Deep Dive with Shawn C. Fettig

After America E11: Backsliding to the Brink - A Global Playbook for American Authoritarianism

• Sea Tree Media

Share episode

Is democracy at risk worldwide? In this penultimate episode of After America, we examine the alarming trend of democratic backsliding, the global rise of authoritarianism, and how it might provide a blueprint for a second Trump presidency.

We compare the authoritarian tendencies of leaders in India, Russia, and Hungary,  whose tactics in weakening the judiciary, manipulating the media, and undermining fair elections have set a troubling precedent, influencing similar movements across Europe and even some Republican figures in the U.S. This discussion also highlights the broader implications of sacrificing civil liberties for nationalism and security, reflecting on the erosion of democracy in these countries and the potential roadmap it provides for the U.S.

Finally, we discuss the intricate relationship between liberalism and democracy, using Hungary as a case study to explore how democracies without full liberalism can falter. The concept of a "post-communist mafia state" provides a lens through which we analyze Hungary's journey from democracy to autocracy. We also tackle the challenges the European Union faces in addressing Hungary's defiance of democratic norms and consider the global threat of authoritarianism, weighing the contrasting approaches of the EU and the U.S. in imposing sanctions.

Guests: Flemming Rose, Dr. Sheri Berman, Dr. Shalu Nigam, & Dr. Balint Magyar

Credits:
Trump on Putin: Courtesy of CSPAN
Trump on Orban: Courtesty of CSPAN

-------------------------
Follow Deep Dive:
Instagram
YouTube

Email: deepdivewithshawn@gmail.com

Music:
Majestic Earth - Joystock



Shawn:

In June of this year, hungary's authoritarian ruling party, fidesz, competed in elections for European Parliament and, for the first time in 20 years, received less than half the vote. While this doesn't change Prime Minister Viktor Orban's grip on power in Hungary, it suggests that the Hungarian electorate is growing weary of Orban's authoritarian rule. Despite this, hungary assumed the helm of the rotating presidency of the EU in July and retains near total control over Hungarian politics and governance. Hungary's slide into authoritarianism under Viktor Orban is a stark example of how a democracy can be dismantled from within. Orban, initially elected on a platform of reform, has systematically eroded Hungary's democratic institutions. He has weakened judicial independence, allowing the government to exert control over the courts. Media consolidation has turned Hungary's press into a pro-government echo chamber. Electoral changes, including gerrymandering and laws favoring the ruling Fidesz party, have undermined fair competition, entrenching Orban's power. This shift towards illiberal democracy threatens not only Hungary, but also the European Union. Not only Hungary, but also the European Union. Orban's authoritarianism has also emboldened similar movements across Europe, undercutting the stability of the EU and the broader democratic world order.

Shawn:

In the United States, the Republican Party's growing admiration for Orban's model reflects a troubling embrace of illiberal democracy, even authoritarianism, by promoting majoritarianism, undermining independent institutions and attacking the free press, some Republicans are adopting strategies that seem eerily familiar to Hungary's authoritarian drift. So what happens if Donald Trump regains the presidency and follows the lead of populist authoritarian leaders like Viktor Orban, pushing the limits of constitutional power and democratic rule? Can US institutions withstand another body blow from Trump, one that is more organized and less scattershot than his last attempt to overturn democracy? Welcome to After America. I'm your host, sean C Fettig. Find, follow and like Deep Dive with Sean C Fettig on your favorite podcast platform and on YouTube, and check back every Sunday through September for new episodes of After America as we examine the precarious state of American democracy, how we got here and where we might be headed. The clock is ticking. Democracy is at a crossroads and the time to act is now.

Shawn:

Contemporary democratic backsliding is a global phenomenon characterized by the gradual erosion of democratic norms, institutions and civil liberties. It's occurring in diverse regions, including Europe, asia and the Americas. Countries like Hungary, india, brazil, russia and Turkey have all witnessed significant democratic decline, marked by the weakening of judicial independence. Democratic decline marked by the weakening of judicial independence, suppression of the free press, electoral manipulation and the marginalization of political opposition. The Varieties of Democracies Institute tracks the health of democracy globally. In their 2024 Democracy Report, they reveal that the growth of authoritarianism is proliferating at a much faster pace than is democracy, with democratization taking place in just 18 countries, while autocratization is taking place in 42. Holy 71% of the world's population lives in an authoritarian regime, an increase of 48% from just 10 years ago. Flemming Rose, danish journalist, former editor of the newspaper Jyllands Posten, known for commissioning and publishing the controversial Muhammad cartoons in 2005, and author of the book Tyranny of Silence, explains in part some potential reasons for this democratic decline.

Flemming Rose:

For the past 10, 15 years. If you look at all international surveys, we are experiencing a freedom recession and in the beginning, you know, people thought well, this is mainly happening in places like China and Russia, turkey, other parts of the world. But it turns out that within the past 10 years, this has also been the case in Western democracies. And if you look at those rankings and ratings, even Western liberal democracies find themselves in a freedom recession. I think it might have to do with, you know, partly with social media, because this is an explosion of information and it's very difficult to manage. But I also think it has to do with the fact that society, that we have more migration and societies are becoming more diverse.

Flemming Rose:

And, you know, while I'm in favor of free speech and I think that if you are in favor of a more diverse society when it comes to culture, ethnicity and religion, it's natural to also be in favor of more diverse speech, because it reflects a more diverse society, if people are to speak their minds and say what they think and feel and do not feel restrained by this new reality.

