Author: Triasha Mishra, Adamas University
Linkedin Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/triasha-mishra-3a94a4303?utm_source=share&utm_campaign=share_via&utm_content=profile&utm_medium=ios_app
TO THE POINT
The progressive deterioration of constitutional values, whereby elected leaders consolidate power by undermining independent institutions like the judiciary, media, and electoral bodies, is a hallmark of authoritarianism’s rise in democracies. Populist rhetoric is frequently employed to polarize society, justify the repression of dissent, and undermine opposition voices as dangers to national cohesion. Under the guise of upholding law and order or national security, civil liberties—such as the freedom of assembly, the press, and speech—are being restricted more and more.Elections still take place, but they are frequently rigged by the media, the government, and the courts. Digital tools such as internet blackouts, misinformation campaigns, and surveillance are also used as weapons to stifle democratic accountability and manipulate public opinion.
ABSTRACT
In recent years, a concerning global trend has emerged wherein democratically elected governments increasingly exhibit authoritarian tendencies. This shift is characterized by the systematic weakening of institutional checks and balances, erosion of civil liberties, and the centralization of power in the executive branch. Populist leaders, under the guise of representing the “will of the people,” often undermine the judiciary, suppress independent media, intimidate opposition, and manipulate electoral processes to entrench their rule. Democratic backsliding is further accelerated by digital surveillance, disinformation campaigns, and state-controlled narratives. While elections continue to be held, their fairness and transparency are increasingly compromised. This phenomenon, often referred to as “electoral authoritarianism” or “illiberal democracy,” threatens the foundational principles of democratic governance and poses a serious challenge to global democratic resilience. The abstract highlights the urgency of reinforcing institutional safeguards and civic engagement to preserve democratic values in the face of rising authoritarianism.
LEGAL JARGOAN
The incremental rise of authoritarianism within democratic regimes is indicative of constitutional backsliding, wherein democratically elected leaders exploit majoritarian mandates to erode institutional checks and balances. Such regimes often engage in legislative overreach, undermining the separation of powers and infringing upon fundamental rights enshrined under constitutional law. The suppression of dissent through prior restraint, strategic litigation against public participation (SLAPPs), and abuse of sedition or anti-terror laws exemplifies the state’s encroachment on civil liberties. Moreover, the delegitimization of the press and subversion of judicial independence constitute a direct affront to the doctrine of rule of law. When electoral processes are manipulated through gerrymandering, voter disenfranchisement, or administrative arbitrariness, it leads to a façade of democracy—a phenomenon termed as electoral authoritarianism. These developments necessitate urgent judicial review and public interest litigation (PIL) to safeguard the basic structure doctrine and uphold the integrity of democratic institution.
PROOF
The rise of authoritarianism in democracies is evidenced globally through a series of measurable democratic regressions. In Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has systematically dismantled judicial independence and brought the media under state control, leading Freedom House to classify the country as a “partly free” democracy. In India, reports by organizations like V-Dem and Human Rights Watch highlight increasing constraints on civil society, misuse of sedition and anti-terror laws to target dissenters, and suppression of press freedom. Similarly, in Turkey, President Erdoğan’s regime has arrested thousands of journalists, judges, and academics under broad national security laws. In the United States, the post-2020 election period saw unprecedented challenges to democratic norms, including attempts to overturn electoral outcomes and discredit independent institutions. These cases collectively demonstrate how democratic frameworks are being used to facilitate authoritarian practices, with elected governments weaponizing the law and manipulating public institutions to consolidate power and silence opposition
CASE LAWS
1) Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
• Issue: Challenge to Section 66A of the IT Act for violating freedom of speech.
• Relevance: The Supreme Court struck down the provision for being vague and misused to suppress dissent online—an important ruling against digital authoritarianism.
2) Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020)
• Issue: Internet shutdown in Jammu & Kashmir.
• Relevance: The Court held that access to the internet is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a), criticizing arbitrary government restrictions—often used in semi-authoritarian tactics.
3) Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
• Issue: Legality of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s election; led to imposition of Emergency.
• Relevance: The case highlighted how democratic processes can be manipulated by those in power. It prompted the reaffirmation of the Basic Structure Doctrine to prevent authoritarian overreach.
4) United States v. Nixon (1974)
• Issue: President Nixon’s abuse of power in the Watergate scandal.
• Relevance: The U.S. Supreme Court reinforced the principle that no person, not even the president, is above the law—an important check on executive authoritarianism.
CONCLUSION
The rise of authoritarianism within democracies poses a grave threat to the foundational values of constitutional governance, individual liberty, and the rule of law. Elected leaders increasingly exploit democratic mandates to undermine institutions, restrict civil freedoms, and centralize power—transforming democracies into illiberal or hybrid regimes. Legal safeguards, independent judiciaries, free media, and active civil societies are essential to resisting such backsliding. It is imperative that citizens, courts, and democratic institutions remain vigilant and proactive in upholding constitutional principles, ensuring that democracy does not merely survive in form, but thrives in substance.
FAQS
Q1. What is authoritarianism in the context of a democracy?
A: It refers to a situation where elected leaders begin to erode democratic norms and institutions—such as the judiciary, media, and electoral systems—while retaining the outward structure of democracy, such as elections.
Q2. How can authoritarianism rise in a democratic system?
A: Through legal means like passing restrictive laws, misuse of executive power, manipulating elections, controlling media narratives, and weakening opposition—often under the pretext of national interest or security.
Q3. What are signs of authoritarian behavior in a democracy?
A: Common signs include suppression of dissent, curbing press freedom, politicization of institutions, increased surveillance, internet shutdowns, and demonization of minorities or political rivals.
Q4. Can authoritarianism be reversed once it starts?
A: Yes, through active civic engagement, judicial independence, strong constitutional safeguards, free media, and international pressure. Public accountability and legal activism play key roles.
What is “electoral authoritarianism”?
A: It is a system where elections are held regularly but are not free or fair, and where democratic institutions exist in form but are controlled or influenced to favor the ruling regime.
