of Autocrats in Democratic Societies

1. Why do voters choose leaders who undermine democracy, even if they value democratic principles?

This seemingly paradoxical behavior stems from voters prioritizing concrete interests over abstract principles. While many citizens theoretically appreciate democracy, they often prioritize immediate, tangible benefits like economic improvements or targeted social programs. Autocratic leaders, understanding this, strategically implement policies that directly benefit specific groups, securing their support despite their undemocratic actions.

2. How do autocrats manipulate voters’ perception of the economy?

Even in struggling economies, autocrats can deflect blame by controlling key media outlets and constructing scapegoating narratives. They often introduce popular economic policies close to elections, associating those benefits with their leadership. Additionally, voters’ perceptions of economic conditions often align with their party affiliation, leading supporters to view the economy more favorably under their chosen leader.

3. Beyond economic incentives, how else do autocrats gain and maintain power?

Autocrats effectively exploit fear and resentment within society. They manufacture a sense of threat, often by targeting external groups like immigrants or internal “enemies” such as liberal elites or minorities. This strategy allows them to frame democratic norms and institutions as obstacles to national security and justify their dismantling.

4. How do autocrats convince voters to tolerate the erosion of democratic institutions?

By framing their actions as essential for protecting the “endangered nation,” autocrats can persuade even democratically-minded citizens to accept the weakening of democratic safeguards. This fear-based appeal often overrides concerns about abstract principles like the rule of law or freedom of the press.

5. Can you provide an example of this dynamic in action?

The re-election of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Turkey illustrates this phenomenon. Despite a severely weakened economy and demonstrably authoritarian actions, Erdoğan retained significant support. He appealed to nationalist sentiments and portrayed himself as the defender of Turkey against internal and external threats, successfully diverting attention from his dismantling of democratic institutions.

6. What is “clientelism” and how does it contribute to autocratic power?

Clientelism refers to the exchange of goods and services for political support. Autocrats use state resources to reward loyal followers with jobs, benefits, or direct cash payments in exchange for their votes. This creates a system of patronage that reinforces their power base.

7. Why do some voters prioritize a leader’s stance on specific issues over the health of democratic institutions?

Voters may prioritize a specific issue, like abortion rights or immigration, over broader concerns about democratic erosion if they believe that issue directly and profoundly impacts their lives or values. They may accept a leader’s undemocratic actions if they perceive those actions as necessary to achieve their desired outcome on that specific issue.

8. How can we counter the allure of autocrats in democratic societies?

Countering autocratic tendencies requires:

• Recognizing the power of emotions like fear and resentment: We must acknowledge and address the emotional drivers behind support for autocrats and effectively counter their divisive narratives.
• Focusing on tangible improvements in people’s lives: Advocating for policies that address concrete needs and improve living standards can diminish the appeal of autocrats who exploit economic hardship.
• Defending democratic institutions and principles: We must actively defend and promote democratic values, emphasizing their importance for individual rights and societal well-being.

Understanding the Appeal of Autocrats in Democratic Societies

Short Answer Quiz

1. According to the article, why might voters choose to support a politician with authoritarian tendencies?
2. What does the author mean by “concrete” versus “abstract” interests? Provide an example of each.
3. Explain how autocrats exploit economic policies to garner support from voters.
4. How do autocrats utilize “scapegoating” as a political strategy?
5. Describe the methods autocrats use to undermine democracy in a subtle way.
6. Why might some voters tolerate the subversion of democratic norms by an autocratic leader?
7. What role do fear and resentment play in the success of autocratic leaders?
8. How do autocrats manipulate the concept of “national identity” to their advantage?
9. What strategies does the author suggest progressive actors employ to counter the appeal of autocrats?
10. Based on the article, what is the “Lex Tusk” and how does it relate to the author’s argument?

Answer Key

1. Voters may prioritize concrete, tangible benefits over abstract democratic principles, leading them to support authoritarian leaders who promise economic improvements or cater to their specific needs.
2. “Concrete” interests refer to immediate, tangible benefits individuals experience, such as salary increases or tax breaks. “Abstract” interests are broader principles or values, like democracy or rule of law, whose impact on individuals may be less direct.
3. Autocrats strategically implement policies like minimum wage increases or tax cuts before elections to create a sense of economic well-being associated with their rule, influencing voters to support them.
4. Autocrats use scapegoating by blaming external or internal enemies, such as immigrants or political opponents, for societal problems, diverting attention from their own failings and consolidating support.
5. They subtly erode democratic institutions by manipulating judicial appointments, controlling media narratives, and suppressing dissent in legislative bodies, making it difficult for citizens to recognize the gradual erosion of their freedoms.
6. Some voters might tolerate democratic backsliding if they believe it’s necessary to protect the “endangered nation” from perceived threats, prioritizing security and stability over democratic processes.
7. Autocrats exploit pre-existing fears and resentments within society, targeting groups like minorities or “elites” as scapegoats, and presenting themselves as strong leaders who can protect the nation from these perceived threats.
8. Autocrats manipulate national identity by framing themselves as defenders of traditional values and cultural homogeneity, often against perceived external or internal threats, thereby justifying their authoritarian actions.
9. The author suggests progressive actors acknowledge the emotional appeal of fear and resentment in politics while focusing on delivering concrete improvements to citizens’ lives, offering tangible benefits alongside democratic values.
10. While the article doesn’t explicitly explain the “Lex Tusk,” it uses it as an example of manipulating public sentiment against a political opponent. The law likely aimed to discredit and undermine former Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, demonstrating how autocrats use legal maneuvers for political gain.

Essay Questions

1. Analyze the role of economic factors in shaping voter behavior and explain how autocrats leverage this to maintain power.
2. Discuss the strategies autocrats use to erode democratic norms and institutions while maintaining a facade of democratic legitimacy.
3. Evaluate the effectiveness of appealing to national identity and fear as political tools for consolidating power.
4. How can progressive forces effectively counter the appeal of autocratic leaders who offer concrete benefits while undermining democratic principles?
5. Discuss the ethical implications of prioritizing concrete personal interests over abstract democratic values in a democratic society.

Glossary of Key Terms

• Autocrat: A ruler who possesses absolute power and authority, often governing without regard for democratic principles or the rule of law.
• Clientelism: A system of political patronage where goods and services are exchanged for political support, often involving the use of state resources for personal gain.
• Concrete Interests: Tangible and immediate benefits that directly impact individuals, such as economic improvements or access to specific services.
• Abstract Interests: Broader principles, values, or ideals that may not have immediate, tangible effects on individuals, such as democracy, freedom of speech, or rule of law.
• Scapegoating: Blaming an individual or group for societal problems or failures, often unjustly, to deflect responsibility or garner support by exploiting prejudice and fear.
• Subversion of Democracy: Actions taken to undermine or weaken democratic institutions, processes, or values, often gradually and subtly, leading to a decline in democratic freedoms and governance.
• National Identity: A shared sense of belonging to a particular nation, often based on factors like culture, language, history, or ethnicity, which can be manipulated for political purposes.
• Progressive Actors: Individuals or groups advocating for social, political, or economic reforms aimed at promoting equality, justice, and democratic values.

Understanding Autocrats’ Electoral Success: A Deep Dive

Source 1: Excerpts from “Undemocratic, but still successful with voters – Democracy and society | IPS Journal” by Filip Milačić

I. The Paradox of Authoritarian Support: This section introduces the puzzling phenomenon of voters supporting autocratic leaders despite their undermining of democratic principles and institutions, using the example of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s re-election in Turkey amidst economic hardship and democratic backsliding.