Flemming Rose:

But the fact of the matter is that most politicians they want to solve this problem by passing new laws putting new limitations on speech in order to preserve the social peace. I think it's understandable, but I think it's short-sighted. It's not wise to sacrifice civil liberties and freedom of expression on the altar of ethnic, cultural and religious diversity. And then the final thing that has accelerated this process since 2022 and the war in Ukraine, also now the war in Gaza. You have turbulence in other parts of the world that you have turbulence in other parts of the world that you have, in fact, a world that feels very insecure. We speak about the risk of war and even nuclear war in a way that we didn't do unsafe. It's a common rule that then you put new limitations on individual freedoms.

Shawn:

In Hungary, viktor Orban has systematically dismantled democratic institutions, turning the judiciary into a tool of the government and silencing dissenting media into a tool of the government and silencing dissenting media. India, under Narendra Modi, has seen the rise of Hindu nationalism, which has led to the erosion of minority rights and increasing pressure on the free press and independent judiciary. Russia has also experienced similar trends, with Vladimir Putin sabotaging democratic checks and balances and consolidating power under himself. These examples, these three countries, can provide a blueprint for understanding potential democratic backsliding in the United States. The US has already seen signs of this erosion, including attacks on the legitimacy of elections, politicization of the judiciary and increasing polarization fueled by disinformation. As in other countries, these trends are often justified by appeals to nationalism, security or majoritarianism, slowly chipping away at the foundations of democracy. In this episode of After America, we are going to examine contemporary examples of democratic backsliding and the rise of authoritarianism in three countries India, russia and Hungary, the factors that have contributed to democratic erosion, how populist leaders have exploited democratic institutions toward authoritarian ends in these countries, and how this might help us better understand what could happen to the United States under a second Trump presidency. Democratic erosion in India, russia and Hungary three countries with very different political systems is marked by a series of common strategies and tactics used by populist leaders in these countries to systematically dismantle democratic institutions. Although each country has its unique historical, cultural and political context, the patterns of democratic erosion are remarkably similar, revealing a blueprint that authoritarian-minded leaders think Donald Trump can use to concentrate power.

Shawn:

One of the most significant strategies employed in all three countries is the cooptation or weakening of the judiciary. Another common tactic is the control weakening of the judiciary. Another common tactic is the control and manipulation of the media. Free and independent media are essential to any democracy, providing a check on government power and a platform for dissent. However, in all three countries, the media landscape has been dramatically altered to favor the ruling powers. A landscape has been dramatically altered to favor the ruling powers.

Shawn:

Electoral manipulation is another critical tactic. While elections continue to be held in these countries, the fairness and competitiveness of these elections have been severely compromised. These strategies weakening the judiciary, controlling the media and manipulating elections are supported by a broader assault on civil society, and manipulating elections are supported by a broader assault on civil society In all three countries. Non-governmental organizations, ngos and activists have come under intense pressure. Russia's foreign agent law, hungary's restrictions on foreign-funded NGOs and India's use of sedition and anti-terrorism laws against activists all serve to stifle dissent and weaken the ability of civil society to hold government accountable. In the hands of an authoritarian populist, these strategies are employed ruthlessly. This is Dr Sheri Berman, political scientist and professor at Barnard College, and expert on the development of democracy, fascism and populist movements, particularly in Europe explaining populism.

Dr. Berman:

So populism is generally defined by scholars as a type of political party or movement that has an us versus them view of politics. That is to say, you know, we do not just have political opponents, that do not just have different political policies, but rather see their opponents as enemies or as threats. And that is very problematic from a democratic perspective because democracy relies on toleration, compromise and bargaining. Toleration, compromise and bargaining, so us versus them mentalities and, related to that, a deep suspicion of the establishment, that is to say the existing mainstream parties, bureaucrats, sometimes civil servants, other agents of government. And so these populist movements tend to arise at times when, again, there's deep dissatisfaction rid of establishment parties, establishment politicians dramatically changing the way government functions, even to the point perhaps where democracy is undermined. But it's important to stress that for most people populism is not equated with anti-democratic movements and parties. Populist parties can be anti-democratic, but the category, so to speak, is seen by most scholars as being broader than that. It's more anti-establishment, it's more us versus them kind of politics, but not necessarily anti-democratic politics.

Shawn:

Populism plays a central role in the rise of authoritarianism. At its core, populism is a political strategy that frames politics as a struggle between the pure people and a corrupt or out-of-touch elite. Populist leaders position themselves as the true representatives of the people, often dismissing established political norms and institutions as obstacles to the will of the people. Populism's appeal lies in its simplicity and emotional resonance. It reduces complex political and social issues to a binary struggle between good and evil, us and them. This dichotomy not only polarizes societies, but also challenges democratic norms and institutions. Populist leaders often dismiss the importance of checks and balances, viewing them as impediments to their ability to deliver on the will of the people. This leads to the concentration of power, the erosion of civil liberties and the weakening of democratic institutions. Moreover, populism's focus on majoritarianism, the idea that the will of the majority should be absolute, poses a direct threat to the protection of minority rights, a cornerstone of liberal democracy. Populism becomes a tool to justify the erosion of democratic norms in the name of the people leading to a form of governance where democratic institutions exist in form but not in substance.

Dr. Nigam:

Proning capitalism is being favored and promoted at the expense of the rights of citizens. Corruption is increasing and becoming a norm, and you know, obsession with false sense of national security and integrity is leading to rise on military expenditures. So the poison of hatred is being permeated. Media is being used as a tool to cultivate hate among the communities. The dark chapters of history are being refolding again and these leaders are taking all possible steps to escape accountability, overlooking ethics and are there belittling others. In such situations, politics, instead of building societies and developing civilization, is becoming a tool to distract nations. And this is happening where the rights of women, minorities, tribal, dalits, lgbt, community, all are being eroded to pave the way for cloning capitalism and fundamentalist ideology.

