Today, some of democracy’s most vocal defenders are the very ones using its system to tear it apart. 

Authoritarian regimes no longer storm in with force and heavy boots and ; these days, they often come wrapped in flags, disguised as patriots. 

In simple terms, authoritarianism is a system of government whereas power is focused on a single person or a small group of people, and they have little to no accountability to the people they govern. They restrict individual freedoms and rights, with limited or no participation from the population in the decision making process. 

Although authoritarianism may appear different today, it’s rapidly spreading worldwide:  frequently disguised as nationalism, populism, or sometimes even democratic rhetoric.

Soft Authoritarianism

 Soft authoritarianism is a political system where the government maintains control through indirect measures, such as controlling the media and limiting political freedoms rather than violence or vast totalitarian methods. Under Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and his Fidesz party, Hungary has become one of the most widely cited examples of soft authoritarianism in Europe. Since coming to power in 2010, Orbán has shaped Hungary’s democracy into what he calls “illiberal democracy.”

These regimes often maintain the cover of democracy, such as holding elections, but manipulate the process to ensure that they will remain in power. Elections take place, but rules are not enforced as they should be. Dissent is allowed, but it is largely drowned out by a sea of state- sponsored messaging, and the press is involved but is largely controlled or intimidated. 

The problem with Hungary’s soft authoritarianism is that, despite being a member of the European Union, it openly dismantles democratic norms. This raises the critical question: Can authoritarianism thrive within democratic frameworks?

Hungary’s model shows that democracy can be hollowed out from the inside, not with brute force but with calculated legal and political maneuvers that look legitimate yet lack true freedom and civility. The biggest danger of soft authoritarianism is its subtlety. Due to its lack of reliance on open violence or dictatorship, many citizens don’t realize it until it is too late.

When opposing parties are discredited, courts are packed, and media is controlled, yet citizens still retain the right to vote. It creates a dangerous illusion that freedom still exists. And because such undemocratic behavior is normalized it leads to political apathy, mistrust, and a sense of helplessness, these principles are what soft authoritarianism thrives on.

Hard Authoritarianism

 Soft authoritarianism relies on discrete forms of control, like manipulating the media, exploiting legal loopholes, and maintaining the appearance of democratic legitimacy. In contrast, hard authoritarianism is far more direct and aggressive. In a typical hard authoritarian regime, any dissent is not only silenced—it’s criminalized. The press isn’t merely influenced; there’s heavy censorship and diverging views are completely shut down. If any elections occur, their outcomes are predetermined. Those who oppose the regime often face imprisonment, exile, or even violence. 

Nations like Russia, China, and Iran serve as prominent examples of hard authoritarian regimes.

Vladimir Putin has removed genuine political opposition, crushed protests, and taken nearly total control over Russian institutions. In China, the ruling Communist Party tightly monitors citizens, controls online information, and arrests dissidents. All of this is done under the guise of maintaining stability and order. Iran is perhaps the clearest modern example of hard authoritarianism. A regime that blends theocratic rule with authoritarian tactics to suppress objection and control nearly every aspect of public life. The country’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, holds ultimate authority over the military, judiciary, and media. While Iran does hold elections, all candidates are heavily vetted and approved by the unelected Guardian Council to ensure that true political opposition never gains traction. 

Hard authoritarianism in Iran manifests in deeply alarming ways that impact citizens’ daily lives and fundamental freedoms. 

One of the most evident signs of blatant authoritarianism in Iran is the brutal crackdowns on protests in recent years, particularly the 2022 protests following the death of Mahsa Amini. Security forces are seen responding to mass demonstrations—particularly those driven by women and young people— with deadly force. Thousands have been arrested, tortured or even killed for standing up for their rights. Censorship and surveillance are also rampant. The internet is heavily filtered, social media platforms are either banned or incredibly restricted. Those who dare to express political criticism online risk facing serious legal consequences, including prison time.

 Journalists, activists and even artists aren't spared from Iran’s merciless legal system. Many face harsh prison sentences and in the most severe cases are executed for simply challenging the regime or attempting to share their views. The state also enforces strict religious laws, particularly targeting women’s behavior and dress. The morality police are notorious for using intimidation, brutality, and public shaming to enforce these codes. 

Iran's government stands among many other authoritarian regimes that attempt to maintain a democratic facade. Unlike those that pretend to be liberal or inclusive, Iran relies openly on fear, punishment, and repression. These characteristics define hard authoritarianism.

While the United States is far from resembling Iran, the tactics used in both soft and hard authoritarian regimes serve as a crucial reminder of how power can easily be abused.  As democratic norms erode, it becomes important to recognize how the line between soft and hard authoritarianism can blur.

A Warning Sign

 Authoritarianism in the U.S. doesn’t storm in with tanks; it creeps in quietly, disguised as respect for the Constitution and legal process. Although we remain a democracy,  signs of both soft and hard authoritarianism have emerged, particularly over the past decade. The dangerous culmination of efforts aimed at delegitimizing elections reached a shocking peak during the January 6th attack on the Capitol, an event reminiscent of the violent power grabs we associate with oppressive regimes. 

We've witnessed elected officials push for the prosecution of their political rivals, incite attacks on the press, and undermine the fundamental process of a peaceful transfer of power—moves that strike at the heart of the democratic ideals and are often the first steps authoritarian leaders take to dismantle democracy.

At the state level, lawmakers have enacted laws that limit rights to protest, ban certain books, and restrict what teachers can discuss in their classrooms; all under the pretext of safeguarding patriotism or protecting parental rights. Although these actions may not resemble Iran's harsh crackdowns, the underlying logic is worryingly similar: control the narrative, silence descent and tighten the grip on power.