II. Prioritizing the Concrete: This section explains that voters often prioritize concrete, tangible benefits over abstract democratic principles. Autocrats exploit this by implementing policies like minimum wage increases or tax breaks, especially before elections, to directly appeal to voters’ immediate needs.

III. Clientelism and the Illusion of Benefit: This section explores how autocrats utilize clientelism, the exchange of goods and services for political support, to secure loyalty by providing jobs and benefits to supporters, further solidifying their base despite their undemocratic practices.

IV. The Abstraction of Democratic Erosion: This section argues that the gradual subversion of democratic institutions, such as judicial independence and freedom of the press, is often perceived as abstract and less impactful by voters, allowing autocrats to erode democracy without significant public backlash.

V. Weaponizing Fear and Resentment: This section examines how autocrats manipulate fear and resentment by creating narratives of “endangered nations” threatened by external or internal enemies. This allows them to frame democratic norms as obstacles to national security and justify their authoritarian actions.

VI. The “Endangered Nation” Trope: This section highlights how the narrative of protecting the “endangered nation” transcends national boundaries, as seen in the support for Donald Trump despite his attacks on the rule of law, driven by anxieties surrounding national identity and cultural change.

VII. Countering Autocratic Strategies: The concluding section suggests that progressive actors must address the emotional appeal of fear and resentment while also focusing on concrete improvements to citizens’ lives. Ignoring these factors allows autocrats to exploit public anxieties and maintain their hold on power.

Briefing Doc: The Appeal of Autocrats in Democratic Societies

Source: Milačić, Filip. “Undemocratic, but Still Successful with Voters – Democracy and Society | IPS Journal.” IPS Journal, 22 June 2023, https://www.ips-journal.eu/topics/democracy-and-society/undemocratic-but-still-successful-with-voters-6785/.

Main Themes:

• The Paradox of Voter Choice: Even in the face of democratic erosion and economic hardship, voters often re-elect autocratic leaders.
• Prioritizing Concrete over Abstract Interests: Voters frequently prioritize tangible benefits over abstract concepts like democratic principles.
• The Power of Fear and Resentment: Autocrats successfully exploit fear and resentment towards perceived enemies to justify their actions and solidify their support base.

Key Ideas and Facts:

1. Concrete Benefits Trump Abstract Principles: Autocrats understand that many voters prioritize immediate, tangible benefits over long-term, abstract concerns. This explains why policies like minimum wage increases, tax breaks, or targeted social benefits can outweigh concerns about democratic backsliding. Milačić argues that “many voters choose concrete interests over abstract ones.”
2. Economic Hardship Doesn’t Guarantee Electoral Defeat: While economic struggles can hurt incumbents, autocrats can often manipulate public perception through controlled media, scapegoating, and strategic economic policies implemented before elections.
3. The “Endangered Nation” Narrative: Autocrats skillfully create narratives of an “endangered nation” threatened by internal or external forces. This allows them to frame the suppression of democratic norms as necessary to protect the nation, making voters more tolerant of their actions. “If they are told that this has been done in the name of protecting the ‘endangered nation’, even democratically conscious voters become more tolerant to such behavior,” writes Milačić.
4. Exploiting Fear and Resentment: By identifying clear enemies—whether foreign powers, immigrants, or domestic groups—autocrats tap into existing anxieties and resentments. This allows them to position themselves as protectors, further solidifying their support.
5. Lessons for Progressives: Milačić concludes that progressives must acknowledge the power of emotions like fear and resentment in politics and focus on concrete improvements to citizens’ lives. Ignoring these factors makes it “far too easy for the autocrats.”

Key Quotes:

• “What the new autocrats around the world understood very well is this: many voters choose concrete interests over abstract ones.”
• “Those who do recognise how subverting democracy damages their interest, too, can be swayed. If they are told that this has been done in the name of protecting the ‘endangered nation’, even democratically conscious voters become more tolerant to such behaviour.”
• “The protection of the ‘endangered nation’ thus becomes a primary goal that everything else is subordinated to – even in established democracies.”

Implications:

This analysis sheds light on the complex factors contributing to the continued success of autocratic leaders in democratic societies. It highlights the need for pro-democracy forces to address not only economic concerns but also the emotional anxieties and narratives that fuel support for authoritarianism.

Autocrats succeed because they appeal to voters’ concrete interests rather than abstract ones like democratic principles [1]. They often implement policies that improve voters’ living standards right before elections [2]. Some examples include minimum wage increases, pay raises for government employees, pension increases, child allowance increases, and tax breaks for the wealthy [2]. In addition to appealing to the economic interests of voters, autocrats succeed because they create a sense of fear and resentment by manufacturing a clear enemy of the nation [3]. Autocrats then present themselves as the protectors of the nation’s interests, arguing that democratic principles are obstacles that need to be eliminated [3]. This can appeal to voters who prioritize the protection of national identity over democratic principles [4]. For example, many Americans supported Donald Trump even though he undermined the rule of law, because they saw him as protecting national identity [4].

Voters engage in trade-offs when deciding which candidate to support in an election [1]. It is rare for one candidate to meet all of a voter’s preferences [1]. Voters often choose concrete interests over abstract interests [1]. For example, voters may focus on policies that will improve their living standards, like a tax break, rather than the subversion of democracy which can feel too abstract to be perceived as a threat to their personal interests [2, 3].

However, even voters who recognize that the subversion of democracy damages their interests can be swayed by arguments that focus on the protection of the nation [3]. This is because autocrats often portray themselves as protectors of the nation and manufacture threats, such as:

• External enemies, like the West or immigrants [4].
• Internal enemies, like liberal elites and minority groups [4].

Autocrats then argue that democratic principles are obstacles to protecting the nation and must be removed [4]. In this context, voters may prioritize national identity over democratic principles, even if it means overlooking actions that undermine the rule of law [5]. For example, some Americans supported Donald Trump, despite his disregard for the rule of law, because they believed he was protecting national identity by securing a conservative majority in the Supreme Court [5].

The erosion of democracy happens when voters prioritize concrete interests like economic benefits over abstract principles like the rule of law. [1] Autocrats exploit this by implementing policies that improve living standards right before elections. [2] They offer things like minimum wage increases, pay raises for government employees, and tax breaks. [2]

Autocrats also erode democracy by framing its principles as obstacles to protecting the nation from perceived threats. [3] They often manufacture these threats by creating enemies, both foreign and domestic. [3] Examples include immigrants, “the West,” liberal elites, and minorities. [3]

When voters perceive a threat to the nation, they may tolerate the subversion of democracy in the name of security. [3, 4] This is exemplified by voters who overlooked Donald Trump’s undermining of the rule of law because they believed he was protecting American national identity. [5] This pattern is also evident in countries like Hungary, Turkey, Serbia, and Poland. [5]

Autocrats often exploit fear and resentment to erode democratic principles. They achieve this by:

• Creating a clear enemy of the nation. This enemy can be external, such as immigrants or “the West,” or internal, such as liberal elites or minority groups [1].
• Positioning themselves as protectors of the nation’s interests. Autocrats claim that they are the only ones who can effectively deal with the perceived threat [1].
• Presenting democratic norms and principles as obstacles to national security. They argue that these principles must be eliminated to protect the nation from the manufactured threat [1].

This strategy can be effective in swaying even democratically-minded voters. When people feel threatened, they may be willing to sacrifice abstract principles like the rule of law in exchange for the concrete promise of security. For example, some Americans were willing to overlook Donald Trump’s undermining of the rule of law because they believed he was protecting American national identity by securing a conservative majority in the Supreme Court [2]. The same logic has played out in countries like Hungary, Turkey, Serbia, and Poland [2].