Dr. Nigam:

In India, where I'm standing, I see that the government is waging war against the poor, minorities and women. They're destroying the livelihood of common citizens, the lives of the government. They are killing the truth, the decency, civility, democracy, and bulldozer is being raised on the rule of law, the progressive laws which have been made over the years. They are being diluted, the reasons and rationality are destroyed by the lies. Democracy is being dismantled. Attacks are being made on science and histories and, you know, even in the school textbook, the periodic tables and Darwin theory, all are being taken out and the history is being rewritten, where the Mughal history is being eroded and they're being projected as enemy.

Dr. Nigam:

And one of the university dean, he said that the flags and tanks on campus, you know, and within the university should be installed to inculcate nationalism among students. Also, the independent regulatory mechanisms are being crushed. So the state of economy is in shambles. The income of poor is going down and income of rich people, you know it's increasing. So violence is being now celebrated. People's houses are being bulldozed. You know those who are being accused of crime, you know their families are being punished. The rule of law is totally demolished. Even the human rights activists, they are, you know, being jailed on the basis of fabricated evidence, liberties being curtailed, investigating agencies are being made instruments of government propaganda, judicial independence is demolished and laws are being passed without debates.

Shawn:

That was Dr Shalu Nigam, feminist scholar, lawyer and social activist in India, known for her work on gender justice and human rights, describing the current situation in the world's largest democracy, india. India's democratic foundation, born out of British colonial rule in 1947, was laid by the framers of the Indian constitution, who envisioned a secular, pluralistic and inclusive nation. The Constitution adopted in 1950, guaranteed fundamental rights to all citizens, enshrined the principles of equality and non-discrimination, and established a parliamentary system of governance modeled on the British Westminster system. The early decades of Indian democracy were marked by vibrant political participation, the establishment of strong institutions and a commitment to social justice, even as the nation grappled with the challenges of poverty, illiteracy and diversity. In recent years, however, india has experienced a marked shift away from its foundational democratic principles.

Shawn:

The rise of Hindu nationalism, particularly under the leadership of the Bharatiya Janata Party and its leader, prime Minister Narendra Modi, has posed significant challenges to the secular and inclusive nature of Indian democracy. Hindu nationalism promotes the idea of India as a Hindu nation, relegating religious minorities, particularly Muslims, to second-class status. This ideological shift has manifested in various ways, most notably in the erosion of minority rights. The Citizenship Amendment Act of 2019, for example, offers a path to citizenship for non-Muslim refugees from neighboring countries, a move that is criticized as discriminatory against Muslims. The National Register of Citizens implemented in the northeastern state of Assam has further exacerbated fears of disenfranchisement among Muslims. These policies, combined with rising incidents of mob violence against Muslims, often with impunity for the perpetrators, have created an environment of fear and marginalization for religious minorities. Dr Nigam explains what this looks like in India.

Dr. Nigam:

The powerful and privileged people are, you know, given the open hand to destroy, demolishish and destruct the poor and the marginalized. So there's a victim who are now complaining. They are being penalized. To silence the voices of victims, bulldozer is being raised. In the states like UP and Madhya Pradesh what is happening is that if the victims are trying to raise their voice, the bulldozer is being raised on their houses. So those who are on the side of ruling majority, they receive special favours. And also we have seen how activists and journalists who are jailed for bringing out the truth, and those who are joining the for bringing out the truth, and, you know, those who are joining the ruling parties, are being celebrated. So all this, all the institutions which are there, they are being used as a tool to serve the end of ruling majority.

Dr. Nigam:

So this approach, you know this kind of biased approach, is dismantling the democracy. And and in India, privatization and structural adjustment programs, you know they have demolished the basic rights of poor and now they are being determined by free economy and the corruption is further destroying. You know the kind of employment we have, tony, capitalism is, you know, increasing and destroying the nation. And if you talk about inequalities, now the reports. A recent report shows that 70% of wealth is in hand of, you know, 22-dish people. So inequalities are deepening.

Shawn:

The rise of Hindu nationalism has also had a corrosive effect on India's democratic institutions also had a corrosive effect on India's democratic institutions. The judiciary, traditionally seen as a bulwark of democracy, has faced increasing pressure and allegations of politicization. High profile cases with significant political implications have raised concerns about judicial independence. The judiciary's perceived reluctance to challenge the government on issues like the abrogation of Article 370, which stripped the state of Jammu and Kashmir of its special status, further underscores these concerns. The press, once considered the watchdog of Indian democracy, has also come under attack. Journalists critical of the government face harassment, intimidation and, in some cases, violence. The arrest of journalists on charges of sedition and the increasing control of media outlets by pro-government entities have stifled press freedom. The space for dissent in independent journalism is shrinking, with self-censorship becoming more common as a survival strategy. Opposition parties, too, have found themselves marginalized. The BJP's dominance in national and state elections, bolstered by its use of social media and grassroots mobilization, has reduced the political space available to opposition parties. The use of state agencies such as the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Enforcement Directorate to target opposition leaders on charges of corruption and other alleged crimes has further weakened the opposition. This concentration of power in the hands of the ruling party, undercuts the pluralistic nature of Indian democracy and raises concerns about the long-term health of its democratic institutions. These developments in the past few years have fundamentally altered the nature of Indian democracy, transforming it from a secular, pluralistic state into an eroded democracy with authoritarian characteristics where the rights of minorities are systematically undermined.

Shawn:

Russia's journey from the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 to its current authoritarian regime under President Vladimir Putin is a story of lost democratic potential. In the early 1990s, russia, under President Boris Yeltsin, embarked on the path of democracy and a market economy, of democracy and a market economy. The period was marked by political instability, economic hardship and a chaotic transition from a planned economy to capitalism. But despite these challenges, there were genuine efforts to establish democratic institutions, including a free press, independent judiciary and competitive elections. However, the chaotic 90s also laid the groundwork for the centralization of power under Vladimir Putin, who rose to prominence as Yeltsin's chosen successor. Since taking office in 2000, putin has systematically dismantled democratic institutions and concentrated power in his own hands, transforming Russia into a highly centralized authoritarian state.

