The Slow Slide into Illiberal Governance

The notion that a country can transition from a liberal democracy to an illiberal regime is often met with skepticism. However, in the United States, subtle yet significant shifts have occurred over the past few decades, raising questions about the fundamental character of its governance.

One term gaining currency among experts is “competitive authoritarianism,” coined by Hungarian-born scholar Juan J. Linz to describe regimes that maintain some semblance of democratic institutions while suppressing opposition and dissent through various means. This label has been applied to several countries in recent years, but what does it mean for the United States?

In a liberal democracy, citizens enjoy fundamental rights such as free speech, assembly, and access to information. These principles are enshrined in the US Constitution and reinforced by an independent judiciary. However, over the past decade or so, a series of events has contributed to the erosion of these safeguards. Gerrymandering, voter ID laws, and other measures aimed at limiting ballot access have created an uneven playing field.

The increasing influence of money in politics is another factor that has transformed the US into a competitive authoritarian state. As campaign finance regulations have been relaxed or ignored, corporate interests have gained disproportionate sway over policymakers. This phenomenon has not only led to a widening wealth gap but also enabled industries like fossil fuels and finance to exert significant control over regulatory agencies.

The growing reliance on executive branch power is another significant shift in the US system. Through various means – including recess appointments, pardons, and the deployment of national security powers – presidents have incrementally expanded their authority at the expense of Congress. This has resulted in an erosion of checks and balances, a hallmark of liberal democracies.

Some may argue that these developments are minor adjustments to the system or mere partisan posturing. However, when viewed through the lens of historical context, they form part of a larger pattern. Previous administrations have also exploited executive powers, but the cumulative effect of these actions has created an environment where institutions once seen as sacrosanct – such as the judiciary and Congress – are increasingly viewed with suspicion.

A notable precedent is the 1947 case of Steel Seizure v. Columbia Steel Co. In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court struck down President Harry Truman’s attempt to seize control of the steel industry, effectively limiting executive authority in matters related to commerce. However, more recent precedents, such as Trump’s use of tariffs and executive orders to reshape trade policy, suggest that this boundary may be increasingly flexible.

The implications of these trends are far-reaching. As illiberal governance consolidates its grip on institutions, citizens begin to lose faith in the system. When free speech is curtailed, access to information becomes restricted, and opposition voices are silenced, democratic norms become distorted. This can ultimately lead to a full-blown authoritarian regime.

As scholars continue to debate whether the US has crossed into competitive authoritarianism, it is clear that the very foundations of liberal democracy are under strain. Rather than dismissing these developments as aberrations or partisan politics, we must confront their cumulative effect on our governance system.