Since the middle of the 2000s, the world has witnessed a precipitous decline in democratic countries. After almost three decades of proliferation of democratic governance, described by Samuel Huntington as the Third Wave of democracy, the third reverse wave is sweeping the globe. Two previous waves, 1882 through 1926, and 1945 through the mid-1970s, were followed by similar reversals. During these reversals, countries that regressed from democracy became outright autocracies. There was no grey zone in between. But the third reverse wave is characterized by two important phenomena. The first is the emergence of counterfeit democracy while the second is the rise of the personalistic autocratic system.

Ali Riaz is a Distinguished Professor of Political Science at Illinois State University in the US, a Non-Resident Senior Fellow of the Atlantic Council, and the President of the American Institute of Bangladesh Studies (AIBS). His recent publication is titled ‘Pathways of Autocratization: The tumultuous journey of Bangladeshi politics.’

What is counterfeit democracy?

Counterfeit democracies are those that have some traits of democracy, for example, periodic elections and limited space for opposition parties, while the essential system of governance is authoritarian. These counterfeit democracies are described as hybrid regimes. Those who are in power in hybrid regimes manipulate the constitution to their benefit and rig the election to the extent that it is no longer an instrument of democracy but becomes a tool to gain a veneer of legitimacy. These rulers unleashed a process that would ensure democracy's death by a thousand cuts. They claim that their system is a different kind of democracy and use culture and/or religion as the justification for discounting the defining elements of democracy, such as freedom of speech and assembly, representation through fair process, and accountability. The number of such regimes has increased over the years because the incremental nature of the decline and decimation of democracy are overlooked by citizens. Besides, these counterfeit democracies can fool the international community. These rulers have external backers who shield them from any kind of adverse consequences. Many of these hybrid regimes continued to be in the grey zone for decades, but some have muted to become closed autocracies; very few experienced successful democratization.

What is a personalistic autocracy?

The second phenomenon – personalistic autocracy - is an evolving characteristic of the global scene and warrants our attention. According to available data, in 1988 these regimes constituted 23 percent of all autocracies, by 2010 the percentage reached 40 percent. In one sense personalism in politics is nothing new, but what makes it distinctly different in recent decades is that this has become a defining feature of a regime, or in other words, it has become a category of existing regimes. Autocratic regimes which emerged after WWII were led by parties or military juntas. They were, in large measure, collective leadership. Until the late 1980s, this was the major trend. As the Third Wave of democracy began in the mid-1970s, this particular feature of the undemocratic regime dissipated. After the end of the Cold War, personalistic rule in non-democracy began to emerge.

Political scientists Andrea Kendell Taylor, Carisa Nitsche, Erica Frantz, and Joseph Wright, who have been studying this phenomenon for the past decade, identified personalism as the 'domination of the political realm by a single individual'. They noted that, in some instances, personalist leaders dominate a respective country's political system 'to such a degree they become virtually indistinguishable from the regimes they rule.' Erica Frantz elsewhere described this kind of regime as a 'personalist dictatorship'. In her description, 'personalistic dictatorships [are] those regimes where power is concentrated in the hands of an individual rather than a political party, royal family, or military junta.' It is common knowledge that autocratic leaders are characterized by their centralized and unilateral decision-making style, and they demand unquestioning obedience to their directives and personal loyalty.  The political system which has a 'personalistic dictator' at the helm of power, is a personalistic autocracy.

How do personalistic autocrats rule?

How does a personalistic autocrat rule a country? These leaders, according to Alexander Baturo and Jakob Tolstrup, do not always rely on an institution. Instead, even if any institution exists, rulers depend on patron-client nexus networks and informal politics for governance. Ekaterina Schulmann, while discussing the Russian political scene, highlighted the relationship between institutions and the leader; she said, 'Personalist regimes tend to dismantle, subvert, or imitate institutions with the sole aim of consolidating power in the hands of a leader and his (or—far more rarely—her) closest associates.' Kendell Taylor and her colleagues underscore that in a personalistic autocracy, an individual trumps institutions and rules.  They write such a personalist autocracy, the leader governs absent the constraints of other actors: Not even the leader's political party (should it exist) or the security apparatus exerts independent control. Policy choices, in turn, reflect the whims of the ruler.