Shawn:

Under Putin's rule, russia has seen a steady erosion of democratic norms and institutions. One of the first targets was the free press. Early in his tenure, putin moved to bring independent media under state control. Major television networks which had been critical of the government were taken over by state-controlled companies or oligarchs loyal to the Kremlin. Investigative journalists and independent media outlets faced increasing harassment, legal challenges and violence. Journalists critical of the Kremlin were murdered, and this sent a chilling message to the press.

Shawn:

The centralization of power extended to the political system as well. Putin oversaw changes to the electoral system that effectively eliminated meaningful political competition. Opposition parties were marginalized and electoral laws were manipulated to ensure the dominance of Putin's United Russia Party. The disqualification of opposition candidates, manipulation of voter turnout and the use of state resources to support pro-government candidates have rendered elections in Russia a mere formality lacking any genuine democratic legitimacy. The judiciary, too, has been co-opted to serve the interests of the regime, particularly in cases involving political opponents or activists. The legal system has been weaponized to silence dissent, with opposition figures like Alexei Navalny having faced repeated arrests, politically motivated charges, imprisonment and ultimately, death. This lack of judicial independence has eroded public trust in the legal system and further entrenched authoritarian rule.

Shawn:

The impact of Putin's authoritarianism on Russian civil society has also been profound. Non-governmental organizations, particularly those receiving foreign funding or involved in human rights work have been targeted through restrictive laws and regulations. The Foreign Agent Law, passed in 2012, requires NGOs receiving foreign funding to register as foreign agents, a term that carries strong negative connotations in Russia. This law has been used to discredit and harass NGOs, leading to the closure of many organizations and the stifling of civil society. Activists and opposition leaders have also faced severe repression. Protests and demonstrations are met with a heavy-handed response from law enforcement, including mass arrests and the use of force. Prominent activists, such as Boris Nemtsov, who was assassinated near the Kremlin in 2015, have paid the ultimate price for their opposition to the regime. The atmosphere of fear and intimidation has stifled dissent and left civil society in a weakened state. Flemming Rose explains why this matters.

Flemming Rose:

But if you look at, you know, social movements throughout history who have been repressed and who have not had a voice, their main tool would be the movement for women's rights, the civil rights movement, representatives of religious minorities fighting for their right to freedom of religion and equality. Who was part of the movement fighting for gay rights, he will say you know, without free speech, we would not have had a chance. So, yes, it is true that there is, you know, unequal access to platforms, but free speech has been the main weapon of oppressed people throughout history, even though it might not look that way today. But if you look at history, that's a fact and that's why I think, even though it can be frustrating when you listen to powerful people and what they are allowed to say to to you know, to pass new laws so you can shut them down, but I think the unintended consequences of that would be that the people in power will use those laws against the people who don't have a voice today or who are on the margins of society.

Shawn:

The few remaining independent media outlets in Russia operate under constant threat of closure or legal action. Journalists who continue to report on corruption, human rights abuses, the war in Ukraine or other sensitive topics do so at great personal risk. The closure of independent outlets like Novaya Gazeta and the harassment of journalists highlights the perilous state of press freedom in Russia. The authoritarian Putin regime has effectively dismantled the democratic institutions that briefly flashed in the 1990s, replacing them with a system where power is concentrated in the hands of a single leader, putin himself, dissent is ruthlessly suppressed and civil liberties are severely curtailed.

Shawn:

Hungary and, until recently, poland, both member states of the European Union, were perhaps the most worrying of democratic countries experiencing a rise of authoritarianism because in many ways they are the easiest for far-right figures in the United States to look to as role models, given their membership in a Western alliance and association with a strong US partner in the EU. But last year, poland's electorate voted to change direction, throwing off the chains of authoritarianism, while Hungary, in contrast, has retained authoritarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban. Dr Berman explains the difference between the neighboring countries. That helps to explain the differing outcomes.

Dr. Berman:

So that's a great question, because up until the most recent election, many scholars and observers of democracy and of Eastern Europe were very concerned that, in fact, poland was following the same path as Hungary, and it was even following it in the sense that the Peace and Justice Party in Poland was seen as really kind of learning from Orban's evisceration of Hungarian democracy, that is to say, sort of doing some of the same things, you know, engaging in some of the same maneuvers. I mean, one obvious thing is there were important institutional differences between Hungary and Poland that enabled Orban to gain a level of power that his counterparts in Poland did not have. The Hungarian constitution gave incredibly disproportionate amounts of power to the plurality, not even the majority party, and so when Orban won his first elections with less than 50% of the vote, he was able to get two-thirds of the seat in parliament, which was enough to change the constitution in ways that enabled him to cement his power further, to undermine the opposition, to change the way Hungary's political institution function and things like that. So you know, separate from that institutional difference, his path would not have been blocked, but it surely would have been much more difficult and much more drawn out. So that is really one concrete thing that we can look at.

Dr. Berman:

A second thing is that, because Hungary had already traveled down this path, other countries in Europe were somewhat more aware of the dangers of the kinds of maneuvers that the Peace and Justice Party had begun to undertake, you know, manipulating the courts, manipulating civil society, manipulating the press and so they were somewhat more proactive in sanctioning the Peace and Justice Party, the Peace and Justice government in Poland, in trying to disincentivize further democratic backsliding.