Therefore, the successful activation of fear and resentment is a key pillar of autocratic success.

Voters often make decisions based on a trade-off between concrete and abstract interests, and autocrats have successfully exploited this dynamic [1].

• Concrete interests are tangible and directly affect voters’ lives. Examples include economic policies that improve living standards, such as minimum wage increases, pay raises, and tax breaks [1, 2]. Voters concretely feel the positive impact of these policies [2].
• Abstract interests, like democracy and the rule of law, are less tangible and can feel too abstract for voters to perceive as a direct threat to their personal interests [1, 3].

Autocrats often implement policies that cater to voters’ concrete interests shortly before elections to associate those policies with themselves [2]. They may also misuse state resources to reward loyal voters with jobs and benefits in exchange for votes [2]. At the same time, they downplay or obscure the erosion of democratic principles, making it seem less important than the immediate benefits they offer [1, 3].

Voters who recognize the damage caused by the erosion of democracy can still be swayed by appeals to the protection of the nation [3]. Autocrats exploit this by creating a sense of fear and resentment by manufacturing threats in the form of external or internal enemies [4]. They then present themselves as protectors of the nation and argue that democratic principles are obstacles to national security that need to be removed [4].

This strategy can be effective because it triggers an emotional response that can override concerns about abstract principles [4]. When voters feel threatened, they may prioritize national identity and security over the rule of law, even if it means overlooking actions that undermine democracy [5].

Autocrats maintain voter support despite undermining democracy by exploiting the tension between voters’ concrete and abstract interests. They appeal to voters’ immediate, tangible needs and desires, while simultaneously downplaying or obscuring the erosion of democratic principles, making it seem less consequential than the concrete benefits they deliver [1].

Autocrats achieve this through several strategies:

• Economic Incentives: Autocrats often implement policies that improve living standards right before elections, such as minimum wage increases, pay raises for government employees, pension increases, and tax breaks [2]. These policies create a concrete, positive impact that voters can directly feel, associating the autocrat with economic well-being.
• Clientelism: Autocrats also engage in clientelism, using state resources to provide jobs and benefits to loyal voters in exchange for their support [2]. This creates a direct link between supporting the autocrat and receiving tangible rewards, further reinforcing the focus on concrete gains.
• Manufacturing Threats and Appealing to National Identity: Autocrats exploit fear and resentment by creating a sense of threat, often by manufacturing external or internal enemies. They might target immigrants, “the West,” liberal elites, or minority groups [3]. By positioning themselves as protectors of the nation against these perceived threats, they appeal to voters’ desire for security and national identity, which can override concerns about abstract principles like the rule of law [3-5]. They argue that democratic norms and principles are obstacles to effectively addressing these threats and must be eliminated [3].
• Controlling the Narrative: Autocrats often control key media outlets, allowing them to shape the narrative and downplay or justify their actions [1]. They can use these platforms to promote their achievements, demonize opponents, and spread disinformation, further obscuring the erosion of democracy.

Ultimately, autocrats succeed because they understand that many voters prioritize concrete interests over abstract principles [1]. By delivering tangible benefits, appealing to emotions like fear and resentment, and controlling the narrative, they can maintain support even as they undermine democratic institutions.

Autocrats effectively utilize concrete benefits to sway voters by strategically implementing policies that directly improve their living standards, particularly before elections. This tactic serves to create a tangible, positive impact that voters can readily experience and associate with the autocratic leader.

Here are some key ways autocrats use concrete benefits:

• Pre-Election Policy Implementation: Autocrats often time the implementation of economically favorable policies, like minimum wage increases, pay raises for government employees, pension increases, and tax cuts, to occur just before elections. This creates a clear association between the positive economic impact and the autocrat’s leadership in the minds of voters [1].
• Direct Association with Improved Living Standards: Voters “concretely feel” the benefits of these policies, such as having more money in their pockets [1, 2]. This tangible experience outweighs the abstract concerns about the erosion of democratic principles, which may feel distant or less directly impactful [2].
• Misuse of State Resources: Autocrats may go beyond policy implementation and engage in clientelism, using state resources to directly benefit loyal voters. This can include offering jobs, state benefits, and even cash handouts in exchange for votes [1]. This strategy creates a strong incentive for voters to support the autocrat, linking their personal gain to the continuation of the regime.

By focusing on delivering tangible, immediate rewards, autocrats shift voters’ attention away from the potentially negative long-term consequences of their actions, such as the erosion of democratic institutions and the rule of law. They successfully exploit the common tendency for individuals to prioritize concrete, easily understood benefits over abstract principles, solidifying their hold on power despite their undemocratic practices.

Autocrats effectively exploit fear and resentment to maintain their grip on power, even as they undermine democratic principles. They achieve this by strategically manipulating public perception and creating a climate of anxiety that allows them to position themselves as indispensable protectors of the nation. Here’s how they do it:

• Manufacturing Threats: Autocrats deliberately construct a sense of threat, often by fabricating or exaggerating dangers from external or internal enemies. They might target immigrants, portray “the West” as hostile, or demonize liberal elites and minority groups. This manufactured threat creates an atmosphere of fear and insecurity, priming the public to accept authoritarian measures as necessary for protection. [1, 2]
• Positioning Themselves as Protectors: Having created a sense of fear, autocrats present themselves as the sole guardians capable of safeguarding the nation from these perceived threats. They cultivate an image of strength and decisiveness, claiming that they alone possess the will and the means to protect the people. This strategy effectively shifts public attention away from their undemocratic actions and towards the promise of security. [1, 2]
• Framing Democratic Principles as Obstacles: Autocrats cleverly portray democratic norms and principles, such as the rule of law, checks and balances, and freedom of the press, as obstacles to national security. They argue that these principles hinder their ability to effectively combat the manufactured threats and must be curtailed or eliminated for the sake of the nation’s survival. This framing allows them to justify their authoritarian actions and erode democratic institutions while appearing to act in the best interests of the people. [2]
• Exploiting Existing Social Divisions: Autocrats often exploit existing social divisions, such as ethnic or religious tensions, to further amplify fear and resentment. They may scapegoat minority groups, blaming them for economic woes or societal problems. This tactic not only distracts from their own failings but also rallies support from those who feel aggrieved or threatened, consolidating their power base. [2, 3]

By masterfully manipulating fear and resentment, autocrats create a political climate where the public is willing to tolerate, or even endorse, authoritarian measures in exchange for the perceived promise of security and stability. This allows them to maintain power and erode democratic institutions, even in the face of widespread dissatisfaction or opposition.

Voters often prioritize concrete interests over abstract interests, and autocrats have successfully exploited this dynamic to maintain power even while undermining democracy [1].

Concrete interests are tangible benefits that directly and immediately impact voters’ lives, such as:

• Economic policies that improve living standards, including minimum wage increases, pay raises for government employees, and tax breaks [2]. Voters feel these effects concretely, associating them with the incumbent leader.

Abstract interests are principles and values that are less tangible and may feel less directly relevant to voters’ daily lives [1, 3]. These include:

• Democratic principles and the rule of law, which can be too abstract for voters to perceive as directly impacting them.

When faced with a choice, voters may be more likely to choose a leader who offers concrete benefits, even if that leader is eroding democratic principles. This is because the benefits are immediate and tangible, while the negative consequences of democratic erosion may seem distant or uncertain [1].

