In an opinion piece in Scientific American, Cecilia Menjívar of UCLA and Deisy Del Real of the University of Southern California contend that the United States and other nations are sliding toward autocracy. They believe we can learn from the experience of other nations.
They write:
An autocratic wave has crept up on us in the U.S. and over the world in the last decade. Democracy and autocracy were once seen as two separate and distant worlds with little in common, and that the triumph of one weakened the other. Now, however, autocrats across the globe, in poor and wealthy nations, in established and nascent democracies, and from the right and left, are using the same tactics to dismantle democracies from within.
As of 2021, of the 104 countries classified as democracies worldwide, 37 had experienced moderate to severe deterioration in key elements of democracy, such as open and free elections, fundamental rights and liberties, civic engagement, the rule of law, and checks-and-balances between government branches. This democratic backsliding wave has accelerated since 2016 and infiltrated all corners of the world.
With the upcoming U.S. presidential election in November, questions about the future of American democracy take on urgency. As the American public seems increasingly receptive to autocratic tactics, these questions become even more pressing. Will the U.S. slide into autocracy, faced with a presidential candidate in Donald Trump who promises to be a dictator on his first day in office? Can lessons from autocracies elsewhere help us detect democratic backsliding in the U.S.?
To answer these questions, we first need to identify how the new breed of autocrats attains and retains power: their hallmark strategy is deception. How does a roll call of modern autocrats, and wannabe autocrats, like Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, Russia’s Vladimir Putin, El Salvador’s Nayib Bukele, India’s Narendra Modi, Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro implement this modus operandi for the latest model of autocracy? They twist information and create confusion within a façade of democracy as they seize power. They do not overthrow democracy through military coups d’état but by undoing core democratic principles, weakening the rule of law, and eliminating checks and balances between branches of government.
Rather than eradicating democratic institutions as leaders like Chile’s Augusto Pinochet or Zaire’s Mobutu Sese Seko did in the past, today’s established and emergent autocrats (as is the case of Maduro or Orbán, for instance) corrupt the courts, sabotage elections and distort information to attain and remain in power. They are elected through ostensibly free elections and connect with a public already primed to be fearful of a fabricated enemy. Critically, they use these democratic tools to attain power; once there, they dismantle those processes. Autocratic tactics creep into the political life of a country slowly and embed themselves deeply in the democratic apparatus they corrupt. Modern autocracy, one may say, is a tyranny of gaslighting.
We gathered a group of scholars who have looked at successful and failed autocracies worldwide in a special issue of the American Behavioral Scientist, to identify common denominators of autocratic rulers worldwide. This research shows that modern autocrats uniformly apply key building blocks to cement their illiberal agenda and undermine democracies before taking them over. Those include manipulating the legal system, rewriting electoral laws and constitutions, and dividing the population into “us” versus “them” blocs. Autocrats routinely present themselves as the only presumed savior of the country while silencing, criminalizing and disparaging critics or any oppositional voice. They distort information and fabricate “facts” through the media, claim fraud if they lose an election, persuade the population that they can “cleanse” the country of crime and, finally, empower a repressive nationalistic diaspora and fund satellite political movements and hate groups that amplify the autocrats’ illiberal agenda to distort democracy.
In February, Bukele, the popular Salvadoran autocrat and self-described “world’s coolest dictator,” spoke at the 2024 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), an annual convention for U.S. right-wing elected officials and activists. There he received a standing ovation after he flaunted his crackdown on crime in his country and suggested the U.S. should follow his tactics. His speech demonstrates how, regardless of political history and ideology, or their nation’s wealth and place on the global stage, autocrats today deploy a similar “toolbox of tricks” aimed at legalizing their rule. That’s because they copy from one another and learn from one another’s successes and failures. Vast interconnected networks enable autocrats to cooperate, share strategies and know-how, and visit one another in public shows of friendship and solidarity to create an international united front. Just ask Orbán, the Hungarian prime minister and autocrat, who received a warm reception when he spoke at the CPAC in 2022, reminding the crowd of the reason for his visit: “I’m here to tell you that we should unite our forces.”
Global networks of autocratic regimes also provide economic resources to other autocrats and invest in their economies, share security services to squash popular dissent, and sometimes interfere in each other’s elections.
Modern autocrats do not act alone; their connections with one another are complemented and sustained by a varied cadre of legal specialists, political strategists and academics who tend to be economically secure, well-educated and cosmopolitan. These individuals, like Michael Anton and those tied to the Trump-defending Claremont Institute, the over 400 scholars and policy experts who collaborated on Project 2025— the extreme-right game plan for a Trump presidency—and Stephen K. Bannon, who called for the “deconstruction of the administrative state” by filling government jobs with partisans and loyalists, move in and out of government positions and the limelight. They are nimble and, moreover, fundamental to the autocrats’ strategies, as they create videos and podcasts and write books to fabricate good images of the autocrats, write detailed blueprints for an autocratic form of government, and consult aspiring autocrats on best practices.