Dr. Berman:

So that also is something very concrete we can point to, namely the reaction of other European powers. And then, third, I would say, also very, very important from a broader perspective, is that in the last election the Polish opposition really managed to get its act together in a way unfortunately many oppositions to impending democratic backsliders do not that is to say, they joined together, they prioritized the protection of democracy over their own differences and managed to put forward a fairly unified slate and a unified program that was really able again to sort of marshal all of the forces opposed to peace and justice in a way that enabled, you know, a sort of majority or at least a plurality electoral victory to emerge.

Shawn:

Hungary's transition from a Soviet satellite state to a democratic republic in 1989 was viewed as a success story of post-Cold War Europe.

Shawn:

The country adopted a new constitution, held free and fair elections and joined Western institutions like NATO and the European Union.

Shawn:

Hungary's early years as a democracy were characterized by a commitment to European integration, the rule of law and respect for human rights. However, the stability and progress of Hungarian democracy would be tested in the years to come, particularly with the rise of Viktor Orban and his Fidesz party. Orban, who first served as prime minister from 1998 to 2002 and then returned to power in 2010, has overseen a profound transformation of Hungary's political landscape. Under Orban's leadership, hungary has shifted away from liberal democracy, a political system that combines free and fair elections with the protection of individual rights, the rule of law and the separation of powers, ensuring that government authority is limited and citizens have a voice in governance, toward what he openly describes as an illiberal democracy, a political system where elections occur but civil liberties, the rule of law and the separation of powers are undermined. This shift has involved the systematic dismantling of democratic institutions, the erosion of checks and balances and the concentration of power in the hands of Orban and his party. Dr Berman describes the complex interplay between liberalism and democracy.

Dr. Berman:

It is perfectly possible, both empirically and it's also been the case historically, that we have had democracies that have been illiberal, that is to say again, just to take one definition, where we've had relatively free and fair elections, but we've had governments that result from that do all kinds of things that you know today we would consider to be illiberal, that is to say, you know, sort of acting against minorities, not fully respecting individual rights and liberties, you know, yada, yada, yada. So historically that's actually been the norm rather than a fully liberal democracy. There's no historical problem. We've had those kinds of things before. And also it's important to remember that liberalism, in the sense of protection again for individual and minority rights, constitution, rule of law, all of those things are designed to limit democracy. Right, liberalism is actually a limit on democracy and in particular, a limit on what majorities can do and what free and fair elections can do. So there's absolutely no reason why you can't say, look, I want to have a democratic system, that is, one, to say, where you know that is one where our leaders and governments are chosen by election. But I don't believe in all of the, you know, sort of liberal norms and rights that we in many parts of the West have come to expect as being embedded in democracy. So there's no contradiction there. But it is a problem. If you believe that democracy really again should be liberal democracy, that is to say not just free and fair elections but a political system that protects all of those liberal rights, then sure illiberal democracy is problematic.

Dr. Berman:

I will say that even if one uses that term of liberal democracy, what we have in Hungary now is not that, because at its very heart or at its very sort of base, democracy has to have free and fair elections, and we do not have that in Hungary. Elections are free, but they are not fair. Free meaning there's no overt coercion at election time, there's no stuffing of the ballot boxes like we probably had in Venezuela recently. But they're not fair in the sense that for an election to be fair you have to have a playing field that allows oppositions to act, to get their message across to the citizens, that does not disadvantage them in ways that hinder their ability to win elections. We do not have that in Hungary, so we do not have free and fair elections. So illiberal democracy is a bad term for that, not because it's an impossibility, but because it is not an accurate description of what we have in a place like Hungary.

Shawn:

One of the most significant areas of concerns is attacks on judicial independence. Since returning to power, orban's government has enacted a series of reforms that have weakened the judiciary's ability to act as a check on executive power. These reforms include lowering the retirement age for judges, allowing the government to replace a significant number of judges with appointees loyal to Fidesz, and creating a new court system for administrative cases that is directly controlled by the government. These measures have sabotaged the judiciary's independence and turned it into an instrument of the ruling party.

Shawn:

The control of the media is another pillar of Orban's illiberal democracy. The Hungarian government has taken steps to ensure that the majority of media outlets are either directly controlled by the state or owned by business interests aligned with Fidesz. Public broadcasting has been turned into a government mouthpiece, while independent media outlets have been marginalized, financially starved or forced into the hands of pro-government owners. The result is a media landscape where critical voices are few and far between and the government narrative dominates the public discourse. Electoral reforms have further entrenched Fidesz's hold on power. Changes to the electoral system, including the redrawing of electoral districts in a way that favors Fidesz, have made it increasingly difficult for opposition parties to compete on a level playing field. This combination of media control, judicial manipulation and electoral engineering has created a system where Fidesz can maintain its dominance with a relatively small share of the popular vote. Dr Balint Magyar, former Hungarian politician and minister of education, expert on authoritarianism and post-communist regimes and author of numerous books, including Post-Communist Mafia State, describes Hungary under Orbán as a mafia state.

Dr. Magyar:

When I define a post-communist mafia state, it has four dimensions. The first is referring that we have to put the question that who is the actor, you know? And when we are speaking about the ruling elite, we have to define the sociological, anthropological form of this ruling elite. And this ruling elite, if we used to describe it with naming a kind of state, we use that it's a clan state, which would mean that the ruling elite is nothing else than an extended form of a patriarchal family and the cultural patterns of a patriarchal family, where the chief patron, the godfather I would say godfather is not governing a family or not governing a society or political institutions, but he or she is just disposing over positions, statuses, revenues, incomes, fortunes, etc. So if we want to name this state just referring to the actor, we can say that it's a clan state. But if, in another dimension, if we want to reflect how this actor is using his public authority, then we could say that it's a now patrimonial state, which means that it's a private expropriation of public authority by the state. The third dimension is when we refer to what happens with the goods and wealth in this society and in this case we can say that it's a predatory state, not simply a rent-seeking state or a kleptocratic state, because kleptocratic state would mean that it's a peaceful way of even illegal but peaceful way of diverging revenues and incomes and grants into private pockets. But in the case of predatory state it's nothing else than the central corporate trading and rubbing out, taking away the other's properties, mainly enterprises, let them be Hungarian ones or foreign ones.

