The Authoritarian Playbook

Death by a Thousand Cuts

Modern democratic backsliding rarely looks like a military coup. Instead, as political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt describe in 'How Democracies Die,' elected leaders dismantle democracy incrementally — using legal and quasi-legal means that are difficult to oppose at any single step.

The playbook typically follows a pattern: (1) Win power through democratic elections, often with a genuine popular mandate. (2) Attack the credibility of independent institutions — courts, media, election bodies — as corrupt or biased. (3) Reward loyalists and punish critics through control of state resources, contracts, and appointments. (4) Change the rules — constitutional amendments, court-packing, electoral law changes — to entrench power. (5) Gradually restrict opposition through media control, legal harassment, and selective prosecution.

At no single point is there a clear 'moment' when democracy ends. This is what makes it so dangerous — by the time the pattern is undeniable, it may be too late to reverse.

Why Do Voters Allow It?

A common question is why voters support leaders who are visibly undermining democracy. Several factors are at play. Partisan loyalty causes voters to excuse behavior from their own side that they would condemn in opponents. Economic performance can buy tolerance for authoritarian moves — if the economy is growing, voters may overlook institutional erosion.

Most importantly, each individual step can be rationalized. Attacking judges? 'They were politically biased.' Changing electoral rules? 'The old system was unfair.' Restricting media? 'They were spreading fake news.' The incremental nature of backsliding means there is never an obvious moment to sound the alarm. Political scientist Tom Pepinsky observed: 'Authoritarianism is not the thing you fear. It's boring and mundane.'

The Playbook Across Countries

The power of the Levitsky-Ziblatt framework is that the same moves recur across very different countries. Mapping real cases onto the steps turns an abstract pattern into a diagnostic checklist.

Worked example — spotting step 2. Suppose a newly elected leader begins calling the electoral commission 'rigged,' the courts 'activist,' and the press 'enemies of the people.' None of this is illegal, and each claim may contain a grain of truth. But the pattern — delegitimizing every independent referee at once — is the tell. Recognizing step 2 early is the difference between defending guardrails while they still exist and mourning them after they are captured.