Evidence indicates that we are in a critical moment in U.S. democracy. Will the U.S. inevitably descend into autocracy? No, not with an alert and well-informed electorate. Recognizing the strategies that autocrats use and share, veiled behind a façade of democratic elections and wrapped in fearmongering, equips us to understand the harmful consequences of these strategies for democracy, and perhaps to stop the wave in time.
Juan Sebastián Chamorro, a Nicaraguan opposition politician and prospective presidential candidate, was accused of treason, arrested and banished simply for running as an opposition candidate by the regime of President Daniel Ortega and Vice President Rosario Murillo (who is also first lady). In exile, Chamorro has described a danger countries face: autocrats who come to power through democratic systems are “like a silent disease—the early symptoms of this silent disease are usually dismissed, but once it begins to consume the body, it is usually too late to stop it.”
This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Yes, and let us not forget the Hitler, too, used the electoral processes in 1030’s Germany to come to power. Trump is using the fear of the “other” the same way Hitler did.
And other “key elements” to preserving and nurturing democracy are education and communication. American education has been undermined by the standardized testing mania, which can’t deal with the subtleties of social studies, for instance, and by the takeover and fragmentation of the media, so that common knowledge and principles–essential to cooperative endeavor and government–are not learned or have become obscured to a destructive extent.
LikeLike
Our republic, with its written constitution, as well as Parliamentary forms of democracies have weaknesses that are easily exploited by minority extremists. Here, it’s the use of the electoral college along with gerrymandering that can make minority extremist control easy. In Israel it’s the need to form a coalition that can do it. The extremists are waiting for their moment. Here the technique has been to make up stories, lies, and keep repeating them, nonstop regardless of actual facts. It works, simplify and repeat and people will believe. A Hitler technique used by Trump. At the moment pro-democracy patriots have joined forces to oppose autocracy and support Kamal Harris. In Israel, too many political parties with narrow interests can’t get their act together.
LikeLike
The suggestion that the electoral college approach to autocracy is part of the problem reminds me that I have been studying what would exist in politics if the electoral college were tweaked but not removed. This comes from my belief that sparsely populated states will never support a straight popular election of the president.
My chief interest is in getting more people thinking that they have an influence on the presidential race. Being a resident of the redest state there is has led me to despair of my vote ever having meaning. Whether voting in a state or national election, my vote has never since 1992 added to the total of a winning candidate. Knowing this, neither side cares much about my views and seems perfectly contented to ignore my geographical area. Outside of getting rid of the electoral college in the presidential race, what can be done to make me more interested in political activity?
On a state level, I cannot see much that can help me except time. On a national level. I decided to see of allocation of electoral votes in a Nebraska or Maine plan would give different results. I decided to test a system of dividing electoral votes differently, giving a third of the delegates to an opponent who won a third or more of the votes. As it turns out, the effect of the large states on the electoral college would have overcome the small states and the results would have been the same. Losing a lot of votes in the 60-40 democratic strongholds of California and New York would have both elected Donald Trump in 2016 and would have re-elected him in 2020. In neither case would that method have provided incentive for a candidate to care what I think as a minority supporter in Rednessee.
Thus, I am interested in a different approach. I think we should look at a compromise proposal that sets a threshold for popular vote to usurp the electoral college. Clinton won just a bit more than Trump’s popular vote. Biden barely squeaked by in the Electoral college but beat Trump by almost 7million votes. There should be a pool of free electoral delegates awarded to the popular vote winner at large. Given a certain popular vote percent attained, that group of electoral votes would go to the winner.
Then maybe presidential candidates would do more than just fly across my woods without looking down.
LikeLike
Interesting ideas but it’s all academic. The Electoral College confers huge political benefits to a party that governs approximately half the states and has half the seats in Congress. We would need 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states to ditch or modify the Electoral College. It will not happen until the political climate in this country is unlike anything we can imagine now. Not in any of our lifetimes, safe to say.
LikeLike
ALREADY AN OLIGARCHY
After researching government laws passed since Citizens United, Princeton University researcher Martin Gilens and Northwestern University researcher Benjamin Page documented that the U.S. is no longer a representative republic because the government does not represent the interests of the majority of the country’s citizens, but is instead ruled by the rich and powerful. The researchers analyzed 1,800 U.S. policies enacted over a period of two decades and compared the laws and regulations that were passed to those favored by average Americans to those favored by wealthy Americans and corporations, and here’s what the research revealed: “EVEN WHEN A MAJORITY OF CITIZENS DISAGREES WITH ECONOMIC ELITES OR WITH ORGANIZED SPECIAL INTERESTS, ORDINARY CITIZENS GENERALLY LOSE.”