Dr. Magyar:

The fourth dimension concerns the legality of this regime, where we do not say that it's just simply a corrupt state, where there is even endemic but not systemic corruption, where in corrupt transactions the partners are autonomous partners in an eventual or even repeated corrupt transactions, and not even just what we used to call capture state, when, let us say, oligarchs or criminal organizations are capturing, let us say, a local government or a ministry or a state project or something like this.

Dr. Magyar:

But of course it's already we can say that it's a structural consequence of corruption in a society. But we can speak about a criminal state when the state itself behaves like a criminal organization and this criminal organization can have the cultural in quotation marks cultural motives of an extended patriarchal family and if a regime fulfills these four criteria that it can be called clan state, neopatrimonial state, predatory state and criminal state. In this case, I can tell that it's a mafia state and as I was dealing with post-communist states, you know it's a post-communist mafia state this is why I use this term and within the EU, hungary is the only post-communist mafia state. Not any other state behaves like that because it has the condition that it can have the monopoly of political power and, on base, behaving like a criminal organization. So the political form of these regimes is an autocracy, after the autocratic breakthrough and autocratic consolidation, which operates a criminal organization, a criminal state, and this is what I call a mafia state.

Shawn:

Hungary's democratic backsliding under Viktor Orban poses a significant challenge not only to the country's democratic institutions, but also to the broader European Union. The EU, which prides itself on upholding democratic values, the rule of law and human rights, has found itself struggling to address the erosion of these principles in one of its member states. Orban's government has repeatedly clashed with EU institutions over issues such as judicial independence, press freedom and the treatment of migrants. The European Parliament has initiated proceedings under Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union, which could theoretically lead to sanctions against Hungary, including the suspension of its voting rights in the EU. However, the process is slow and it's politically fraught, with Orban's government able to rely on allies within the EU to block or delay punitive measures. And remember Orban assumed the EU presidency in July.

Shawn:

The Hungarian government's defiance of EU norms has raised questions about the EU's ability to enforce its own values and maintain cohesion among its member states. The rise of illiberal democracy in Hungary has also inspired similar movements in other parts of Europe and also the United States. Hungary under Viktor Orbán serves as a cautionary tale of how quickly and effectively a democratically elected government can dismantle the very institutions that are meant to safeguard democracy. In fact, in many ways, hungary is no longer considered a democracy at all. Dr Maiar explains why.

Dr. Magyar:

A special form of democratic backsliding. The autocratization process of autocratization has normally three phases the autocratic attempt, the autocratic breakthrough and the autocratic consolidation. What happened in 2010 in Hungary, when the Fidesz seized a constitutional majority in the parliament? It was the result of a lot of overlapping crises. One is it was an economic crisis because of the economic financial crisis in 2008-2009. On the other hand, the ruling coalition of the Socialist and Liberal Parties. They were discredited during their eight years of government. And the third very important thing was that even already for that time, orban Victor decided to create a kind of central power space which would create for him a kind of such a power which would last for a long time. Technically, the special features of the Hungarian election system, namely that it's an absolutely disproportionate one, resulted that with the political, economic and moral collapse of the ruling governing coalition in 2010, fidesz seized 53% of the votes on the elections, but it is not for him. A two-third majority in the parliament, which created for him the monopoly of political power.

Dr. Magyar:

This is what I call the autocratic breakthrough, when a single political force seizes the monopoly of political power, which meant that a single political actor alone can change the constitution.

Dr. Magyar:

On the other hand, all other laws, including the election law, electoral law, and, at the same time, they unilaterally can nominate and appoint the leaders and the members of those institutions which should serve as the institutions of checks and balances in a society.

Dr. Magyar:

So such a way, as they say, is the monopoly of political power. Within one year, they unilaterally brought a new constitution and this constitution was changed several times. They changed all the time, since 2010, the election law and they made it even more disproportionate, which resulted that, for example, on the next national parliamentary elections in 2014, it was already enough for them to seize 44% of the votes to have a two-third majority in the parliament again. And they changed the election law practically before all elections and they just custom-tailored the election laws to their needs and, in such a way, they started the third phase of autocratization, this so-called autocratic consolidation, when they systematically abolished the autonomies of the citizens of Hungary, autonomies of civil organizations, of enterprises, political organizations and so on. Such a way, hungary became a full-fledged autocracy as a result of not only of the autocratic breakthrough, but the autocratic consolidation.

Shawn:

The international community's response to the rise of authoritarianism in India, russia and Hungary has been mixed, reflecting the complexities of global politics and the challenges of defending democratic norms in an increasingly multipolar world. In the case of Russia, the response has been the most robust, though not without limitations. The annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the ongoing conflict in Ukraine have led to a series of sanctions from Western countries, particularly the United States, and the ongoing conflict in Ukraine have led to a series of sanctions from Western countries, particularly the United States and the European Union. These sanctions have targeted key sectors of the Russian economy, as well as individuals close to Putin. However, the effectiveness of these measures is debatable. They've not succeeded in changing Russia's behavior, and Russia's geopolitical influence, particularly in the Middle East and Africa, has complicated the West's ability to isolate. Succeeded in changing Russia's behavior and Russia's geopolitical influence, particularly in the Middle East and Africa, has complicated the West's ability to isolate the country diplomatically.

