There’s something former bureaucrats in the White House used to know well. When a newly appointed official encountered uncertainties in the execution of their duties, they would first consult the folders left behind. If answers weren’t there, they’d call their predecessor from the previous administration. If that failed, they would contact the person who held the same position before them. Whether the ruling party was Democrat or Republican didn’t make a difference—the rules and norms remained the same across administrations. More importantly, the new bureaucrat would quickly learn that most of these rules weren’t legally binding. They were simply traditions, customs, and standards of political ethics.
For example, one such norm was that White House staff were forbidden from calling the Department of Justice to influence whether someone should be prosecuted or cleared. Because in a democracy, such decisions must be made independently of politics (Ian Bassin, 2024).
No one could have imagined that these long-standing norms—unchanged for generations—would be upended after 2016. No one thought that someone would come to power in the very temple of democracy and spit on all the norms.
The Authoritarian Playbook
And yet, in the 21st century, such leaders and movements were on the rise. Their goal: to replace democracy with more authoritarian forms of governance. We should have understood long ago how modern authoritarian movements destroy democracies. Because it no longer happens the way it used to. Nowadays, democracies don’t usually die with explosions and tanks rolling through the streets. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is an exception. In the 21st century, authoritarian movements typically operate like a Trojan horse. Their leaders often come to power through elections—and then proceed to dismantle the system from within. They have a ready-made Authoritarian Playbook. And it is practically identical from Venezuela to Hungary, from Turkey to Brazil.
According to The Authoritarian Playbook (2025), the seven steps are as follows:
- Politicization of independent institutions—including the state bureaucracy, law enforcement agencies, and eventually the military.
- Government-led disinformation campaigns.
- Expansion of executive powers—extreme centralization of governance and destruction of checks and balances.
- Suppression of dissent—restrictions on what can be said, taught, or read; use of administrative mechanisms and legal repression to punish critics.
- Scapegoating and demonization of vulnerable groups—an age-old tactic of tyrants. Dividing people by race, religion, or sexual orientation makes it easier to strip them of wealth and power.
- Manipulation and sabotage of elections.
- Incitement of violence.
We have seen all of this happen in recent years—even in the United States.
The reason this playbook works is not because people openly support authoritarianism. In fact, many quietly oppose it. But in times of rapid change and uncertainty—when anxiety about the future reigns and politics seems incapable of solving problems—people may be seduced by the idea that the solution lies in giving someone a bit more power. That’s when a voice emerges and says, “I will fix everything on my own.”
The truth is, an all-powerful leader can cut through difficulties with ease. He doesn’t need to negotiate with legislatures, defeat filibusters, or defend foolish policies in court. He simply orders—more houses to be built, more doctors to be trained, a more ruthlessly “efficient” system. He seizes people’s property, enriches himself and his loyalists, and jails anyone who dares speak out. That’s how the story always ends.
Ask any journalist, political activist, or ordinary protester in Azerbaijan—and you’ll likely find them imprisoned simply for demanding freedom and democracy. Their families are deprived of the right to work or live normal lives.
Ask a student in Turkey—they were imprisoned for attending a banned art exhibition.
Ask a businessman in Russia—his company was seized and handed over to an oligarch as a reward for loyalty.
And some Americans still say, “But this can’t happen here.”
The truth is, everything you think “can’t happen here” has already begun to happen in America.
Does the picture look too grim?
Don’t worry—it’s not too late. Because you still have the time and power to stop that playbook from succeeding. How? By exercising something that democracies offer and autocracies take away: the power to choose.
This is what it all boils down to—democracy lives or dies based on choices. The countless decisions citizens make each day as participants in democracy. The ongoing battle between democracies and autocracies shows us that even seemingly trivial choices—if made in still-living democracies—accumulate. In the end, they either strengthen democracy or weaken it.
Two examples: Choices that save or kill democracy
Ruby Freeman and her daughter Shea Moss stepped forward to serve as poll workers in Georgia during the pandemic, helping citizens cast their votes. They did their job with honor and integrity—never imagining what lay ahead. The autocrat and his supporters falsely accused them of stealing the election to retain power (APnews, 2023). Their lives were upended. They were relentlessly harassed and persecuted. They received vile, racially charged death threats. At the advice of the FBI, Ruby was forced to flee her home for her own safety.
If, after all that, they had chosen to retreat into private life, it would have been entirely understandable. And had they done so, American society would have moved one step further from defending democracy. But they chose to stand up. With support from the Protect Democracy organization, they filed lawsuits against those who slandered them, robbed them of their dignity, and endangered their lives. They testified before Congress, exposing how President Trump and his allies targeted them instead of protecting them as citizens. They activated the U.S. legal system in defense of democracy—setting a powerful deterrent example for others who might consider doing such harm.
