Electoral democracy is held to be the opposite of dictatorship and other forms of authoritarianism. Paradoxically, it can be turned into a step towards authoritarianism. Ideally, it offers the mechanism for rule by popular will, implemented by elections with institutional checks and balances.
Yet it can be co-opted by strong men (almost all examples are of men) to establish person-based rule. Acquiring power through elections, they then transform it into personal rule. President Trump is the present example of a strongman rule reached through elections.
In the 1990s, there was an intellectual current heralding the arrival of the age of democracy. The dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 gave a sense of triumph in Western countries. Francis Fukuyama’s book, The End of History and the Last Man (1992), proclaimed that liberal democracy is the terminal point of the evolution of political order. Yet it was not to be.
The economic liberalism of China flourished under one-party and strong leaders’ rule, in contradiction of Fukuyama’s theory. It is noteworthy that authoritarian rule has grown within liberal democratic systems.
Democracy can turn into the base for authoritarian rule in many ways. The more common route is the military’s domination in policymaking and administration, with a façade of elected government. The military may not oust civilian rule, but it limits elected representatives’ powers. The military may even influence elections by sponsoring its own political party or dictating who can and cannot contest elections.
All major policies and decisions are made by the military, but civilians are nominally credited for them. The military is the real power. Myanmar, Pakistan, and Egypt are examples of countries where army rule is visible but fronted by civilian institutions. Military commanders are the real rulers. They dominate bodies dealing with all foreign and domestic affairs. A distinct example these days is Field Marshal Asim Munir of Pakistan, who wields power in all affairs. President Trump talks fondly of him.
The protection of democracy lies essentially in people’s commitment to exercise their rights and willingness to fight for them
Another form of rule by a select group is by religious parties. They build religious states, conferring on their leaders divine powers to rule. The religious rulers present themselves as the choice of sacred powers. Iran is a present example of such a government. But religion is invoked by many political leaders as their entitlement to rule.
Modi in India draws on the promise of Hindu rule to win elections. The Christian Right has long attempted to influence United States politics, and it manages occasionally to capture state governments in the southern United States.
Authoritarianism can be lodged in an electoral democracy by an elected leader who, after being elected, emasculates legislative and judicial bodies. Trump is the personification of this mode of public order, paradoxically setting this example in the United States, which presents itself as the global paradigm of democratic rule.
With the concentration of executive powers in the presidency, subduing Congress, and appointing a supportive judiciary, Trump has become practically a dictator. He overrules legislation and ignores adverse judicial decisions, mostly without any consequence.
Trump has not only gathered state power in his hands, but also rendered Congress his handmaiden by making the Republican Party subservient to himself. His talk, laced with threats of presidential powers, also contributes to subduing many individuals as well as institutions.
Authoritarianism also seeps into electoral democracy through popular votes. A populist leader sweeping elections, backed by a pliant political party, assumes the reins of power and acts largely on personal preferences.
Zulfiqar Bhutto ruled Pakistan in the early 1970s mostly by his own interests and sometimes whims. There are many other examples, for example, Tony Blair in the United Kingdom on the Iraq invasion, Modi in India, Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran, Mahathir in Malaysia, and, until recently, Viktor Orbán in Hungary.
Obviously, the line between electoral democracy and populist authoritarian rule is very thin. Institutions are the strength of democracy, but their impersonal nature makes them susceptible to strong men’s overrule. Their authority ultimately must be exercised by persons, many of whom may be reluctant to stick their necks out.
The protection of democracy lies essentially in people’s commitment to exercise their rights and willingness to fight for them. The ideological and moral orders of a society are the foundations of democracy. Politics alone cannot protect it.