Shawn:

India's case is particularly complex due to its size, strategic importance and democratic credentials. The international community has generally been more cautious in its criticism of India's democratic backsliding, partly because of India's status as a key player in the Indo-Pacific region and its role as a counterbalance to China's influence. While there have been expressions of concern from various international human rights organizations and some Western governments, the response has been largely muted. The United States and other Western democracies have tended to prioritize strategic and economic ties, overpressing India on human rights and democratic norms.

Dr. Berman:

Surely one of the great ironies of the contemporary European Union is that its origins lie in a desire to strengthen democracy in post-war Europe. That's why European integration began. It was part of a multi-tiered, multi-pronged effort to keep European West European countries democratic after the tragedies of the interwar period and the Second World War. And it was an incredible, an incredible democratic promoter vis-a-vis Eastern Europe. That is to say, both the draw of Europe and the things that European East European countries had to do to join the European Union very much sped up the democratization process there. However, for reasons that I can't quite understand, when the folks who designed Europe over the course of decades did so, they did not put in any explicit procedures for dealing with undemocratic actors within the European Union.

Dr. Berman:

Union Hungary that is not a democracy and that is using its role in Europe to undermine a whole variety of European initiatives, to protect itself from deeper sanctions against it, to actually draw resources from the European Union that facilitate and enhance creeping authoritarianism in Hungary. So it's really, you know, sort of been able to kind of manipulate. Orban has not only the constitution and institutions of Hungary itself, but I would say the, so to speak, constitution and institutions of the European Union to strengthen his own hand and also, for example, when Poland was going down the same path, to protect the Poles, the Poles protected him. So yes, you know, once you have this kind of non-democratic wedge or non-democratic force within a larger democratic setting, it is very easy for that force to expand, that wedge, to deepen, whatever the correct way of putting. That is so and that's that is what we're sort of watching, you know, happen with Orban today.

Shawn:

That was Dr Berman, explaining how Hungary has exploited vulnerabilities in the structure of the EU, presenting a challenging case for the international community. Presenting a challenging case for the international community. As a member state, hungary is entitled to the benefits of EU membership, including access to structural funds and participation in the single market. However, orban's government has increasingly flouted EU norms regarding the rule of law, media freedom and judicial independence. While the EU has taken steps against Hungary which could theoretically lead to sanctions, these efforts have been hampered by the need for unanimity among member states and Hungary's ability to count on allies. The EU's response has been criticized as too slow and ineffective, raising questions about the union's ability to enforce its own democratic standards. Dr Magyar explains why the EU has been so ineffective in this regard.

Dr. Magyar:

There are different causes why the EU behaves in such a tolerant way towards the Hungarian autocracy and mafia state. First is, I think, the lack of imagination. They simply cannot imagine that such things like a mafia state can emerge and they always tried to understand it as a result of different ideological causes. That what kind of ideological panels of ideology by the state was following in Hungary? The state was following in Hungary, which I say that the three main important ideological panels God, nation, family these are just ideological panels which have different functions and in the rule of war, but somehow to have a dominance within this society. But if I make a difference between the sanctions of the EU and the sanctions of the US exercised in such cases, then there is a major difference. The US sanctions according to their goals. They try to punish the perpetrators. So these are just GPS-led missiles. They are targeting the perpetrators and not the society as a whole. Why the EU sanctions? When they try to close the taps of different EU funds coming to Hungary, they are a kind of carpet bombing. They do not affect the perpetrators themselves because they consider the perpetrators, like the leaders of Hungary, as political actors and not as criminals. Why they are criminals? You know so, and this is important the difference, and of course there was a barricade, I would say, for a long time between the German and Hungarian government, and there was a joke also that which are the three causes that Anglo-Americans supported for so long Viktor Orban, and the three causes was the BMW, the Audi and the Volkswagen. These were the three causes. You know so the Orban regime was always skillful to create such kind of ties.

Dr. Magyar:

And on the other hand, of course it's a tragedy that the enlargement of the EU, when 10 countries were accepted in 2004, and then some others a few years later, it did not affect the decision-making mechanism within the EU. That mechanism, which needs for most of the decisions, unanimous decisions, practically gives veto rights for any countries, is nothing else just a possibility for blackmailing and paralyzing the whole institutional system. And I don't know whether the EU understood that. They cannot accept any more any other new members within the EU without or before changing the decision-making mechanism, because it's a question of life and death for the EU as well. Otherwise, if they do not change the decision-making mechanism dominantly for a qualified majority, a needed decision-making mechanism, then the EU won't be able to act on the global scene as a strong political actor in spite of this economic weight in the global.

Dr. Magyar:

So when we are thinking about, for example, the enlargement in the Western Balkans, which has a huge contradiction, namely that if these countries are not let into the EU, then there will be a power vacuum and Russia tries to conquer that vacuum within Europe. But on the other hand, if you let these countries which are not really democratic regimes Serbia or Kosovo or North Macedonia or Montenegro then it means that it will help such autocratic attempts, what Orbán has just creating, blackmailing communities within the EU which should paralyse the EU themselves. And we are getting farther and farther from that aim. That EU would be regime homogene, homogeneous coalition of liberal democracies. While there will be, it will be a target organisation of Russian subversive activities who are always ready to support these autocratic regimes within the EU.

Shawn:

In all three cases Russia, india and Hungary the rise of authoritarianism has exposed the limitations of the international community's ability to respond effectively to democratic erosion. Economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure and public condemnation have had limited impact, particularly when the targeted regimes are able to leverage nationalism and sovereignty as shields against external criticism. On top of that, the growing geopolitical competition between liberal and illiberal powers has further complicated efforts to defend democratic norms on the global stage. The international community's tepid response also reflects a broader crisis of confidence in the liberal democratic model as populism and authoritarianism gain traction in various parts of the world. This has led to a situation where illiberal or authoritarian leaders can push the boundaries of democratic norms with relative impunity, confident that the costs of international censure will be outweighed by the benefits of maintaining their grip on power.

