We live in a time when democracy and constitutional government are under extreme stress. Pundits, researchers and students of democracy are in agreement that dictators control some 40% of the countries around the world and appear to have growing support from their citizens, especially in the less developed countries. These democratic skeptics believe that popular governments based on open elections, personal rights and the rule of law have failed them. Governments that accent control and central power are viewed as preferable for stability and modernization as a policy-making model. In today’s world post-Soviet leaders such as Vladimir Putin of Russia and Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus, the Arab absolute monarchies in Saudi Arabia and the various kingdoms and mini states in the Gulf region, the religious mullahs of Iran, the military regimes and aging one man rulers in sub-Saharan Africa, and the Communist Party governments of China led by Xi Jinping and North Korea’s Kim Jung Un are but some of the most notable rulers who form a dangerous alliance of authoritarians. Then there is President Trump and his brand of authoritarianism that functions on the edges of dictatorial rule.
As evidence of the rise of authoritarianism one need only look at the research that has been done in recent years. The Economist Intelligence Unit recently reported 39% of the world’s population live under authoritarian rule while Freedom House states that 38% of the world’s population is “Not Free” (the highest proportion since 1997). The Human Rights Foundation stated in 2025 that 80 of the 179 countries studied were defined as authoritarian, with 25 categorized as hybrid (a mix of democratic characteristics and authoritarian control) and only 74 identified as democratic. While democratic forms of government remain vibrant and secure in many of the European nations and the former British Commonwealth states, there is increasing evidence that authoritarianism is growing and cannot be ignored as a governing alternative. A study by the Pew Center of 24 nations, both high-income and developing, pointed to growing support for authoritarianism ranging from an average of 30% in the high-income countries to major support in developing countries such as Kenya (67% support), India (85% support), Indonesia (77% support), Mexico (71% support) and South Africa (66% support).
Despite growing authoritarianism, there are some encouraging signs that power in the hands of one dictator or a group of like-minded anti-democrats is becoming less secure. In Europe, the right-wing government of Viktor Orban in Hungary was removed from office in 2025 in a democratic election and replaced by a reformist government led by Peter Magyar, who pledged to rebuild the democratic infrastructure weakened by Orban. In Cuba, the communist regime led by Fidel Castro and his brother Raul was substantially weakened as the Trump administration limited essential supplies of oil and domestic products. The current Cuban government is led by Prime Minister Manuel Marrero Cruz, who is a dedicated communist in the mold of the Castro brothers, yet he faces a disgruntled population that has little commitment to Castroism and revolutionary authoritarianism. And in neighboring Venezuela, the United States military captured the authoritarian leader Nicolas Maduro and brought him to federal prison in Brooklyn to face numerous narcotics charges. Maduro was replaced by Delcy Rodriquez who professes to be a democratic leader, although she was a prominent official in the Maduro regime. With pressure building from the United States against the authoritarian model, Venezuela may eventually return to a country that was once one of Latin America’s leading democracies.
The most important changes in the shift away from authoritarianism may be in Russia, where Vladimir Putin’s war to defeat Ukraine and claim its territory has largely failed and created a negative response from the Russian people who have suffered through significant battlefield defeats, inflationary spirals, currency devaluation, and growing shortages of oil products and food. Putin has experienced a significant reduction in his popularity as he sought to return Russia to its pre-Soviet dominance in the world. There are no clear signs that Putin will be removed from power or that Russia may be developing a democratic spirit, but what is clear is that the once invincible wall of control and power in the hands of Putin is beginning to crack and the future of his brand of authoritarianism is in question. It should be stressed, however, that if Putin is removed from power, he may be replaced with a new brand of authoritarianism under military and oligarchic control with little commitment to democratic principles and practices. In this “new authoritarianism,” the leaders may be forced to function in a more open, honest and rules-based system of governance — not popular democracy but a significant change from Putin’s dictatorship.
Then there is the religious control exercised by the theocratic elites, the mullahs, in Iran. The theocracy established by these religious leaders and the 73 Islamic experts called the Assembly of Experts has ruled Iran with an iron fist, often using the police and enforcers of moral codes to crack down on the supporters of a secular state. The surprise attack by Israel of the headquarters where the mullahs and other leaders were meeting, killed the supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Khamenei. The bombing led to a popular uprising against the religious state and its failed economic and cultural policies. The mullahs quickly responded with brutal force, killing thousands of protestors. Although the Ayatollah Khamenei was replaced by his son Mojtaba Khamenei, the son does not have the religious reputation and experience of his father and is no longer viewed as the key leader of Iran. While it is difficult to determine who runs Iran, many in the Western intelligence community believe that the mullah’s theocracy is weakening and that the real power rests in the hands of the police and the military-based Revolutionary Guards. The Guards are no democrats; in fact they hold the same views against the Great Satan (the United States) as the mullahs. But should a governing system shift occur, theocracy may be replaced with “secular authoritarianism” as the Revolutionary Guards remain in power without Mojtaba Khamenei and the Assembly of Experts in control. Under “secular authoritarianism,” the new leadership may be forced to deal with a generation of Iranians that fosters a political culture of human rights and political change and demands a greater voice in national affairs.
Where there is little chance of democratic reform is in China and North Korea. Both Xi Jinping and Kim Jong Un are firmly in control and show no signs that they are willing to open up their systems of governance. Both leaders are ruthless dictators who do not tolerate challenges to their authority and crack down on those within their inner circle who express views contrary to those of the leader. China’s Xi thinks nothing of removing members of the leadership elite from positions of prominence (usually related to charges of corruption), while Kim uses harsh repression against those who do not obey his commands and his stature as a divine leader. While there have been signs in rural areas in China of local democratic activity against party officials, these actions do not have the capacity to become a national movement. And in North Korea, Kim is held in such high regard that intense re-education and indoctrination programs combine so that even the faintest signs of anti-Kim activity are highly unlikely. The inevitable result is that these Asian powers will remain in the authoritarian column as the system that has been created is so strong that any meaningful change toward democratic reform is unlikely.
No discussion of the status of authoritarianism would be complete without the mention of President Donald Trump and his administration. Much has been written about how Trump has weakened democratic values and norms and used his office to take measures that are at odds with constitutional principles and the rule of law. Trump has appointed cabinet officials who are committed to ignoring long-standing administrative and legal practices that are designed to enhance presidential power and foster mistrust of government. Trump has become so enamored with presidential power and control that he has been viewed by his critics as a “king” and someone who has transformed what has been called “the world’s greatest democracy” into a hybrid authoritarian state that has little respect for constitutionalism and the system of restraints on power developed by the founding fathers.
Thankfully, the United States under Donald Trump has not slipped into full-fledged authoritarianism but rather a kind of quasi-authoritarianism as the judicial system, especially at the district and appellate level, the press and social media, organized special interest groups, and defenders of free speech and free assembly have made it difficult for Trump to implement his vision of a nation under his control and direction. Democratic governance may be under threat but there remains an institutional structure of limits on presidential power (the checks and balances system, congressional appropriations and oversight, and the possibility of impeachment) and opportunities for public constraints (regular elections, opposition political party activity, legal challenges, and protests). So, when the question of authoritarianism is raised with fear and trepidation, there is hope that democracy and republican government may have entered only a period of dormancy. More importantly, there are signs here in the United States that people no longer see the benefits of authoritarian rule and have experienced far too many examples of incompetence and failed policies under Trump. The failed efforts of President Trump to advance authoritarian rule and king-like leadership only reinforce the words of Winston Churchill: “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”