Photo: Dinu Alam

POLICY CHOICES OF PERSONALISTIC AUTOCRATS

There is wide agreement among political scientists that personalist autocracy 'produces the worst policy outcomes of any political system'. These policy choices are not limited to domestic politics or governance, instead, they are also about foreign policy choices and priorities. They tend to pursue 'the riskiest and most aggressive foreign policy'. Torrey Taussig, in a commentary published by the Brookings Institute in 2017, identified four factors for personalist autocrats' aggressive foreign policy. First, the inherent characteristics of the individual – 'ambitious, cut-throat and divisive'. Second, these leaders perceive a lower cost of fighting. Third, due to the absence of strong institutions that would hold him/her accountable, he/she does not fear defeat. Fourth, subordinates are unwilling to challenge the leader which creates a groupthink situation. Other experts have noted that 'personalist dictatorships are also the most likely of all dictatorships to invest in nuclear weapons and least likely to engage in international cooperation'. Domestic policy choices based on a personal network create a crony system to the detriment of national interests and protect the beneficiaries from any kind of accountability, and often foreign policy choices are based on who would act as a shield in case of external adversities.

There is wide agreement among political scientists that personalist autocracy 'produces the worst policy outcomes of any political system'. These policy choices are not limited to domestic politics or governance, instead, they are also about foreign policy choices and priorities. They tend to pursue 'the riskiest and most aggressive foreign policy'.

HOW DO PERSONALISTIC AUTOCRATS RISE?

Personalistic autocrats do not emerge out of nowhere, instead, they rise incrementally. These leaders use weak institutional contexts as their springboard, cultivate pernicious polarization in society, and utilize the democratic system, including elections, to come to power. Once in power, they adopt a pathway that has been described by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt as the pathway to the death of democracy. In their book titled "How Democracies Die", Levitsky and Ziblatt showed the three-step process of the rise of autocrats – targeting the referees (that is capturing the 'judiciary, law enforcement bodies and intelligence, tax, and regulatory bodies'), targeting the opposition (that is, persecuting the opposition voice, from political parties to media to civil society, through coercion and using the judiciary), and changing the rules of the game (changing the rules which determine how the legislature will work, elections will be held).

As such personalistic autocrats rise through the decimation of institutions to create a complete dependence on the leader, first as de facto, then as de jure; through marginalization, and, if necessary, annihilation of the opposition using whatever state apparatuses the leader has brought under his/her control, and through changes in the constitution and laws which would create a playing field which is not only titled but also under the control of him/her. Elections are manipulated through various mechanisms, including banishing the formidable opposition candidates and parties using laws. These are done both stealthily and openly, through machination, intrigue as well as coercion, and cooptation.

Photo: Prabir Das

THE DO'S AND DON'TS WHEN PERSONALISTIC AUTOCRATS RISE

Although a personalist autocrat cares less about the electorate, portrays any critics as the enemy, and disregards public sentiment, he/she longs for adulation and would like to be praised for 'successes.' The autocrats would like to hear that reaching this stage is a testimony of his/her ability and the abject failure of the opposition. How the opposition was rendered inoperative by unlawful use of the state seems to be completely ignored. This is how personalistic autocrats find legitimation in a rule which has decimated institutions of state, and silenced contrarian voices – in the political scene and civil society. What appears to be a victory through strategic thinking and meticulous planning, is often nothing short of a pyrrhic victory, the cost of which is borne by the nation – in the short and long terms. As such, these leaders don't deserve congratulations, instead, citizens need a reminder that the rise of the personalistic autocrats has pushed the nation towards a precipice. Until that can be said, perhaps 'silence is golden' is a better option.