Authoritarianism and Totalitarian Tendencies: State Power, Control, and Compliance

What “Authoritarianism” Means (and What It Doesn’t)

Authoritarianism describes a way of governing where political power is concentrated in a leader or a small group, political pluralism is limited, and civil liberties are constrained. The defining feature is not a specific set of policy goals, but the methods used to gain, keep, and exercise power.

This matters because authoritarian methods can attach to many ideological projects. A government can justify tight control in the name of national security, economic modernization, religious order, revolutionary transformation, or anti-corruption. The content of the ideology may differ; the governing pattern is similar: fewer meaningful checks, fewer independent institutions, and fewer safe ways for citizens to disagree.

Key markers

• Concentrated decision-making: major choices made by a narrow circle, with limited legislative or judicial constraint.
• Limited political competition: opposition parties, candidates, or movements face legal, financial, or coercive barriers.
• Constrained civil liberties: speech, assembly, association, and privacy are restricted, often through broad laws.
• Weak accountability: fewer effective mechanisms to investigate, sanction, or replace leaders.

Totalitarian Tendencies (a Stronger Form of Control)

Totalitarianism is often used for systems that aim not only to control political power but to penetrate and reshape society more comprehensively—public life, private life, culture, and belief. In practice, many regimes show totalitarian tendencies without fully achieving total control.

Think of authoritarianism as “politics tightly controlled,” and totalitarian tendencies as “politics plus society increasingly controlled.” The difference is one of scope and intensity, not a clean on/off switch.

Mechanism 1: Control of Information

Information control is a core mechanism because it shapes what citizens can know, say, and coordinate around. It can be overt (bans, shutdowns) or subtle (pressure, incentives, algorithmic manipulation).

Continue in our app.

You can listen to the audiobook with the screen off, receive a free certificate for this course, and also have access to 5,000 other free online courses.

Or continue reading below...

Download the app

Common policy tools

• Censorship rules: broad prohibitions on “false news,” “extremism,” “insulting the state,” or “harmful content,” with vague definitions.
• Licensing and regulation: requiring permits for media outlets, NGOs, or online platforms; selective enforcement.
• Platform pressure: informal requests to remove content, “voluntary” compliance agreements, or threats of fines.
• Internet controls: throttling, blocking, domain seizures, or mandatory data localization.
• Propaganda and agenda-setting: heavy state media dominance, coordinated messaging, and discrediting independent sources.

Policy-adjacent example: “anti-disinformation” laws

Many societies debate how to reduce harmful misinformation. The authoritarian risk increases when laws:

• define disinformation broadly (e.g., “any content undermining public confidence”),
• give a ministry unilateral authority to label content false,
• lack independent appeal processes, and
• punish journalists or citizens for sharing contested claims.

Practical step-by-step: how to evaluate an information-control proposal

1. Identify the trigger: What activates enforcement—an objective standard (e.g., court finding) or an agency’s discretion?
2. Check definitions: Are terms like “extremism,” “harm,” or “insult” precisely defined?
3. Map enforcement powers: Who can order takedowns, fines, or bans? Is there judicial oversight?
4. Look for due process: Is there notice, a hearing, and a timely appeal to an independent body?
5. Assess proportionality: Are penalties scaled, or do they jump quickly to shutdowns and criminal charges?
6. Test viewpoint neutrality: Would the rule apply equally to pro-government and anti-government speech?

Mechanism 2: Restriction of Opposition

Authoritarian systems often preserve the appearance of pluralism while making real opposition costly or ineffective. Restrictions can be legalistic (paperwork, funding rules) or coercive (harassment, detention).

Common policy tools

• Party and candidate barriers: stringent registration requirements, signature thresholds, disqualifications for minor infractions.
• Assembly restrictions: permits required for protests, “security zones,” curfews, or blanket bans during sensitive periods.
• NGO constraints: foreign funding bans, burdensome reporting, “foreign agent” labels, or audits used selectively.
• Defamation and insult laws: criminal penalties for criticizing officials or institutions.