But not everyone makes good choices. The most troubling reality is that people far more powerful and influential than Ruby and Shea often make decisions that harm democracy just as much as Ruby and Shea’s actions helped it.
A short history lesson:
Between the First and Second World Wars, far-right authoritarian parties were on the rise across Europe. In Belgium and Finland, the mainstream center-right parties recognized them as threats to democratic foundations—and took the difficult step of allying with their traditional leftist rivals to keep autocrats out of power. But in Italy and Germany, the center-right made a different choice. They calculated that by harnessing the energy of the far-right, they could come to power—and then sideline the radical leaders later. We all know how catastrophically that ended.
In recent years, many in the U.S. center-right have made similar calculations. They believe they can ride the energy of the far-right to power, and later push the leader aside. Are they happy with the result now? Perhaps not. But they still have time to make a different choice. Because protecting democracy requires people who normally argue over short-term political gain and ideology to set aside their differences when the foundation of democracy is under threat.
The choices of Ruby and Shea, and of many center-right politicians, are just a few among thousands of decisions made daily. Together, they form an equation—and right now, American democracy teeters on the edge of a cliff. But here lies America’s opportunity—to shift the balance. Because the greatest power of choice lies with the American people: to vote, or not to vote.
But it’s not only about voting. How citizens treat one another is also a choice. It may sound old-fashioned, but this is the very foundation of democracy. Alexis de Tocqueville once attributed the endurance of America’s democratic system to these “habits of the heart” (De la Démocratie en Amérique, 1835). Because the behavior of elected officials and the functioning of government often reflect how citizens treat each other.
The only thing we should fear is fear itself
If we respond to differences—with suspicion, fear, and hostility—then it’s likely our officials will do the same. This climate of behavior is fertile ground for populism. And autocrats thrive on division and hatred. They want society to be consumed by fear. Because mass fear makes the “savior” leader appear as the only viable defender.
Remember Azerbaijan in the 1990s. All the “good people” were paralyzed by fear—fear of losing the country, of being unable to govern effectively. From President Elchibey to ordinary citizens. In the end, everyone collectively turned to the “savior,” Heydar Aliyev—a former KGB general and the most ruthless revanchist of post-Soviet authoritarianism. I used to think that President Elchibey and his team handed power to Heydar Aliyev out of inexperience and naivety. But later, I understood that the main reason was the fear they succumbed to (with some exceptions, which do not change the outcome). People who normally wouldn’t have shown respect to Aliyev stood together in parliament and voted for him—even members of the Popular Front (Azadliq Radiosu, 2015). They were so terrified that within weeks they had killed democracy, buried it, and completed its funeral rites. Later, this fear was replaced with a new one: “Our democracy is decaying”—and that fear turned everyone against each other.
Now American society is experiencing the same fear: “Our democracy is dying.” First, they turned to a savior. Now, infighting among democrats has begun. Yet every significant advance in America’s long, inclusive, multiethnic, multireligious democratic journey has always come after periods of crisis and conflict.
There Is No Alternative to Resistance
When brave Black Americans marched across Selma’s Edmund Pettus Bridge for voting rights, their pain, suffering, and cracked skulls became unforgettable. Their struggle—thanks to television and journalism—captured the nation’s attention and played a decisive role in passing the Voting Rights Act of 1965, carrying American democracy to its next stage. Today, the U.S. is at a similar crossroads—the dying breath of the old order, and one final resistance to the future (Selma Marches, 1965).
In summary, American democracy today faces profound challenges. Some people will try to damage the institutions, traditions, and civic bonds that underpin it; others will strive to protect them. History shows that democracy has never existed as a flawless design—it evolves, survives, and is renewed through constant struggle. The preservation of democratic systems is not solely the responsibility of governments, presidents, or parties. In fact, it relies more on the daily decisions of ordinary citizens. In moments marked by fear, hatred, and division, people can easily lose democracy. But with those very same choices, they can also win it back.
References:
Ian Bassin, 2024. How To Spot Authoritarianism — and Choose Democracy |TED. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-vVO3nRFzI
The Authoritarian Playbook, 2025. https://www.authoritarianplaybook2025.org/
APnews, 2023. Election workers who face frequent harassment see accountability in the latest Georgia charges. https://apnews.com/article/election-workers-threats-trump-georgia-indictment-5b056e2c97bfd7146b3bd19cf7f9f588
Alexis de Tocqueville. De la Démocratie en Amérique 1835. National Archives. https://www.archives.gov/research/african-americans/vote/selma-marches
Azadlıq radiosu, 2015. Heydər Əliyev hakimiyyətə bu səsvermə ilə qayıtdı. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CoRLdcNtMg
Selma Marches, 1965. https://www.archives.gov/research/african-americans/vote/selma-marches