Autocrats understand this dynamic and exploit it by:

• Implementing policies that improve living standards shortly before elections [2].
• Misusing state resources to provide jobs and benefits to loyal voters [2].
• Downplaying or obscuring their erosion of democratic principles [1, 3].

They also frame the protection of the “endangered nation” as a concrete interest, creating a sense of fear and resentment by targeting external and internal enemies [3, 4]. This allows them to present democratic norms as obstacles to national security, justifying their actions and swaying even democratically-minded voters [3-5].

Autocrats skillfully manipulate voters’ perceptions of economic hardship to deflect blame and maintain their hold on power. They achieve this by employing several strategies:

1. Controlling the Narrative: Autocrats often maintain control over key media outlets, which allows them to shape the narrative surrounding economic issues [1]. They can downplay the severity of economic struggles, highlight positive economic indicators while ignoring negative ones, and blame external factors or scapegoats for any hardship. By controlling the information voters receive, autocrats can influence how they perceive the state of the economy and deflect responsibility for any shortcomings.

2. Scapegoating: When economic hardship occurs, autocrats often employ a scapegoating narrative, blaming external forces or specific groups for the problems [1]. This could involve targeting “the West,” immigrants, or other convenient enemies to shift blame away from their own policies or mismanagement. By providing a simple explanation for complex economic issues, they offer voters a sense of understanding and a target for their frustration, effectively diverting anger away from the regime.

3. Emphasizing Concrete Benefits: Even in the face of economic hardship, autocrats can strategically implement policies that provide concrete, tangible benefits to voters, particularly in the lead-up to elections [2]. This could include minimum wage increases, pay raises for government employees, pension increases, or tax breaks. These measures create a direct, positive impact that voters can easily associate with the autocrat’s leadership, even if the overall economic situation remains challenging.

4. Exploiting Partisan Bias: Even in countries with a free press, voters’ perceptions of the economy can be influenced by their partisan affiliations [1]. People tend to view the economic situation more favorably when their preferred party is in power, even if objective indicators suggest otherwise. Autocrats can leverage this bias by highlighting any positive economic developments, no matter how small, and framing them as evidence of their competent leadership. They can also appeal to voters’ loyalty and shared identity, reinforcing the perception that they are working in their best interests, even during times of economic hardship.

Voters frequently prioritize concrete interests, which are tangible and immediate benefits, over abstract interests, such as democratic principles, which can feel distant or less impactful on their daily lives [1]. This dynamic allows autocratic leaders to maintain power even while undermining democracy [1, 2].

Autocrats exploit this tendency by strategically focusing on concrete benefits such as:

• Economic policies that improve living standards before elections, like minimum wage increases, pay raises for government employees, and tax breaks [3]. These policies provide voters with tangible, positive experiences that they directly associate with the autocrat’s leadership [1, 3].
• Clientelism, where state resources are used to provide jobs and benefits to loyal voters in exchange for their support [3]. This creates a strong incentive for voters to prioritize their personal gain over abstract principles [3].

Simultaneously, autocrats downplay or obscure the erosion of democratic principles, making them seem less consequential than the concrete benefits they deliver [1, 4]. They also present the protection of the “endangered nation” as a concrete interest, exploiting fear and resentment by targeting external and internal enemies [4-6]. This allows them to portray democratic norms as obstacles to national security and justify their actions, even to democratically-minded voters [4-6].

For example, the article mentions how some Americans overlooked Donald Trump’s undermining of the rule of law because they saw him as the protector of national identity, who secured a conservative majority in the Supreme Court [6]. This demonstrates how fear and resentment, often rooted in concrete concerns about national identity, can override abstract concerns about democratic principles [6].

In essence, autocrats succeed because they understand that many voters prioritize what they can feel and see immediately over abstract principles that may feel less relevant to their daily lives. By delivering tangible benefits and exploiting anxieties, they can maintain support even while eroding democratic institutions.

Voters might prioritize national identity over democratic principles when they perceive a threat to their understanding of the nation’s values, culture, or way of life. This perception can be manipulated by autocratic leaders who exploit fear and resentment to consolidate their power. Here’s why this dynamic occurs:

• Concrete vs. Abstract Interests: As discussed previously, voters often prioritize concrete, tangible benefits over abstract principles like the rule of law or democratic processes [1]. National identity, especially when framed as being under threat, can feel more concrete and personally relevant than abstract democratic principles.
• Fear and Resentment: Autocrats effectively utilize fear and resentment by creating a sense of threat from perceived enemies, such as immigrants, “the West,” or liberal elites [2]. This manufactured threat can trigger a defensive response, leading people to prioritize protecting their understanding of national identity over democratic principles that might be portrayed as hindering that protection.
• Framing Democratic Principles as Obstacles: Autocrats skillfully portray democratic norms and principles as obstacles to national security, arguing that they hinder their ability to effectively combat the manufactured threats [2]. This framing allows them to justify their actions and erode democratic institutions while appearing to act in the best interests of the people and their national identity.
• The Promise of Security: By positioning themselves as the sole guardians capable of safeguarding the nation from these perceived threats, autocrats offer voters a sense of security in exchange for accepting their erosion of democratic principles [2]. In the face of a perceived existential threat, voters may be willing to compromise on democratic values for the promise of stability and protection of their national identity.

The example of Donald Trump’s support in the United States, despite his undermining of the rule of law, illustrates this point [3]. Some Americans prioritized his perceived protection of national identity, particularly his actions on issues like abortion and the Supreme Court, over concerns about democratic principles. This demonstrates how potent the appeal to national identity can be, even in established democracies, and how it can overshadow concerns about autocratic behavior.

Autocrats effectively utilize fear to justify their undermining of democratic principles by creating a sense of urgency and threat that makes their actions seem necessary for the protection of the nation. They achieve this by:

• Manufacturing or exaggerating threats, often from external or internal enemies. These enemies could be immigrants, “the West,” liberal elites, or minority groups. This manufactured threat creates an atmosphere of fear and insecurity, making the public more receptive to authoritarian measures. [1-3]
• Presenting themselves as the sole protectors capable of safeguarding the nation from these perceived threats. They cultivate an image of strength and decisiveness, claiming that they alone possess the will and means to protect the people. This allows them to frame their actions, even those that erode democratic institutions, as necessary for the nation’s survival. [3]
• Portraying democratic norms and principles as obstacles to national security. They argue that these principles, such as the rule of law, checks and balances, and freedom of the press, hinder their ability to effectively combat the manufactured threats and must be curtailed for the sake of the nation. [3]
• Exploiting existing social divisions, such as ethnic or religious tensions, to further amplify fear and resentment. They may scapegoat minority groups, blaming them for economic woes or societal problems, which distracts from their own failings and consolidates their power base by rallying support from those who feel aggrieved or threatened. [3]

By appealing to fear, autocrats create a climate where the public is willing to tolerate, or even endorse, their undermining of democracy in exchange for the perceived promise of security and stability. This allows them to maintain power and erode democratic institutions while appearing to act in the best interests of the people. [4]

Some voters prioritize national identity over democratic principles when they perceive a threat to their understanding of the nation’s values, culture, or way of life [1, 2]. This perception can be manipulated by autocratic leaders who exploit anxieties to consolidate their power. They frame the protection of the “endangered nation” as a concrete interest that supersedes abstract principles like the rule of law [1, 3].