Shawn:

The United States, long regarded as a beacon of democracy, is showing signs of democratic backsliding itself that are reminiscent of the trajectories seen in India, russia and, particularly, hungary. One of the most alarming signs of democratic erosion in the US is attacks on electoral integrity. The peaceful transfer of power, a cornerstone of democracy, has been called into question, particularly following the 2020 presidential election. Baseless claims of widespread voter fraud were propagated by former President, donald Trump, and his allies, leading to a significant portion of the electorate losing faith in the electoral process. This narrative the Big Lie, not only culminated in the January 6th attack on the Capitol, but also inspired a wave of restrictive voting laws in several states, ostensibly to prevent fraud, fraud that never existed. These laws, which include measures like strict voter ID requirements, limits on mail-in voting and purging of voter rolls, disproportionately affect minority communities and raise concerns about the fairness and accessibility of future elections, including this November. The attack on the free press is another troubling sign of Democratic backsliding. In the United States, the press has traditionally been considered the fourth estate, playing a crucial role in holding power to account. However, in recent years, the media has been increasingly vilified, particularly by political leaders who label unfavorable coverage as fake news. This rhetoric, coupled with a growing mistrust of mainstream media among segments of the population, has eroded public confidence in journalism. Fragmented media landscape where misinformation and disinformation can thrive, further polarizing the electorate and undercutting the informed citizenry that democracy relies on.

Shawn:

The politicization of the judiciary is another area of concern. The US judiciary has historically been viewed as an impartial arbiter of the law, a check on the other branches of government. However, the increasing tendency to appoint judges based on their perceived political loyalties rather than their legal qualifications has raised questions about the judiciary's independence. High-profile cases with significant political implications, such as those involving election laws, reproductive rights and executive power, have become battlegrounds where judicial decisions are often seen through a partisan lens. This perception chips away at public trust in the judiciary as a neutral and fair institution and can lead to a situation where court rulings are respected or disregarded based on political affiliation rather than legal merit. Based on political affiliation rather than legal merit. Right-wing figures in the United States have expressed admiration for contemporary autocrats, often focusing on their perceived strength, decisiveness and ability to maintain order and national sovereignty. Leaders like Kim Jong-un in North Korea, xi Jinping in China and Vladimir Putin have been praised by some right-wing commentators and politicians, including Donald Trump, for resisting globalist pressures, prioritizing national interests and upholding traditional values or cultural identities.

Trump:

I said this is genius. Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine, of Ukraine. Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that's wonderful. So Putin is now saying it's independent a large section of Ukraine. I said how smart is that? And he's gonna go in and be a peacekeeper. That's the strongest peace force we could use that on our southern border. That's the strongest peace force I've ever seen. There were more army tanks than I've ever seen. They're going to keep peace all right.

Shawn:

Victor Orban in particular, receives accolades as a model for Western civilization and Christian values.

Trump:

Thank you very much. It's a great honor to have with us the prime minister of Hungary, and Victor Orban has done a tremendous job in so many different ways, highly respected, respected all over Europe. Probably, like me, a little bit controversial, but that's okay. That's okay. You've done a good job and you've kept your country safe.

Shawn:

Donald Trump, the Republican candidate for the presidency this year, has endorsed Orban and his methods, hosting him at the White House in 2019 and more recently this past July at his Mar-a-Lago home. Slash everything where Trump said of Orban there's nobody that's better, smarter or a better leader than Victor Orban. Given Trump's affinity for authoritarian rule and his stated policy preferences and his actions, including his support for the January 6th coup attempt, his call to cancel the Constitution, his calls to investigate and jail opponents, attacks on the media as enemies of the people, his calls to deploy the military domestically against people and groups he dislikes I mean, the list goes on. But given this, the stakes in this 2024 election are almost undoubtedly higher than ever as it relates to American democracy as we know it. In a second Trump presidency, the United States could experience a transition toward authoritarianism, a system where democratic institutions exist in form but not in substance. Democratic backsliding in Russia, india and Hungary can help us understand what that might look like.

Shawn:

If Donald Trump were to win the presidency in 2024 and use Hungary, russia and India as models to attack democracy, the United States might begin to resemble a nation that superficially maintains democratic structures but is increasingly authoritarian in practice. The federal government would likely centralize power, diminishing the autonomy of state and local governments. Courts, media outlets and other checks on executive power would be systematically weakened, starting with the judiciary. Trump might push through reforms that allow for greater executive control over the judicial appointment process, ensuring that loyalists dominate the courts. Media freedom would likely come under intense pressure. Independent news organizations could be targeted through lawsuits, regulatory scrutiny or economic measures designed to bankrupt them.

Shawn:

Echoing Vladimir Putin's strategy in Russia, the rise of pro-government media would dominate the information landscape, spreading state-approved narratives while marginalizing dissenting voices. Civil society organizations and activists would face escalating harassment and intimidation. Non-profits, particularly those critical of the government or involved in human rights work, could be labeled as foreign agents, echoing Hungary's tactics under Viktor Orban. The government might also introduce laws that restrict the ability to protest or organize, labeling opposition as a threat to national security, as occurs in Putin's Russia. Elections would still occur, but they would be increasingly manipulated to ensure the ruling party's victory. Gerrymandering, voter suppression and disinformation campaigns would be ramped up to stifle the opposition. The electoral process would lose its legitimacy, turning into a performative exercise rather than a genuine contest of ideas. The overall atmosphere would be one of fear and conformity, with dissent slowly suffocated under the guise of maintaining order and stability. This managed democracy would mask the growing authoritarianism at the heart of American governance as the ideals of liberty and justice wither and die. Check back next week for the final episode of After America. You

People on this episode

Head Shot

Shawn C. Fettig

Host