Policy-adjacent example: emergency powers that limit assembly

During crises, temporary limits on gatherings can be legitimate. The authoritarian shift happens when emergency rules:

• are repeatedly extended without clear metrics,
• apply unevenly (allowing pro-government rallies but banning opposition ones),
• lack legislative renewal requirements, or
• become a template for permanent restrictions.

Mechanism 3: Coercive Policing and Security Apparatus

Coercion is not only about force; it is about predictability of punishment and the chilling effect on dissent. Authoritarian governance often expands police and security powers while reducing oversight.

Common policy tools

• Broad public order offenses: “disturbing public peace,” “resisting police,” “unlawful assembly,” defined expansively.
• Preventive detention: holding individuals without timely charge or trial, justified as risk prevention.
• Surveillance expansion: mass data collection, facial recognition, location tracking, and metadata retention.
• Militarized policing: heavy equipment and tactics used for routine crowd control.

Policy-adjacent example: surveillance in the name of security

Security agencies may argue that expanded surveillance prevents terrorism or serious crime. Warning signs include:

• collection is bulk rather than targeted,
• authorization is internal (agency-approved) rather than judicial,
• oversight bodies lack independence or resources,
• data sharing expands across agencies without clear limits, and
• retention periods are long or indefinite.

Practical step-by-step: a “surveillance checklist” for non-experts

1. Purpose: Is the goal narrow (specific serious crimes) or broad (“public safety”)?
2. Scope: Who is affected—suspects only, or everyone by default?
3. Authorization: Is a warrant required? Who issues it?
4. Minimization: Are there rules to delete irrelevant data and protect bystanders?
5. Transparency: Are aggregate statistics published (requests, approvals, errors)?
6. Redress: Can individuals challenge misuse? Are there penalties for abuse?

Mechanism 4: Patronage Networks and Economic Control

Patronage is governance through loyalty-based distribution of jobs, contracts, licenses, and protection. It can stabilize an authoritarian system by making key groups dependent on the ruling coalition.

How it works in practice

• Selective benefits: public sector jobs, subsidies, permits, or procurement contracts flow to loyalists.
• Selective punishment: tax audits, regulatory inspections, or license withdrawals target critics.
• Capture of business: politically connected firms gain market advantages; independent firms face barriers.
• Local gatekeepers: regional officials control access to services, turning citizenship rights into discretionary favors.

Policy-adjacent example: anti-corruption drives

Anti-corruption policies can strengthen governance. They can also become authoritarian tools when enforcement is one-sided. A neutral way to assess credibility is to ask whether:

• investigations apply to allies as well as opponents,
• cases follow transparent procedures,
• independent courts can review evidence, and
• asset seizures have clear legal standards and appeal rights.

Mechanism 5: Managed Elections (Competition Without Real Choice)

Some authoritarian systems keep elections but manage them so outcomes are predictable. The goal is often legitimacy and controlled turnover within the ruling group, not genuine contestation.

Common management techniques

• Rules engineering: gerrymandering, high thresholds, restrictive ballot access, or sudden legal changes close to elections.
• Media imbalance: dominant coverage for incumbents; limited access for challengers.
• Resource advantage: state resources used for campaigning; blurred line between government and party.
• Administrative pressure: public employees encouraged or coerced to support the ruling party.
• Election administration capture: weak independence of electoral commissions; limited observation.

Practical step-by-step: how to tell “elections” from “democratic elections”

How Authoritarian Governance Differs From Democratic Governance (Functional Features)

Instead of defining democracy as a slogan, it helps to focus on operating features that keep power contestable and accountable.

Contestation

• Democratic pattern: opposition can organize, campaign, criticize, and win.
• Authoritarian pattern: opposition exists but is constrained, fragmented, or criminalized.