Here’s why this dynamic takes place:

• Concrete vs. Abstract: Voters often prioritize concrete, tangible interests over abstract principles. National identity, especially when framed as being under threat, feels more concrete and personally relevant than democratic principles, which can feel distant or less impactful [1, 4].
• Fear as a Tool: Autocrats exploit fear and resentment by portraying democratic norms as obstacles to national security [2]. They create a sense of urgency and threat by manufacturing enemies, such as immigrants, “the West,” or internal groups like liberal elites or minorities [2]. This makes their actions, even those that erode democratic institutions, seem necessary to protect the nation [2].
• The Promise of Security: By positioning themselves as the sole protectors capable of safeguarding the nation from these perceived threats, autocrats offer voters a sense of security in exchange for accepting their erosion of democratic principles [2, 3]. In the face of a perceived existential threat, voters may be willing to compromise democratic values for the promise of stability and protection of their national identity [3].

For example, the article mentions how some Americans overlooked Donald Trump’s undermining of the rule of law because they viewed him as the protector of national identity, particularly through his actions on issues like abortion and the Supreme Court [3]. This illustrates how the appeal to national identity, especially when tied to concrete concerns or anxieties, can overshadow concerns about autocratic behavior, even in established democracies.

Autocrats employ several tactics to cultivate fear and resentment among voters, ultimately manipulating these emotions to justify their undermining of democratic principles and consolidate their power. Here are some key strategies:

• Manufacturing or Exaggerating Threats: Autocrats often create a sense of fear and urgency by identifying or fabricating threats to the nation, which could come from external or internal enemies. These enemies can be real or imagined, and their threat level is frequently amplified for political gain. [1, 2]
• External Enemies: Autocrats may point to threats from other countries, international organizations, or global trends that challenge their vision of national identity or security. Examples include blaming “the West” for economic woes, cultural shifts, or political interference. [2] The article specifically mentions “Brussels,” as a target of this tactic. [2]
• Internal Enemies: Autocrats often identify enemies within their own societies, targeting groups that can be easily scapegoated or portrayed as threats to the dominant culture or way of life. [2] These internal enemies can include:
• Liberal Elites: Autocrats frequently demonize intellectuals, academics, journalists, or artists who promote critical thinking, dissent, or alternative viewpoints. They may accuse these groups of being out of touch with the “real people” or of promoting ideas that undermine national unity.
• Minority Groups: Ethnic, religious, or sexual minorities are often targeted as scapegoats, blamed for societal problems, economic challenges, or threats to traditional values. This tactic exploits existing social divisions and prejudices to foster resentment and fear among the majority population. [2] The article specifically mentions immigrants from Muslim countries as a frequent target. [2]
• Controlling the Narrative: Autocrats often maintain strict control over media outlets, particularly state-run media, to shape the information disseminated to the public. [3] They use this control to:
• Amplify the Perceived Threat: Media outlets under autocratic control will consistently highlight the dangers posed by the identified enemies, exaggerating their power, influence, or malicious intentions.
• Suppress Dissenting Voices: Critical voices that challenge the autocrat’s narrative or attempt to provide a more balanced perspective are silenced, censored, or discredited. Journalists, academics, or opposition figures who dare to speak out may face intimidation, harassment, imprisonment, or even violence. [4]
• Promote Propaganda: State-controlled media often engages in propaganda efforts, disseminating biased information, disinformation, and conspiracy theories designed to reinforce the narrative of fear and demonize the chosen enemies.
• Appealing to Nostalgia and Grievances: Autocrats often tap into feelings of nostalgia for a perceived “better past” when the nation was supposedly stronger, more unified, or culturally homogenous. They exploit grievances, real or perceived, related to social or economic changes, blaming these changes on the identified enemies.
• Loss of Status or Power: This tactic is particularly effective in societies that have undergone significant transformations, such as the decline of traditional industries, shifts in global power dynamics, or increased diversity due to immigration. Autocrats appeal to those who feel they have lost status, power, or economic security due to these changes.
• Cultural Anxiety: They may also exploit anxieties related to cultural change, framing the perceived enemies as threats to traditional values, religious beliefs, or national identity. This is particularly effective in societies with strong attachments to traditional norms or a history of cultural homogeneity.

By skillfully combining these tactics, autocrats can create a climate of fear and resentment that allows them to justify their actions, even those that undermine democratic institutions. This manipulation of emotions can lead to public acceptance, or even support, for the erosion of democratic norms in exchange for the perceived promise of security and a return to a more idealized past.

Voters might overlook democratic backsliding, even when they value democracy, for several reasons, primarily because autocratic leaders skillfully manipulate their perceptions and priorities:

• Prioritizing Concrete Needs over Abstract Principles: Voters often prioritize tangible, immediate benefits like economic improvements or perceived security over abstract democratic principles like the rule of law or freedom of the press. [1] Autocrats exploit this tendency by providing concrete benefits, such as minimum wage increases, tax breaks, or direct handouts to loyalists, especially before elections. [2] These actions create a tangible link between the autocrat’s rule and improved living standards, making voters less likely to focus on democratic erosion.
• Fear and Resentment as Powerful Motivators: As discussed, autocrats effectively cultivate fear and resentment by: [3]
• Creating a sense of threat from manufactured enemies, often targeting external groups like immigrants, “the West,” or international organizations. [3]
• Scapegoating internal enemies like liberal elites or minority groups, blaming them for societal problems or economic woes. [3]

This manufactured threat makes voters more receptive to authoritarian measures presented as necessary for protection. The “protection of the ‘endangered nation’” becomes paramount, overriding concerns about democratic principles. [4, 5]

• Framing Democratic Norms as Obstacles: Autocrats portray democratic principles like judicial independence or a free press as hindering their ability to effectively combat the manufactured threats. [3] They argue that these principles must be curtailed for the sake of national security and the protection of the nation, making their erosion seem justified to voters concerned about these threats.
• Ignoring Subversion as Too Abstract: The subtle, gradual nature of democratic backsliding often makes it difficult for voters to perceive it as a direct threat to their personal interests. [4] Actions like purging the judiciary or controlling the media can seem abstract and distant, especially when contrasted with the concrete benefits provided by the autocrat. This makes it easier for voters to overlook these actions or rationalize them as necessary evils.
• National Identity as a Powerful Force: When national identity is framed as being under threat, it can feel more concrete and personally relevant than abstract democratic principles. [5] This is particularly true when autocrats tie national identity to specific anxieties, such as economic insecurity, cultural change, or perceived threats to traditional values. As seen in the example of Donald Trump’s support in the United States, concerns about national identity, especially when linked to concrete policy outcomes like abortion or the Supreme Court, can overshadow concerns about democratic erosion. [5]

In essence, autocrats exploit the gap between abstract principles and concrete realities to maintain support while eroding democracy. By providing tangible benefits, stoking fear and resentment, and framing their actions as necessary for protecting the nation, they convince voters to overlook democratic backsliding, prioritizing immediate concerns and a sense of security over the long-term health of democratic institutions.

Autocrats employ a range of strategies to maintain power even as they erode democratic institutions. These tactics often involve appealing to voters’ concrete interests and anxieties, while simultaneously undermining the systems that could hold them accountable.

