Lucan Way, P.h.D. ’01, is a distinguished professor of democracy at the University of Toronto and co-chair, with Steven Levitsky, P.h.D. ’99, of the editorial board of the Journal of Democracy. UC Berkeley political scientist M. Steven Fish has described them as “the Juan Linz and Alfred Stepan of their generation,” referring to the authors of the 1978 classic The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes.
Way and Levitsky’s most recent collaboration is Revolution and Dictatorship: The Violent Origins of Durable Authoritarianism.
In a recent opinion piece in the New York Times, they wrote that “America’s slide into authoritarianism is reversible,” but also that “civil society must act collectively” to do so.
This interview with Way was conducted shortly after a poll by the nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute found that a majority of Americans (52%) agreed that President Donald Trump “is a dangerous dictator whose power should be limited before he destroys American democracy.”
The exchange has been edited for length and clarity.
How strong do you think the U.S. democracy is today?
I don’t think the United States is a democracy right now. I think we’ve entered a period of what I call “competitive authoritarianism.” But I do think that the resources to revert back to democracy are definitely there. And I do not think it’s likely that the Republicans will be able to consolidate authoritarian rule.
Could you talk more about competitive authoritarianism?
Competitive authoritarianism is a term that Steven Levitsky and I came up with back in 2002 to describe mostly cases of new democracies that emerged in what political scientists call the third wave. And these are cases in which there are regular elections, the opposition is allowed to operate freely and openly, and sometimes the opposition wins elections, but in which there’s all sorts of abuse by the incumbents—harassment of media, [targeted] audits, defamation suits and the like.
You’re describing something that’s different from other authoritarian regimes?
Right. So, the traditional form of authoritarianism, in the 1970s is Pinochet’s Chile or Cuba today, in which there are no national elections, in which the military kind of runs the show, and this kind of single-party dictatorship. That also describes Russia, North Korea, some other places. There are places like Russia or Venezuela that do have elections, but there’s really no chance the opposition is going to win.
Is what is happening in the U.S. now unique to the United States or part of a global trend?
Before this, almost all social scientific research suggested that a country that was as rich [and] with a democracy that has been around as long as the United States, basically had zero chance of collapsing, because there just aren’t any other equivalent cases. The United States is kind of sui generis in that sense.
Do you think Americans are attracted to authoritarianism and, if so, why is that?
I think certainly some of them are. In the last election, Trump did not hide his authoritarianism and people were not bothered by it. Some of them may have not liked it, but were so angry at the incumbent that they decided to vote for him anyway. But I’m imagining that some people in the core base of MAGA were attracted by his authoritarianism. I think there’s clearly a constituency out there that likes it when, for example, people are deported. Trump sort of satisfies the need for revenge.
Oftentimes people support authoritarianism because they see the opposition as a kind of existential threat. There’s a scholar by the name of Milan Svolik at Yale who’s done research on this that shows that even when people, in principle, support democracy, if they feel that the opposition is a threat to their way of life, they’re very happy to support authoritarian candidates.
If Americans are concerned or alarmed about the state of democracy in the U.S., what can they do?
Well, there are all sorts of things. It’s one of those situations of all-hands-on-deck. Part of the reason why democracy has collapsed is because mainstream fact-based media has weakened. So, people need to start paying for subscriptions to whatever newspaper they like. They need to contribute to whatever party they think they want to win. They need to engage in protest activity, showing up at town halls. It is one of those situations where I think there needs to be resistance from all sides. Collective action becomes easier when everybody does a little bit.
In the current environment, though, does that come at some risk?
Yeah, I think it does. I think there’s definitely fear out there. There’s been some evidence that donors fear retribution and have withheld some monies. You’ve had situations where NGOs have had to reduce staff because of lack of funding, which is kind of crazy because this is precisely the time when we need that kind of activity.
I don’t think it’s nearly as bad as some other places. Obviously, we’re not anywhere close to Putin-style Russia. People aren’t imprisoned. So I think it’s important not to exaggerate the cost, but I do think people are genuinely fearful.
Are there things more specifically with regard to combating competitive authoritarianism that need to happen?
One of the things about competitive authoritarianism is that opposition has to operate on multiple levels. There’s the legal, traditional, mainstream route—which is running in campaigns—but also at a certain point it does require mass protests. People have to be prepared for both institutional, but also extra-institutional [resistance]. That’s kind of the way civil society—in Poland, South Korea, Brazil—have been very important in terms of returning countries to democracy or resisting authoritarian threats.
You mentioned news media. What more could they do to strengthen democracy?
I worry about self-censorship. I think we’ve seen some evidence of that. There’s been pressure on the large stations. CBS, which is owned by Paramount, has faced pressure because Paramount wants to merge with Skydance media and then FCC has let them know that if they cross Trump, they have less chance of getting this through. And the station introduced greater oversight over CBS’s program, 60 Minutes, which caused the resignation of Bill Owens, a long-time executive producer.
This is an example of a red flag, clear evidence that self-censorship is going on. That should trouble us all. I think the media, journalists, editors need to resist because the more people engage in [self-censorship], the harder it is for those who want to speak up.
If the executive branch is overreaching, does that suggest there needs to be change to the legislative or judicial branches?
No, it’s about defending against attacks on checks and balances. The Trump administration is attacking the constitutional separation of powers—that needs to be resisted. I don’t know of any kind of broader changes that needs to be done. In that sense, it’s about defending the status quo.
I get a sense sometimes from reading articles about this that many Americans are in a state of disbelief about the state of democracy and how things are changing. Is that your sense too?
Initially. The strategy [the administration] used—this fire hose approach in which they introduced all sorts of changes at once—created a kind of deer-in-the-headlights response from the Democratic Party. People just didn’t know we had to resist and so there was a remarkable kind of passivity.
But I think that’s been changing in the last few weeks. Congresspeople protested the [deportation of] Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador. You’ve seen Congresspeople protesting at ICE detention centers. I mean, the mayor of Newark was arrested, but the fact that elected officials are much more out there than they used to be, I think is a very good sign. And I think that’s going to only increase. I think Trump’s popularity is declining and as that happens, that emboldens people to do something.
Is there a need to rethink or change the way civics are taught in the U.S.?
Definitely. That’s something we’re thinking about in Canada too. There’s a kind of a revised version of Schoolhouse Rock that needs to take place. People need to be reminded of what our system consists of and the basic civic lessons of separation of powers. There’s kind of the short term need to—which is, obviously, essential—resist authoritarianism. But there’s also the long-term need to bolster civics education and remind people of their rights and sell them on the idea of democracy.
And I take it not only for school children, but people of all ages.
Absolutely. Schoolhouse Rock was targeted at a younger population, but I think there needs to be a broader campaign just to remind people of the basics of the American system and Constitutional system and then sell them on the need to defend that.
In research I did a few years ago, I found evidence that support for democracy in a non-democratic context like Belarus is actually higher than in the Baltics, which are more democratic.
I think it is a little bit equivalent to vaccines; people oppose vaccines [when] they don’t remember what measles was like or what polio is like, and so they just are complacent. People may support authoritarianism [when] they don’t have any idea what that actually means. We may have to go through a period in which people have to understand what it means to live in a system in which you have to think twice before contributing to one of the parties and that’s hopefully going to give a sense of why we need to preserve these institutions.
Tom Kertscher is a Milwaukee journalist who has reported previously for California.