Accountability

• Democratic pattern: officials face oversight, investigations, and electoral consequences.
• Authoritarian pattern: oversight bodies are captured; scandals are managed; accountability is selective.

Rule of law

• Democratic pattern: laws are general, predictable, and apply to rulers and ruled.
• Authoritarian pattern: laws are vague or selectively enforced; exceptions are routine.

Independent institutions

• Democratic pattern: courts, election bodies, auditors, and regulators can act without political retaliation.
• Authoritarian pattern: appointments, budgets, and disciplinary tools are used to ensure loyalty.

Security, Stability, and the “Slide” Toward Authoritarian Practice

Many authoritarian shifts are framed as reasonable responses to real problems: terrorism, riots, pandemics, corruption, foreign interference, or economic crisis. The key is not whether the problem is real, but whether the response concentrates power without effective limits.

Emergency powers

Legitimate need: rapid action when ordinary procedures are too slow. Authoritarian risk: emergency becomes normal governance.

• Design questions: Is there a clear sunset clause? Are renewals time-limited and vote-required? Are courts open to review emergency measures?
• Operational questions: Are restrictions targeted and evidence-based, or broad and indefinite?

Censorship framed as “public order”

Legitimate need: preventing incitement to violence. Authoritarian risk: expanding bans to peaceful criticism and investigative reporting.

• Design questions: Are there narrow categories (direct incitement) or broad categories (“undermining confidence”)?
• Operational questions: Are removals reviewable by an independent court?

Judicial independence under pressure

Legitimate need: improving efficiency or ethics in courts. Authoritarian risk: using reforms to control outcomes.

• Warning signs: sudden court-packing, politicized disciplinary bodies, executive control over judicial budgets, or removal of judges for unpopular rulings.
• Practical test: Can courts rule against the government in high-stakes cases without retaliation?

Safeguards: Neutral Institutional Checks and Civic Protections

Safeguards are not about guaranteeing one political outcome; they are about keeping power limited, reviewable, and replaceable. Below are common protections and how they function as early-warning systems.

Institutional checks (how they reduce concentration of power)

• Legislative oversight with real tools: subpoena power, budget control, independent research capacity, and protected minority rights in committees.
• Independent courts: secure tenure, transparent appointments, and authority to review executive action.
• Independent election administration: nonpartisan staffing, transparent procedures, and meaningful observation.
• Auditors and inspectors general: ability to investigate procurement, conflicts of interest, and misuse of funds without political interference.
• Decentralization with accountability: local autonomy can prevent over-centralization, but only if local officials are also accountable and rights are uniform.

Civic protections (how they keep contestation possible)

• Freedom of association: unions, NGOs, and civic groups can form without punitive registration hurdles.
• Press freedom and source protection: journalists can investigate power; whistleblowers have legal protections.
• Right to protest with clear rules: time/place/manner limits can exist, but must be viewpoint-neutral and reviewable.
• Privacy protections: limits on data collection, strong warrants, and independent oversight of surveillance.
• Access to information: transparent procurement, open records, and clear classification rules.

Recognizing warning signs in policy proposals (a neutral checklist)

1) Does the proposal expand executive discretion with vague standards? (Yes/No) 2) Are oversight and appeals independent and practical (fast, affordable, accessible)? (Yes/No) 3) Is there a sunset clause with measurable renewal criteria? (Yes/No) 4) Are penalties proportionate, or do they escalate quickly to bans/criminalization? (Proportionate/Harsh) 5) Is enforcement likely to be viewpoint-neutral, or does it invite selective targeting? (Neutral/Targetable) 6) Does it weaken independent institutions (courts, auditors, election bodies) via appointments, budgets, or discipline? (Yes/No) 7) Does it normalize emergency measures into ordinary law? (Yes/No)

When several answers cluster on the risk side, the proposal may be moving from “solving a problem” toward “reducing contestation and accountability.” That is the practical boundary where authoritarian methods begin to appear, regardless of the ideology used to justify them.