Here are some key strategies autocrats use to maintain power despite democratic erosion:

• Appealing to Concrete Interests Over Abstract Principles: Autocrats recognize that many voters prioritize concrete, tangible benefits over abstract democratic principles. They exploit this tendency by:
• Providing Economic Incentives: Autocrats often implement policies that provide direct economic benefits to specific groups of voters, particularly before elections. These can include minimum wage increases, pension increases, tax breaks, or targeted social welfare programs. These policies create a sense of tangible improvement associated with the autocrat’s rule, even if the overall economic situation is deteriorating. [1]
• Engaging in Clientelism: This involves using state resources to reward loyal supporters with jobs, contracts, or other benefits in exchange for their votes. This creates a system of patronage that directly ties the well-being of individuals to the autocrat’s continued power. [2]
• Manipulating Fear and Resentment: Autocrats skillfully cultivate fear and resentment among voters, creating a climate of anxiety that makes their actions seem necessary for the protection of the nation. This manipulation involves:
• Creating a Threat Narrative: Autocrats manufacture or exaggerate threats, often from external or internal enemies, to generate a sense of fear and insecurity. These enemies can be other countries, international organizations, “the West,” or internal groups like liberal elites or minorities. [3, 4]
• Positioning Themselves as Protectors: Autocrats portray themselves as the sole guardians capable of safeguarding the nation from these perceived threats. This creates a sense of dependence and reinforces the idea that their leadership is essential for survival. [2, 4]
• Framing Democratic Principles as Obstacles: Autocrats argue that democratic norms and principles, such as the rule of law, checks and balances, and freedom of the press, hinder their ability to effectively combat the manufactured threats. This allows them to justify their erosion of these institutions as necessary for national security. [2, 4]
• Controlling Information and Suppressing Dissent: Autocrats seek to control the flow of information and suppress dissenting voices to maintain their grip on power. This involves:
• Controlling Media Outlets: Autocrats often maintain strict control over media outlets, especially state-run media, to shape the information disseminated to the public. They use this control to amplify the perceived threat, suppress critical voices, and promote propaganda that reinforces their narrative. [3]
• Silencing Opposition: Autocrats target journalists, academics, opposition figures, and anyone who challenges their authority or narrative. They may use intimidation, harassment, imprisonment, or violence to silence dissent and discourage criticism. [5]
• Undermining Judicial Independence: Autocrats often weaken the judiciary by packing courts with loyalists, purging independent judges, or ignoring court rulings that challenge their actions. This removes a crucial check on their power and allows them to operate with impunity. [5]
• Exploiting National Identity: Autocrats often appeal to national identity, particularly when they can frame it as being under threat. They use this tactic to:
• Unify and Mobilize Supporters: Appealing to national identity can create a sense of shared purpose and unity among voters. This allows autocrats to rally support for their policies and actions, even those that are undemocratic. [2, 4]
• Justify Eroding Democratic Norms: The protection of the “endangered nation” becomes a primary goal that supersedes other concerns, including democratic principles. Autocrats argue that these principles must be sacrificed to ensure the survival and well-being of the nation. [6]
• Target Out-Groups: Autocrats often define national identity in exclusive terms, identifying certain groups as “outsiders” or threats to the nation. This can include immigrants, ethnic or religious minorities, or political opponents. This tactic fosters division and resentment, creating scapegoats for societal problems and rallying support for the autocrat’s agenda. [4]

By skillfully combining these strategies, autocrats can maintain power despite eroding democratic institutions. They create a system where their rule appears essential for security and prosperity, while simultaneously silencing those who could challenge their authority.

Voters often prioritize concrete interests over abstract principles due to the following factors:

• Tangibility and Immediacy: Concrete interests, like economic benefits or personal security, are tangible and have an immediate impact on people’s lives. These benefits are easily perceived and felt, making them more salient in voters’ minds [1]. Abstract principles, such as the rule of law or democratic norms, are often seen as more distant and less directly connected to their daily lives.
• Complexity and Uncertainty: Understanding the complexities of democratic principles and their long-term implications requires a certain level of political knowledge and engagement [2]. Many voters may not have the time, resources, or inclination to fully grasp these complexities, making it easier to focus on immediate, tangible concerns.
• Emotional Appeal: Concrete interests, particularly those related to economic well-being or security, tap into powerful emotions like fear and hope [1, 3]. Autocrats effectively exploit these emotions by framing their policies as directly addressing these concerns, making them more appealing to voters than abstract principles that may seem less emotionally resonant.
• Short-Term Thinking: Voters often prioritize their immediate needs and concerns over long-term considerations. Concrete benefits, especially when delivered shortly before elections, can sway voters even if they come at the expense of long-term democratic stability [4]. The abstract, gradual nature of democratic backsliding makes it less noticeable and less urgent than immediate economic gains or perceived security threats.

In essence, the tangibility, emotional resonance, and immediacy of concrete interests make them more powerful motivators for many voters than abstract principles, especially when autocrats skillfully manipulate these factors to their advantage.

Autocrats employ various strategies to maintain power despite eroding democratic institutions, often by appealing to voters’ concrete needs and fears while undermining systems of accountability. [1, 2] Here are some key tactics:

• Prioritizing Concrete Interests Over Abstract Principles: Autocrats recognize that many voters focus on tangible benefits over abstract democratic ideas. They exploit this by: [2]
• Providing direct economic benefits: This might involve actions like raising the minimum wage, increasing pensions, offering tax breaks, or implementing social welfare programs, especially before elections. These policies link the autocrat’s rule to tangible improvements, even if the overall economy is struggling. [2, 3] For example, in Turkey, President Erdoğan implemented minimum wage increases and pay raises for government employees. [3] Other examples include pension increases in Serbia, child allowance increases in Poland, and tax breaks for the wealthy in the US. [3]
• Engaging in Clientelism: This strategy uses state resources to reward loyal supporters with jobs, contracts, or other benefits in exchange for their votes. This creates a system where individuals’ well-being is directly tied to the autocrat’s continued power. [3, 4]
• Manipulating Fear and Resentment: Autocrats create a climate of anxiety that makes their actions seem necessary for national protection. [5] This involves:
• Creating a Threat Narrative: Autocrats manufacture or exaggerate threats, often from external or internal enemies, to generate fear and insecurity. These enemies can be other countries, international organizations, “the West,” or internal groups like liberal elites or minorities. [5]
• Positioning Themselves as Protectors: Autocrats present themselves as the only ones capable of safeguarding the nation from these perceived threats. [5] This fosters a sense of dependence and reinforces the idea that their leadership is essential for survival.
• Framing Democratic Principles as Obstacles: Autocrats argue that democratic norms like the rule of law or a free press hinder their ability to combat the manufactured threats. [5] This allows them to justify their erosion of these institutions as necessary for national security.
• Exploiting National Identity: Autocrats appeal to national identity, especially when it can be framed as under threat. They use this to: [4, 5]
• Unify and Mobilize Supporters: Appealing to national identity can create a sense of shared purpose and unity among voters. This allows autocrats to rally support for their policies, even undemocratic ones. [6]
• Justify Eroding Democratic Norms: Protecting the “endangered nation” becomes a priority that overrides concerns about democratic principles. [4, 6] Autocrats argue that these principles must be sacrificed for national survival and well-being. A prime example of this is Donald Trump’s supporters in the US who prioritized concerns about national identity over his undermining of the rule of law. [6]
• Target Out-Groups: Autocrats often define national identity in exclusive terms, identifying certain groups as “outsiders” or threats. [5] This can include immigrants, ethnic or religious minorities, or political opponents. This tactic fosters division and resentment, creating scapegoats for societal problems and rallying support for the autocrat’s agenda.