America has become an oligarchy because of the Supreme Court. Today’s Roberts Court will live in the same odious infamy as the Taney Court whose 1857 Dred Scott ruling declared that human beings are mere property, which lit the fuse to the ruinous Civil War from which America has yet to recover. In its 2010 Citizens United ruling, the infamous odious Roberts Court ruled that mere property is equal to a human being, leading to corporations being given the “human right” to pour unlimited dollars into America’s political system, putting government up for sale to the highest bidder and corrupting the system to the extent that our nation has become an oligarchy.
Today, America has the best government that money can buy and has become an oligarchy, serving the interests of corporations and billionaires, thanks to the corrupt, infamous, odious Roberts Court.
LOOPHOLE IN CITIZENS UNITED
The U.S. Supreme Court left open a loophole in its Citizens United decision: The Court’s ruling says that if a significant risk of quid pro quo corruption can be shown to exist because of allowing corporations and wealthy individuals to contribute unlimited amounts of money to a super PAC , regulations can be instituted to limit the amount of money that corporations and the wealthy can contribute to super PACs.
With this loophole in mind, in the upcoming November elections there is an initiative on the ballot in Maine that, if passed, will limit to $5,000 the amount of money that can be contributed to super PACs because the evidence that has accumulated since the 2010 SpeechNow ruling clearly shows that allowing corporations and wealthy individuals to contribute unlimited amounts of money to super PACs has led to quid pro quo legislation and regulatory changes. SpeechNow is the March 26, 2010, DC Circuit Court ruling which applied Citizens United to super PACs, allowing unlimited contributions to super PACs.
While limiting super PAC contributions by corporations and wealthy people to $5,000, the Maine initiative sets no limits on how much money a super PAC can accept overall.
But by limiting the contributions from just one or a few super wealthy contributors and spreading the contributions out among the general populace, the risk is greatly reduced that politicians receiving money from a super PAC would be likely to engage in quid pro quo actions that serve only one or a few contributors to the super PAC because the contributions would reflect the interests of a wide range of individual contributors.
The Maine initiative is being bitterly opposed by corporations and the wealthy because it greatly reduces their ability to buy politicians, legislation, and regulatory escape.
If the Maine initiative survives the attacks from the Special Interest groups and is approved by Maine voters, the initiative will immediately be challenged in court — but the challenge will go to a new court: The Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals can agree with the evidence from the Maine Initiative and can rule that the unlimited contributions to super PACs by corporations and the wealthy has demonstrably caused quid pro quo lawmaking and regulatory changes.
The case would then proceed up to the U.S. Supreme Court where the Justices would be able to rule that risk of quid pro quo is such that contributions to super PACs can be limited by the Maine initiative. Such a ruling would trigger nationwide challenges to unlimited super PAC contributions, as well as triggering similar initiatives and laws in many states.
Unfortunately, even though the Maine initiative could begin the process that restores the core of our nation’s republic, the Democratic Party has its attention focused elsewhere and on other issues. Yet, the voices that typically champion such issues as the Maine initiative don’t even seem to be aware of the initiative. Why is that?
Passage of the Maine initiative can be the beginning of the end of super PACS buying legislators and laws. I hope that the voters of Maine pass this important initiative.
LikeLike
I think it bears repeating:
“They twist information and create confusion within a façade of democracy as they seize power. They do not overthrow democracy through military coups d’état but by undoing core democratic principles, weakening the rule of law, and eliminating checks and balances between branches of government.” <–has Trump written all over it.
So, there’s method in Trump’s (apparent) madness. It’s a means to an end–Trump’s insanity is the means, and the end is for Trump to become an oligarch/authoritarian. (I still think most of MAGA have so totally SHUT DOWN THEIR OWN THINKING that they are just waiting to drink the KoolAid while they use their power to force it on everyone else.
Here’s another thing that needs repeating: If a MAN with a resume like Harris were running, there would be no question of who would win.
The other thing is that one can wonder if there even CAN BE an internal conspiracy in a democracy, or if, on principle, it’s just another name for revolution. Also, if planning to tear down the Constitution and all of it’s institutions is NOT a conspiracy, what IS?
And in that light, the whole MAGA movement is involved in a conspiracy.
Finally, in this window between now and January 20, Biden has the same power as Trump is vying for–immunity. If he holds to his oath of office to protect the Constitution, he will find a way to stop Trump in his tracks and be supported by that same oath of office. CBK
LikeLike
Oh I don’t know. John Kerry had a hell of a resume and he lost. Al Gore had a hell if a resume and he lost.
LikeLike
FLERP: It seems you are thinking outside of context. CBK
LikeLike
Wouldn’t be the first time.
LikeLike