Almost two years after a crowd pressured the US Capitol in an attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election, questions linger about how fragile democracy can be when challenged from within. In Brazil, after Jair Bolsonaro’s defeat to Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, thousands of protesters surged toward Brasilia’s key institutions with the aim of reversing the election outcome. In both cases, the efforts faltered once military and other pillars of power refused to back the challenge, revealing both the strength and the vulnerabilities of democratic systems. These events underscore how internal actors, through populist rhetoric and legalistic language, can threaten democratic stability and invite further risk when institutions fail to defend checks and balances.
Across the world, the trend toward weakened democratic norms has continued to unfold. Cases in Hungary, Poland, India, Serbia, Turkey, and beyond illustrate how fragile democratic gains can be when leaders rely on democratic channels to undermine democracy itself. A recent assessment from the V-Dem Institute at the University of Gothenburg notes that liberal democracy is regressing in many places, even as some citizens grow disillusioned with traditional leadership. The report indicates that roughly a third of the countries previously considered liberal democracies now show signs of backsliding, and a significant share of the world’s population lives under autocratic governance or authoritarian rule.
“The outlook can feel ominous,” observes Kevin Casas-Zamora, president of IDEA, the Institute for Democracy and Electoral Aid. While reasons vary, the decline in trust toward once-model democracies is a common thread. He points to financial crises, foreign policy missteps, and the perception of inconsistent leadership as factors that erode prestige and fuel alternative governance models, with China often cited as a notable example of centralized authority delivering predictable outcomes for some audiences.
The path toward authoritarianism
Traditional demonstrations of power—like street patrols, media intimidation, and sudden crackdowns—have appeared in various regions, including Africa and Asia, as authoritarian populism recalibrates freedoms in new ways. Some scholars warn that the paradoxical route to enforcing authoritarian control uses democratic institutions themselves to erode democratic norms, often through legalistic maneuvers that gradually squeeze civil liberties. The work of Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt highlights how democracies can die from within, even when the processes appear lawful and routine.
The specific sequence of actions differs by country, but the common thread is the gradual hollowing out of checks and balances, along with consolidating executive power. In many cases, warning signals include weakening parliamentary oversight, politicized judiciary appointments, and measures that limit civil society and independent media.
Press freedom and democratic health
A healthy democracy relies on a free and independent press to hold power to account. Autocratic leaders often sideline critical voices and redefine what constitutes legitimate dissent. The pattern seen in several nations shows how leaders use propaganda, disinformation, and targeted campaigns to discredit opponents while shaping public narratives. Across regions, the trend includes attempts to control media ownership, restrict reporting on sensitive topics, and stigmatize investigative journalism as a threat to national security.
Observers note that media ecosystems can be captured by a ruling clique through favoritism toward sympathetic outlets, selective licensing, and economic pressure. In some places, this combines with nationalist rhetoric to sustain a climate in which dissent is portrayed as dangerous or disloyal.
Separating powers and the rule of law
Governments may attempt to steer policy without overt bans on parties or arrests of opposition leaders. Yet when parliaments tilt toward the executive, and judicial independence weakens, the rule of law is damaged. In several regions, reforms have narrowed the distance between branches of government, with magistrates facing new limitations and court powers becoming easier to challenge. Brushing aside judicial review or reshaping the judiciary can erode checks on executive decisions and undermine public trust in governance.
Public confidence in electoral integrity also matters. When leaders question the credibility of vote tallies or bolster claims of widespread fraud without evidence, it sows doubt and can incite instability. The effect is a chilling impact on participation and trust, which can feed cycles of protest and political volatility.
Integrity of elections and public trust
Media coverage, civil discourse, and the wider health of electoral processes hinge on transparent, accountable procedures. Repeated assertions about rigged outcomes without corroborating evidence erode faith in institutions and invite further friction. In many cases, leaders who challenge electoral outcomes rely on a mix of legal posturing, media amplification, and targeted claims to keep their base engaged. The result is a polarized environment where constructive debate becomes scarce and democratic norms are strained.
In observing these patterns, experts emphasize the importance of safeguarding independent institutions, exposing disinformation, and defending the integrity of the electoral process. By reinforcing the separation of powers, defending a free press, and ensuring judicial independence, societies can better weather pressures that seek to pivot away from democratic governance.