Authoritarian rule refers to systems of government that do not include checks and balances and democratic institutions. While such regimes may incorporate legislatures, political parties, and judiciaries, these institutions are often mere facades meant to maintain a veneer of legitimacy at home and abroad. While individuals generally support liberal principles of individual freedom and tolerance, they can also appreciate the instrumental value of authoritarianism as a means to address collective problems such as societal threats. In such contexts, individuals must balance liberal and authoritarian tendencies, and Jackson School professor Jennifer Gandhi explores the conditions under which people conceive of nondemocratic forms of governance as justifiable.

Autocratic regimes have a number of core elements in their playbook. These include curtailing civil liberties and expanding coercive security measures. They also use propaganda to sow division in society by stoking fears and anxieties and bolstering support among groups they identify with. They further undermine the stability of democracy by using legal or pseudo-legal rationales to gut institutions, weaken opposition, and declare national emergencies that allow them to assume greater constitutional powers.

Finally, they stoke violence when it is politically useful. This not only quashed dissent, but it can also offer cover for restrictions on civil liberties, limit democratic participation, and promote the cult of personality around their leader.