Understanding Democratic Erosion: Signs and Implications

Research and Discussion Showing How Autocratization is Occurring Globally and in the USA

This post is an inquiry into autocracies, how they are formed from democracies, and the speed with which they are occurring in the U.S.A. and other countries. The outline is based on research and writing by Dr. Ruth Ben Ghiat, one of world’s most significant authorities on autocracy.

---

One of the most useful ways to evaluate the health of a democracy is to stop asking who is winning elections. Instead, start asking whether the rules of democracy are still intact.

Historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat, one of the world’s leading scholars of authoritarianism, argues that democracies rarely collapse overnight. They erode gradually through recognizable stages. Having studied Mussolini’s Italy, Pinochet’s Chile, Putin’s Russia, Erdogan’s Turkey, Orbán’s Hungary, and Trump’s United States, she identifies five warning signs that appear with remarkable consistency. She wrote that WIRED also asked her to make the inaugural video in a new series, Top of Mind, on a sadly topical theme: “Is American Democracy Going to Die?”
The five key indicators of democratic erosion:

• electoral manipulation
• weaponized government
• press intimidation
• normalization of extremism
• transfer of power crises

I used these indicators of democratic erosion to outline and write this post.

The unsettling question is not whether these patterns exist elsewhere. My discussion of historical examples will confirm that. It is how closely they resemble developments in the United States. Democratic erosion is treated separately, and in the order shown above. I have identified three historical and contemporary countries that especially highlight each of the indicators. For example to show how autocracies weaponize its government, I show how each country does this. The USA, which now an autocratizing country, I delve into what is happening in the U.S. under the Trump administration. Each indicator becomes a case study. I hope you will find the results that I have assembled valuable to your understanding of contemporary politics.

A Little Background

A report was recently issued called the “Democracy Report 2026: Unraveling The Democratic Era¹?” The report highlights global democratic decline, with 74% living in autocracies, including the US, which faces rapid autocratization under Trump, eroding checks, civil rights, and media freedom.Autocratization affects all regions, driven by repression, censorship, and weakening institutions.Few democracies remain stable; some autocratizers are reversing trends, but overall, autocracy deepens worldwide.

As you look at the map, note that the U.S. is no longer a “liberal democracy.” Instead it is an “electoral democracy.” Note that Russia, which was an “electoral Democracy” for a few years before Putin emerged as its President. It’s now considered an “electoral Autocracy.” Some might question that designation.

On a personal note, I traveled to Russia beginning when it was part of the Soviet Union. From 1981 to 2000 I was involved with educators and researchers though a joint American-Russian project: The Global Thinking Project². When I first stepped on Red Square, Leonid Brezhnev: 1964–1982 (USSR) was president, and I stopped traveling there, Vladimir Putin was president. In between, the Russians experiments with a fledging democracy after Gorbachev made remarkable changes (i.e. Glasnost, and Peristroika). Much of our work on the GTP was done during this interim period. It was an exciting time for our Russian colleagues, students, and families. Unfortunately, after Putin took over, the civil progress that had been made began to quickly erode. I have many friends in Russia, and they are not in agreement with the Russian government, especially Putin’s invasion and war with Ukraine.

Finally, here is a chart that provides information about four types of regimes, and as you use the chart you can see how regimes change, e.g. moving from an autocracy to a democracy, or from a democracy to an autocracy.

1. Electoral Manipulation

Authoritarian leaders eventually conclude that free elections are too risky. They begin altering electoral rules, restricting voting, gerrymandering districts, disqualifying opponents, or undermining confidence in election administration.

Authoritarian examples of Electoral Manipulation

These three cases illustrate different ways elected leaders can undermine electoral democracy while maintaining the appearance of elections. The result is that elections continue to occur, but they no longer fully satisfy the standards of free and fair democratic competition. Here is an overview of each.

Hungary’s Viktor Orbán’s Electoral Manipulation

After returning to power in 2010, Viktor Orbán and his Fidesz party reshaped Hungary’s electoral system in ways that critics argue favored the governing party while preserving competitive elections. He did this by:

• Redrawing electoral districts to favor Fidesz.
• Changing election laws without bipartisan agreement.s
• Expanding government influence over public media, giving the ruling party disproportionate coverage.

Viktor Orbán conceded defeat in 2026, ending 16 years in power.

