Authoritarian rule is a form of government where one person or small group has “unlimited power.” Psychological studies have long sought to explain why some people seem more amenable to authoritarian forms of rule. While the original theories have suffered from methodological problems, the concept of personality traits that might predispose individuals to support an authoritarian regime is widely accepted.

Many modern autocrats achieve power through democratic elections and then begin to erode the system of checks and balances. They fill the civil service and key government institutions (including the judiciary and legislature) with loyalists, impose censorship or distortion of the media, and target universities and nongovernmental organizations to blunt public criticism. They may even manipulate electoral law to distort the playing field in their favor.

The emergence of authoritarian regimes often coincides with economic or political crises and is encouraged by an international climate that shifts toward globalization, increasing demands for national sovereignty, or both. They are supported by other governments that either endorse their repressive policies or fail to criticize them, and can be aided by global financial institutions, which provide critical lending or investment funds and lend legitimacy through membership in organizations such as the IMF or World Bank.

Despite these dangers, authoritarian systems are resilient and capable of surviving even when they lose popular support. As a result, scholars now believe that democracy is less likely to die suddenly through coups or foreign invasion and instead more frequently succumbs to what they call “salami tactics.” This means that autocratic leaders systematically chip away at the institutional and legal constraints that bind them, often with little fanfare and sometimes even in ways that are opportunistic or myopic.