In an era marked by escalating political polarization, institutional erosion, and mounting threats to democratic governance, the volume Drivers of Authoritarianism: Paths and Developments at the Beginning of the 21st Century, edited by Günter Frankenberg and Wilhelm Heitmeyer, offers a profound and analytically sophisticated examination of contemporary authoritarian dynamics. Grounded in legal, sociological, and political theory, this interdisciplinary collection is particularly timely against the backdrop of what empirical data shows to be a global authoritarian trend.
Throughout its seventeen chapters—covering the theory and empiricism of authoritarianism, in its global, local and state iterations, via media, identity politics, capitalist economy, and social crises, this volume raises fundamental normative and empirical questions: What constitutes legitimate authority in an age of technocratic governance and media-saturated political life? How can democratic polities ensure robust oversight and inclusive participation without lapsing into proceduralism or populist reaction? What forms of institutional imagination and civic mobilization are required to resist authoritarian retrenchment?
As the 2025 Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Report—“25 Years of Autocratization – Democracy Trumped?” documents, liberal democracies have been steadily shrinking to become the least common regime type globally (only 29 in 2024). For the first time in more than two decades, the number of autocratic regimes (n=91) has surpassed that of democracies (n=88). Consequently, approximately 72 percent of the global population now resides under autocratic rule, a development examined by the authors of Chapters 2 through 5 in Part II of the volume. The mechanisms of authoritarian entrenchment—media censorship, electoral manipulation, and repression of civil society—are widespread. While some countries have exhibited democratic resistance (V-Dem identifies 19 states as currently undergoing episodes of democratization), the predominant trajectory remains troublingly authoritarian. In this alarming context, Frankenberg and Heitmeyer’s volume offers crucial conceptual clarity on the main drivers causing this transformation.
One of the volume’s chief contributions lies in the careful conceptual distinctions it draws between populism, illiberalism, and authoritarianism—terms often conflated in both popular discourse and academic analysis. In the introduction, the editors convincingly argue that populism, despite its ubiquity in political science literature and public commentary over the past two decades, lacks a stable analytical framework. The term is frequently deployed to denote a broad spectrum of political phenomena, ranging from participatory movements enhancing democratic inclusivity to strategic appeals utilized to erode democratic norms. As such, populism, in this volume, is shown to be too conceptually imprecise to serve as an adequate explanatory category for contemporary wave of autocratic tendencies.
Similarly, the concept of illiberalism is critically examined. The authors maintain that illiberalism is parasitic upon its liberal twin, and thus lacks the contours of a coherent alternative. They argue, quite compellingly, that the term “illiberal democracy” is an oxymoron, as the absence of liberal democratic fundamentals—including civil liberties, checks and balances, and an independent judiciary—precludes the designation of such regimes as democracies at all. Illiberalism, then, is better conceptualized as an ideologically thin veil for authoritarian aspirations.
In contrast, the concept of authoritarianism is shown to offer both empirical richness and normative traction. Drawing from sociology, political theory, and legal studies, the volume posits authoritarianism not merely as a formal regime type but as a dynamic relationship between rulers and the ruled—one in which authority is recognized, often voluntarily, but may become distorted or overextended, leading to coercive practices. Authoritarianism, unlike totalitarianism, does not rely on an all-encompassing ideological apparatus nor on ubiquitous terror, but instead on more ambiguous and flexible power dynamics that may flourish even within formally democratic institutions.
The volume’s analytical strength lies in its identification of the interwoven drivers of authoritarianism. These include structural crises (financial, ecological, and political) that create fertile ground for authoritarian rhetoric and policies; the resurgence of authoritarian ideologies crystalizing in threat narratives that exploit collective fears and suggest imminent societal collapse; identity-based polarization; the manipulative role of media and entertainment; gender dynamics and the politicization of gender roles; institutional erosion; and the interaction of global and national power asymmetries. This framework moves beyond monocausal explanations and instead accentuates the multifaceted nature of authoritarian resurgence in the early 21st century.