In essence, autocrats maintain power by exploiting the tension between abstract principles and concrete realities. They convince voters to prioritize immediate concerns and security over the long-term health of democratic institutions. [2]

Progressive movements face a significant challenge in countering autocratic manipulation of voters, which often relies on exploiting the gap between concrete interests and abstract principles. However, by understanding these tactics, progressives can develop strategies to effectively engage voters and advocate for democratic values. Here are some potential approaches:

1. Highlighting the Concrete Impacts of Democratic Erosion:

• Progressives need to demonstrate the tangible, real-world consequences of democratic backsliding for ordinary people. Instead of focusing solely on abstract principles, they should connect these principles to concrete outcomes that voters care about, such as economic fairness, access to healthcare, quality education, environmental protection, and personal security.
• For example, they could show how corruption enabled by weak rule of law leads to higher prices and fewer job opportunities, or how a suppressed free press limits access to information needed to make informed decisions about healthcare or education. [1, 2]
• By making the connection between democratic principles and concrete benefits clearer, progressives can make a stronger case for their importance in improving people’s lives.

2. Countering Fear and Resentment with Hope and Inclusion:

• Autocrats thrive on fear, division, and resentment. They exploit existing anxieties and prejudices to create scapegoats and justify their authoritarian measures. [3, 4]
• Progressives need to offer an alternative vision based on hope, inclusion, and shared prosperity. They should challenge divisive narratives and promote messages that emphasize common ground, shared values, and the benefits of a diverse and inclusive society.
• This involves directly addressing the legitimate concerns of voters who may be drawn to autocratic appeals, while offering solutions that strengthen democratic institutions and promote fairness and justice for all.

3. Focusing on Concrete Improvements in People’s Lives:

• One of the most effective ways autocrats maintain support is by providing tangible economic benefits, often targeted at specific groups. [1, 5]
• Progressives need to compete on this terrain by offering realistic and achievable policy proposals that address people’s economic needs and anxieties. This could include policies focused on job creation, wage growth, affordable housing, accessible healthcare, and quality education.
• While emphasizing the importance of democratic principles, progressives must also demonstrate their commitment to improving people’s material conditions and providing concrete solutions to the challenges they face.

4. Exposing Autocratic Manipulation and Promoting Media Literacy:

• Autocrats often manipulate information, control media outlets, and suppress dissenting voices to maintain their narrative and control. [2, 5]
• Progressives need to actively expose these tactics and promote media literacy among voters. This involves educating people about how to identify misinformation, propaganda, and biased reporting.
• It also requires supporting independent media outlets, fact-checking initiatives, and organizations that promote transparency and accountability in government.

5. Mobilizing and Engaging Citizens:

• Countering autocratic manipulation requires an active and engaged citizenry. [6] Progressives need to mobilize and empower people to participate in the democratic process, hold their leaders accountable, and defend democratic institutions.
• This involves building strong grassroots organizations, supporting civic education initiatives, and facilitating dialogue and engagement across different communities.

By adopting these strategies, progressive movements can more effectively counter autocratic manipulation of voters and build a more resilient and inclusive democracy. The key is to combine a strong defense of democratic principles with a concrete commitment to improving people’s lives, fostering hope and unity, and empowering citizens to participate in shaping their future.

Autocrats utilize a combination of strategies to retain power even as they undermine democratic institutions. These tactics often involve appealing to voters’ concrete interests and anxieties, while simultaneously weakening systems of accountability [1, 2].

One key strategy is emphasizing concrete interests over abstract principles [2]. Autocrats understand that many voters prioritize tangible benefits over democratic ideals [2]. They exploit this by:

• Providing economic incentives, such as minimum wage increases, pension boosts, or tax breaks, particularly before elections [3]. This creates a tangible sense of improvement associated with the autocrat’s rule, even if the overall economic situation is deteriorating [3].
• Engaging in clientelism, using state resources to reward loyal supporters with jobs, contracts, or other benefits in exchange for their votes [3]. This system of patronage directly links individuals’ well-being to the autocrat’s continued power [3].

Autocrats also skillfully manipulate fear and resentment to create a climate of anxiety that makes their actions seem necessary for national protection [4, 5]. This manipulation involves:

• Constructing a threat narrative by manufacturing or exaggerating threats from external or internal enemies, often targeting groups like immigrants, minorities, or “liberal elites” [5]. This fosters a sense of fear and insecurity among the population [5].
• Positioning themselves as protectors who can safeguard the nation from these perceived threats [5]. This creates a sense of dependence on the autocrat’s leadership for survival [5].
• Framing democratic principles as obstacles that hinder their ability to combat the manufactured threats [5]. This allows them to justify the erosion of democratic institutions, such as an independent judiciary or a free press, as necessary for national security [5].

Another effective tactic is exploiting national identity, particularly when it can be framed as being under threat [6]. Autocrats use this appeal to:

• Unify and mobilize supporters by creating a sense of shared purpose and unity, rallying support for their policies even if they are undemocratic [6].
• Justify eroding democratic norms by arguing that protecting the “endangered nation” supersedes concerns about democratic principles [6]. For example, some Americans chose to overlook Donald Trump’s undermining of the rule of law because they believed he would protect conservative values and national identity, as evidenced by his appointment of conservative judges to the Supreme Court [6].
• Target out-groups by defining national identity in exclusive terms, identifying specific groups as “outsiders” or threats to the nation [5]. This fosters division and resentment within society, creating scapegoats for societal problems and rallying support for the autocrat’s agenda [5].

In conclusion, autocrats effectively maintain power despite democratic erosion by strategically appealing to voters’ concrete interests and fears while simultaneously undermining the systems that could hold them accountable. They create a system where their rule appears essential for security and prosperity, while silencing dissenting voices. [1, 2]

Autocrats maintain their grip on power even as they erode democratic norms by shrewdly appealing to voters’ concrete interests and anxieties, while simultaneously weakening institutions meant to ensure accountability [1, 2]. They exploit the inherent tension between abstract democratic principles and the tangible realities of daily life [2].

Here are some key tactics autocrats use, illustrated with examples from the sources:

• Prioritizing Concrete Over Abstract: Autocrats recognize that voters often prioritize immediate, tangible benefits over abstract notions of democracy [2]. They leverage this by offering concrete economic incentives like minimum wage hikes, pension increases, or tax breaks, especially in the lead-up to elections [3]. These measures create a perception of improvement directly tied to the autocrat’s rule, even if the broader economy is faltering [2, 3]. Turkish President Erdoğan’s minimum wage increases and pay raises for government employees exemplify this tactic [3]. Similarly, pension increases in Serbia, child allowance boosts in Poland, and tax breaks for the wealthy in the US all serve to link the ruling party or leader with tangible benefits for specific groups [3].
• Clientelism: This strategy involves using state resources as rewards for loyal supporters [3, 4]. Jobs, contracts, and other benefits are exchanged for votes, creating a system where individual well-being is directly dependent on the autocrat’s continued power [3, 4].
• Weaponizing Fear and Resentment: Autocrats excel at cultivating an atmosphere of anxiety, making their actions seem indispensable for national security [4, 5]. They achieve this by:
• Manufacturing Threats: Autocrats either invent or exaggerate threats, often targeting external entities like the “West” or Brussels, or internal groups like immigrants, minorities, or “liberal elites” [5]. This creates a climate of fear and insecurity [5].
• Positioning Themselves as Saviors: Autocrats present themselves as the sole guardians capable of shielding the nation from these perceived threats [5]. This fosters a sense of reliance on the autocrat for protection [5].
• Obstructing Democratic Norms: Democratic principles like the rule of law or a free press are portrayed as impediments to effectively combating these manufactured threats [5]. This justification allows them to erode these vital institutions under the guise of national security [5].
• Exploiting National Identity: Autocrats strategically invoke national identity, particularly when it can be framed as endangered [4, 6]. This serves to:
• Rally Support: Appeals to national identity can forge a sense of shared purpose and unity, mobilizing voters behind the autocrat’s policies, even those that undermine democratic processes [6].
• Subvert Democratic Principles: Safeguarding the “endangered nation” becomes paramount, overriding concerns about democratic principles [6]. Voters, even those who value democracy, become more tolerant of autocratic behavior if it’s framed as protecting the nation [4]. This explains, for instance, why some Americans overlooked Donald Trump’s erosion of the rule of law: they prioritized concerns about national identity, believing he would protect it through actions like securing a conservative Supreme Court majority [6].
• Targeting Out-Groups: National identity is often defined in exclusionary terms, designating certain groups as “outsiders” or threats [5]. This tactic foments division and resentment, creating scapegoats for societal problems and bolstering support for the autocrat’s agenda [5].

