Authoritarian Democracy: The Role of Populist Leaders in Defying Democratic Principles
Democratic Systems Menaced: The Rise of Totalitarian Democracy
Scholars studying political systems have long upheld democracy as fundamentally different from totalitarian regimes. Historically, democracy has been associated with non-totalitarian entities such as fascism, absolutism, or dictatorship. The prevailing view is that totalitarian regimes seek stringent control over all societal aspects, suppressing political opposition, an independent civil society, impartial courts, autonomous universities, objective media, and expert bodies. Meritocracy in public administration is supplanted by political loyalty, with appointments influenced by allegiance to the ruler or party. In such systems, governance is dominated by a centralized authority, often consolidated around a charismatic leader.
The advent of politicians like Donald Trump and their global counterparts has sparked debate concerning the persistence of the democratic-totalitarian dichotomy. These politicians can be seen as proponents of a new ideological model—totalitarian democracy. Unlike traditional authoritarianism, this model does not completely obliterate democratic representation but fundamentally alters its interpretation. Winning a popular vote is portrayed as granting unchecked authority to the elected leader to impose their will across all public life domains, irrespective of constitutional limits or democratic governance norms. In this context, fair play in politics is eclipsed by aggressive majoritarianism.
The manifestation of this shift is the systematic erosion of meritocracy in public administration. Political allegiance increasingly influences government appointments, as civil servants are pressured to demonstrate unwavering loyalty to the elected leader. Independent expert bodies, responsible for offering objective advice on matters such as healthcare, foreign policy, environmental protection, and resource management, find themselves sidelined or systematically dismantled. In essence, the epistemic basis of democracy is dismissed under this totalitarian conception.
Universities and schools are subjected to politically enforced conformity that conforms to the ruling party and its agenda. The fear of reprisals— be it dismissal, public humiliation, or funding loss—dictates decision-making within public institutions, replacing the traditionally prevailing ethos of working for the common good with subservience to the leader's agenda. Among the leader's inner circle, dissent or critical discussion is unacceptable; loyalty and blind obedience are demanded instead.
Jan-Werner Müller, a leading scholar in this field, describes this phenomenon as political leaders endeavoring to "take control" of the state. One illustrative example of this occurred during Trump's first term in office, as he introduced "Schedule F" (Executive Order No. 13957), which permitted the summary dismissal of thousands of civil servants without cause. President Joe Biden promptly rescinded the order upon taking office, but signs suggest its re-emergence. Efforts to dismantle the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and lay off over ten thousand employees epitomize this strategy. If implemented, the ensuing disruption to medical aid and humanitarian assistance could cause more deaths worldwide than those caused by Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Alongside tech billionaire Elon Musk, Trump appears focused on further weakening an already fragile American public administration, stripping it of its authority and expertise.
Research on this topic is clear-cut: countries with impartial, professional, and merit-based public administration are less prone to corruption and more successful at delivering human welfare. Surprisingly, the strength of public administration—measured by impartiality, professionalism, and meritocracy—correlates more closely with human well-being than the mere existence of democratic elections. Citizens' assessments of government legitimacy place greater emphasis on factors such as corruption control, rule of law, and governmental effectiveness over democratic rights. Political scientists Carl Dahlströöm and Victor Lapuente argue in their book Organizing Leviathan: Politicians, Bureaucrats, and the Making of Good Government that high-quality governance emerges when elected leaders collaborate genuinely with expert advice. Although it does not imply "rule by experts," it emphasizes the importance of elected leaders having the final say, provided they receive guidance from a professional civil service trained in subject matter expertise.
The significance of this balanced relationship lies in the fact that both politicians and experts have limitations. Politicians can be short-sighted and opportunistic, disregarding inconvenient knowledge offered by experts, whereas experts may lose touch with public sentiment, potentially facing legitimacy issues. Effective governance results not from one party's dominance but from a mutually productive interaction between politicians and experts. When policymakers engage with independent experts, the resulting policies tend to be both effective and democratically legitimate.
The dangers of governance by political loyalists alone are evident. When leaders surround themselves exclusively with sycophants, they risk creating an "echo chamber," hearing only favorable information. This can lead to inaccurate assessments, particularly in foreign policy and military strategy. One plausible explanation for Putin's decision to invade Ukraine is that his inner circle systematically overestimated Russia's military capabilities while underestimating Ukrainian resistance. Similar dynamics may manifest under a second Trump presidency, with decision-making influenced by a loyalist entourage that prioritizes flattery over objective analysis.
The emergence of totalitarian democracy constitutes a significant challenge to democratic governance. The dismantling of institutional checks, the politicization of public administration, and the dismissal of expertise in favor of loyalty threaten the very foundations of effective governance. As this model gains traction, the risks extend beyond individual nations, shaping the trajectory of global politics in destabilizing ways.
- The erosion of a professional, impartial, and merit-based civil society, as seen in totalitarian democracies, can lead to aggressive majoritarianism in politics and ineffective governance.
- In the realm of public finance, leaders who prioritize political loyalty over expertise may make ill-informed decisions, affecting policy-and-legislation and subsequently impacting human welfare.
- When it comes to war-and-conflicts, leaders surrounded by sycophants risk creating an echo chamber and making inaccurate assessments, potentially leading to disastrous consequences like underestimating enemy resistance.
- The general-news media, typically a crucial component of democratic societies, faces challenges under totalitarian democracy as autonomous reporting is undermined by political pressure, resulting in suppressed critical discussion and objective reporting.
