Authoritarianism is a word that appears frequently in political talks, often used as an indicator for regimes that lack free and fair elections. I spent a lot of time at my last Model UN conference debating the differences between authoritarianism and democracy, and one thing that as a committee, we were hung up upon, was its definition. So, I decided to do a little more research on how exactly authoritarianism can be defined.
In the International Affairs article “What authoritarianism is … and is not: a practice perspective,” Marlies Glasius argues that defining authoritarianism simply as the absence of democracy, or more specifically the absence of competitive elections, limits our ability to understand how power actually operates in the contemporary world. When authoritarianism is something that exists only “where democracy fails,” it becomes harder to identify harmful political behavior that occurs within systems that still hold elections and maintain democratic appearances.
The article pushed me to rethink authoritarianism not as a regime type, but as a set of practices that systematically undermine accountability. This shift makes sense because elections alone do not guarantee meaningful political control or public voice. Governments may hold elections while simultaneously weakening media freedom, concentrating executive power, restricting civil society, or manipulating information in ways that decrease democratic accountability over time.
What makes this perspective especially interesting is its relevance beyond classic authoritarian states. Glasius points out that authoritarian practices can appear within democracies. When people make decisions that significantly affect populations without transparent processes or mechanisms for accountability, it counts as authoritarian regardless of whether elections exist somewhere in the system. This resonates strongly with the policy debates we had at my conference, where the legitimacy of institutions increasingly depends on how decisions are made and who has a voice in shaping them.
Although the article is not about economics or business, its implications can extend into those domains. Accountability failures in governance influence economic outcomes, public trust, and long-term stability. Whether in environmental policy, development finance, or global economic coordination, decision-making structures that prioritize efficiency or authority over participation risk alienating the people they serve. The article highlights that actual outcomes and lived impacts reveal more about the success of a government than those that rely on formal indicators alone.
Ultimately, the article challenges readers to think more carefully about how power is exercised and evaluated. Authoritarianism can be understood as a pattern of behavior rather than of fixed labels, safeguarding principles and definitions of democracy. That insight is especially relevant at a moment when political systems around the world are under strain.
Impact Blueprint 