Global Decline of Democracy and Complexity of Authoritarianism

The University of Birmingham has established the Centre for Elections, Democracy, Accountability and Representation (CEDAR) as an interdisciplinary initiative to use data-driven methods to unravel diverse forces driving authoritarianism across different regions.

Birmingham, U.K. — Across the globe, democracy is under threat. Over the past two decades, the proportion of nations classified as fully democratic has shrunk significantly.

Reports from 2022 suggest that more countries shifted toward authoritarianism than at any point since 1990. If this pattern persists, projections indicate that by 2026, fewer than 5% of people worldwide will reside in a full democracy.

This shift brings severe consequences: increased censorship and human rights violations in affected states, alongside heightened risks for remaining democracies. Authoritarian regimes often contribute to instability by fostering conflicts, spreading disinformation, and launching cyberattacks, posing a serious challenge to democratic stability.

The Pitfall of Oversimplification

Grasping why this decline is occurring is vital, yet many analyses stumble into what can be termed the “temporal fallacy”—the assumption that events happening simultaneously must stem from identical causes.

With authoritarianism rising in numerous countries, it’s tempting to attribute this trend to a single set of factors.

Media, policy discussions, and even some scholarly work often treat authoritarianism as a uniform phenomenon, suggesting that standardized countermeasures can reverse it.

This oversimplification is not just inaccurate—it’s risky. Misjudging the roots of democratic erosion and relying on generic solutions can weaken efforts to combat this growing repression.

To tackle this complexity, the University of Birmingham established the Centre for Elections, Democracy, Accountability and Representation (CEDAR).

This interdisciplinary initiative uses data-driven and comparative methods to unravel the diverse forces driving authoritarianism across different regions.

Diverse Regional Dynamics

The causes and expressions of authoritarianism vary widely by region, as illustrated by the following examples:

• North America: In the United States, economic frustrations—like stagnant social mobility and globalization’s downsides—combined with misinformation and declining political tolerance have boosted populist figures.
  
  Responses here might emphasize economic support and initiatives to rebuild trust in democratic values. However, apathy toward democracy, rooted in its long-standing presence, may also hinder resistance.
  
• Sub-Saharan Africa: Unlike North America, authoritarianism here rarely involves populist newcomers. Instead, long-entrenched leaders in nations like Cameroon and Uganda have deepened repression by undermining already fragile democratic structures. The task isn’t preventing populist surges but fortifying weak institutions against entrenched power.
  
• Asia: While populist leaders like India’s Narendra Modi or the Philippines’ Rodrigo Duterte grab headlines, authoritarianism also emerges through military takeovers (e.g., Myanmar, Thailand) and restrictions on civil society (e.g., Bangladesh). China’s authoritarian model and regional influence add further pressure, yet pro-democracy activism in places like Hong Kong and Thailand signals ongoing resistance.
  
• Latin America: Democratic setbacks here, particularly in Central America (e.g., El Salvador, Nicaragua), often feature leaders exploiting public safety fears to dismantle checks and balances. South America, however, shows greater resilience, with countries like Chile and Uruguay maintaining democratic integrity despite challenges.
  
• Central and Eastern Europe: Hungary and Poland exemplify democratic backsliding, with figures like Viktor Orbán weakening judicial and media independence. Yet, elsewhere in the region—like Slovakia and Slovenia—civil society and new political movements have slowed or even reversed this trend, highlighting diverse outcomes.

A Call for Nuanced Solutions

These regional differences underscore the need for a sophisticated approach to authoritarianism. Rather than a blanket strategy, effective responses require:

1. Precise Evidence: Carefully determine where authoritarianism is genuinely advancing and where it isn’t.
2. Comparative Insights: Analyze the distinct factors fueling political shifts across regions.
3. Refined Concepts: Move beyond broad labels to terms like “gradual erosion” or “sudden authoritarian turns” for greater clarity.
4. Customized Strategies: Develop targeted plans to bolster democracy, tailored to each region’s unique context.

CEDAR’s research supports this shift, aiming to equip policymakers and societies with the tools to protect democratic principles against an increasingly authoritarian world.

Global Decline of Democracy and Complexity of Authoritarianism (March 24, 2025)