In essence, autocrats thrive by exploiting the disconnect between abstract ideals and concrete realities. They persuade voters to prioritize immediate concerns and perceived security over the long-term health of democratic institutions [2, 6].

Summary: Even when leaders weaken democratic institutions and the economy suffers, they can still win elections because voters often prioritize immediate benefits over abstract democratic principles.

Explanation: This passage explores why authoritarian leaders who harm democratic processes and oversee economic struggles can still get re-elected. It argues that voters often prioritize tangible improvements to their personal situation, like increased wages or tax breaks, over abstract concerns like the erosion of democratic norms. Authoritarian leaders exploit this by implementing popular economic policies before elections, effectively buying votes through targeted benefits. Even when voters understand the long-term damage to democracy, these immediate benefits can sway their voting decisions. The control of media also allows leaders to manipulate public perception of the economy and shift blame for economic hardship. This phenomenon isn’t unique to one country; it’s a global trend.

Even in countries with free press, voters’ views on the economy are often influenced by their political affiliations. Many voters find the overall state of the economy too complex to understand fully and are more responsive to policies directly impacting them. This allows autocratic leaders to manipulate the system to their advantage.

Key terms:

• Subverting democracy: Undermining democratic institutions and processes, like free and fair elections or an independent judiciary.
• Incumbent: The current holder of a political office.
• Scapegoating narrative: A story that blames a person or group for problems, often unfairly, to distract from the real causes.
• Partisan lines: Following the beliefs or interests of a particular political party.
• Autocrats: Rulers with absolute power, often obtained and maintained undemocratically.

Summary: Autocrats maintain power not just through direct favors (clientelism), but also by subtly undermining democratic institutions and stoking fear and resentment towards perceived enemies, framing these actions as necessary to protect the nation. This allows them to erode democratic norms with the support of voters who prioritize national identity over abstract democratic principles.

Explanation: Autocrats, or rulers with absolute power, gain and keep control in two key ways. Beyond offering direct benefits to supporters, they manipulate democratic systems. They might pressure judges, control the media, and limit open discussion in government. These actions are often hard for everyday people to see as direct threats to their own lives. Even when people do recognize the damage, autocrats exploit fear and resentment to maintain support. They create a sense of threat, identifying internal or external enemies like immigrants or political rivals. The autocrat then positions themselves as the sole protector of the nation against these threats. This justifies their undermining of democratic processes, which are framed as obstacles to national security. As a result, even in established democracies, voters might overlook the erosion of democratic principles if they believe their national identity is at risk. This explains, for instance, why some voters might disregard a leader’s questionable actions if they believe that leader is protecting their values or way of life.

Key terms:

• Clientelism: A system where political support is exchanged for favors or benefits.
• Subversion of democracy: The undermining of democratic institutions and principles.
• Autocrat: A ruler who has absolute power.
• Rule of law: The principle that everyone, including those in power, is subject to and accountable under the law.
• Hush-money payment: Money paid to someone to prevent them from disclosing embarrassing or damaging information.

Summary: Autocrats sometimes strengthen their power by addressing immediate citizen needs while simultaneously eroding democratic principles. Progressives must counter this by acknowledging the emotional forces driving politics and focusing on tangible improvements in people’s lives beyond simple economic growth.

Explanation: This passage argues that autocratic leaders often employ a deceptive strategy: they deliver on concrete issues important to their citizens, like improving infrastructure or lowering certain taxes, to gain popular support. This allows them to subtly undermine democratic institutions and norms without significant public outcry, as people are appeased by the immediate benefits. The author suggests that progressives, those who advocate for democratic values and social justice, need to understand and counteract this strategy. They must recognize the role of emotions, like fear and resentment, in shaping political opinions. Additionally, they must prioritize improving citizens’ quality of life in tangible ways that go beyond just focusing on economic growth indicators like GDP. If progressives focus solely on GDP growth and ignore the emotional landscape, they risk making it easier for autocrats to solidify power while dismantling democracy.

Key terms:

• Autocrats: Rulers with absolute power, often obtained and maintained through undemocratic means.
• Progressive actors: Individuals or groups advocating for social reform and advancement of democratic values.
• Subverting democracy: Undermining or weakening democratic systems and principles.
• GDP growth: Gross Domestic Product growth, a common indicator of economic expansion.
• Concrete improvements: Tangible, measurable changes that positively impact people’s daily lives, such as access to healthcare, affordable housing, or quality education.

This article examines the strategies autocrats employ to maintain power despite eroding democratic norms. It argues that these leaders exploit the tension between abstract democratic ideals and the concrete needs of voters.

Here are the key strategies autocrats use to maintain power:

• Prioritizing Concrete Over Abstract: Autocrats recognize that voters often prioritize tangible, immediate benefits over abstract democratic principles. They offer concrete economic incentives, like minimum wage increases, pension boosts, or tax breaks, especially before elections [1, 2]. These policies create a perception of improvement linked directly to the autocrat, even if the overall economy is struggling [1, 3].
• Clientelism: This strategy involves using state resources to reward loyal supporters [2, 4]. Jobs, contracts, and other benefits are exchanged for votes, creating a system where individual well-being depends on supporting the autocrat.
• Weaponizing Fear and Resentment: Autocrats cultivate a climate of anxiety by manufacturing or exaggerating threats, often targeting external groups like “the West” or immigrants or internal groups like minorities or “liberal elites” [5]. By positioning themselves as protectors against these threats, they foster reliance and justify the dismantling of democratic institutions, like an independent judiciary or a free press, by framing them as obstacles to security [4, 5].
• Exploiting National Identity: Autocrats strategically invoke national identity, especially when it can be portrayed as endangered [4-6]. They rally support by creating a sense of unity against perceived threats. This allows them to undermine democratic principles by framing their actions as necessary to protect the nation. Voters, even those who value democracy, may tolerate autocratic behavior if they believe it safeguards the nation [6]. This explains why some Americans overlooked Donald Trump’s undermining of the rule of law – they prioritized concerns about national identity, believing he would protect it, for example, by appointing conservative judges [6].

The author argues that progressives must counter these tactics by:

• Recognizing the Power of Emotions: Understanding the role of fear and resentment in political decision-making.
• Focusing on Concrete Improvements: Prioritizing tangible improvements in people’s lives that go beyond simple economic growth [7].

By addressing people’s concrete needs and emotional concerns, progressives can compete with autocrats and protect democratic values.

By Amjad Izhar
Contact: amjad.izhar@gmail.com
https://amjadizhar.blog

Affiliate Disclosure: This blog may contain affiliate links, which means I may earn a small commission if you click on the link and make a purchase. This comes at no additional cost to you. I only recommend products or services that I believe will add value to my readers. Your support helps keep this blog running and allows me to continue providing you with quality content. Thank you for your support!