Of particular interest is Frankenberg’s and Heitmeyer’s argument in the introduction to the volume that contemporary authoritarianism has transformed its operational style. Rather than relying on overt coercion or ideological orthodoxy, modern authoritarian regimes utilize subtle instruments—especially digital and mass communication technologies—to manipulate public discourse and mobilize support. This transformation reveals that present-day authoritarianism can thrive within nominally democratic infrastructures, especially when leaders exploit crises and manipulate the performative aspects of political legitimacy.
A further unique and powerful contribution of the volume is its sustained attention to the urban-rural divide. Drawing on empirical cases from the United States, the United Kingdom, Hungary, Poland, France, and Germany, the editors illuminate how regional inequalities and perceptions of cultural displacement serve as flashpoints for authoritarian mobilization. These disparities cannot be attributed solely to economic inequality, as elaborated by the authors of Chapters 6 through 8 in Part III; they are also rooted in spatial identities and the dynamics of symbolic politics, as discussed by the authors of Chapters 9 through 11 in Part IV. Authoritarian actors effectively reframe such divides as cultural confrontations, invoking narratives of “authentic” rural identity versus urban “fake” multicultural identities sponsored by corrupt, cosmopolitan elites.
Central to the volume’s analysis is the discursive logic of authoritarianism—explored by the authors of Chapters 12 through 14 in Part V—which manifests recurrently across diverse national contexts. This logic juxtaposes “the real” people against “corrupt elites” and configures society in binary terms: the “moral majority” versus the subversive “other.” The contributors perceptively argue that such framings contribute to affective polarization and license authoritarian interventions. Particularly salient is their insight that the figure of the authoritarian leader frames themselves as representative of the people, rather than part of an elite class—thereby obscuring their own complicity in the reproduction of structural inequalities.
This insight might be augmented by reference to Olufemi Taiwo’s concept of elite capture, in his Elite Capture: How the Powerful Took Over Identity Politics (And Everything Else) wherein privileged actors exploit the institutional apparatus ostensibly designed to serve the public. Taiwo points to forms of privatization and deregulation—such as the extrajudicial systems of corporate arbitration—as instances of elite reconfiguration of legal authority. These processes, while legally sanctioned, may function to facilitate authoritarian policymaking under the guise of liberal governance. In this light, one could ask a compelling and underexplored question: Does the privatization of public goods—such as healthcare, education, and justice—represent not merely a neoliberal economic trend but a potential authoritarian shift in the locus and legitimacy of decision-making authority?
In Part VI, Chapter 15, authored by Professor Frankenberg and titled “Leviathan with a Beaked Mask,” is one of the most philosophically rich contributions in the volume. Here, Frankenberg interrogates how responses to crises—particularly public health emergencies such as the COVID-19 pandemic—have reconfigured the balance between law, authority, and individual freedom. He argues that law’s authority ordinarily rests on a reciprocal relationship between norm-givers and norm-followers. However, exceptional legislation enacted during crises may disrupt this relationship, converting legal subjects into mere objects of executive regulation. Of particular concern is the preventive logic of contemporary security law, which justifies expanded state powers without definite threats—shifting from concrete danger toward future risk management. Such developments, Frankenberg warns, carry intrinsically authoritarian features.
This chapter’s title evokes Hobbes’ Leviathan and aligns with Giorgio Agamben’s distinction between regular sovereign agents and those marked as exceptions—guards and doctors—in the biopolitical framing of state power. In this schema, the sovereign authority exercised through both police and medical institutions hints at the merging of biological and political governance. The challenge thus becomes articulating a defensible and democratic balance between public safety and civil liberties—not only in emergencies but more broadly amid a political grammar increasingly shaped by risk, fear, and preemptive regulation.
Drivers of Authoritarianism is not merely a survey of global democratic backsliding, but a scholarly intervention that invites critical interrogation of contemporary political developments. It serves as an essential resource for legal scholars, political theorists, sociologists, and concerned citizens alike. To understand—and above all, to resist—authoritarianism, one must approach it as this volume does: (self) critically, contextually, and with unwavering commitment to democratic ideals at home and globally.