Election Manipulation in Russia under Vladimir Putin

Since becoming president in 2000, Vladimir Putin has transformed Russia from a competitive electoral system into one in which elections largely serve to ratify the existing leadership. Methods have included:

Russian elections continue to be held regularly, but most political scientists classify Russia today as an authoritarian regime rather than an electoral democracy.

How Nicolás Maduro Stole Venezuela’s Vote

Under Nicolás Maduro, Venezuela has moved from a flawed democracy to an authoritarian state in which elections remain but are widely viewed as neither free nor fair. Major tactics have included:

• Disqualifying leading opposition candidates from running.
• Arresting or intimidating opposition politicians and activists.
• Using state-controlled media to dominate political messaging.
• Manipulating election administration through government-aligned electoral authorities.
• Abusing public resources to support the ruling party.
• Suppressing independent election observers and limiting international monitoring

The 2024 presidential election drew widespread international condemnation after electoral authorities declared Maduro the winner without publishing complete precinct-level results. Independent observers, opposition groups, and several democratic governments argued that available evidence indicated the opposition candidate, Edmundo González Urrutia, had won by a substantial margin. Many countries therefore declined to recognize the official results as reflecting the will of Venezuelan voters.

On January 3, 2026, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, were captured during a U.S. military operation in Caracas. They were transported to New York and pleaded not guilty in federal court to four counts of narco-terrorism, cocaine trafficking, and weapons charges. They are still in a New York prison.

Acting President Delcy Rodríguez runs Venezuela on the ground, following the January 2026 capture and imprisonment of former President Nicolás Maduro by United States forces. However, investigative reports and foreign policy watchers indicate that U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the Trump administration effectively dictate the nation’s high-level finances. government policies, and oil revenues from Washington.

Election Misinformation in the United States

America continues to hold competitive elections, but disputes over election administration, efforts to overturn certified results, restrictive voting laws in some states, and persistent claims of widespread fraud have weakened public confidence. The danger is not simply losing trust in one election; it is losing trust in elections themselves. And that is one of Donald Trump’s major aims to influences the 2026 mid-term elections. He had considerable experience in trying to influence the outcome of our elections, hasn’t he.

The Brennan Center’s research shows that election deniers are working to undermine confidence in our elections and suppress turnout, particularly among voters of color and other historically marginalized communities. The misinformation they propagate — including lies about the voting process and election workers — can have significant consequences for people’s ability to vote and trust in our elections. This is the central issue facing the citizens of the U.S. as they participate in the November 2026 mid term elections.

Donald Trump’s attempt to remain in power after losing the 2020 election provides the clearest American example of electoral manipulation. Trump’s July 16th speech to the nation was a sore loser trying to influence the integrity of elections in the U.S. The New York Times wrote that Trump exaggerated claims about election vulnerabilities in his speech. In a report by the right-wing Heritage Foundation, it was noted that in the last three national elections less than 100 non-residents tried to cast a ballot. Trump goes wild over the fact he thinks millions of non-residents vote in our elections.

Trump repeatedly claimed that the election had been stolen, although his campaign and its allies failed to substantiate widespread fraud in court. He pressured state officials to alter or delay certified results. In a January 2, 2021, telephone call, he asked Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to “find” enough votes to reverse Joe Biden’s victory in the state.

Trump and his advisers also supported an effort to assemble alternative slates of electors in states Biden had won. They then pressured Vice President Mike Pence to reject or delay the counting of legitimate electoral votes on January 6. The Justice Department’s 2023 indictment alleged that these efforts were part of a conspiracy to obstruct the certification and overturn the lawful result. The House January 6 Committee reached a similar conclusion. In the trials of Donald Trump, he escaped conviction in the Georgia and Washington D.C. cases.

The pattern continued into Trump’s second presidency. His administration sought greater federal control over election rules, including an executive order restricting aspects of mail voting that became the subject of litigation. In July 2026, he dismissed the remaining members of the bipartisan Election Assistance Commission, the agency that assists state election officials and certifies voting systems, only months before the midterm elections.

The danger is larger than any single disputed rule. Once a political movement teaches its supporters that elections are legitimate only when its candidate wins, democratic competition becomes almost impossible.

Trump is insisting that Congress pass the Save America Act. This act threatens the freedom to vote, according to the group Advancing Democracy Through Law. You should hear him spout and shout, insisting that the Act be passed. And the reason politicians don’t want the Act is that it’s the only way they can win elections by cheating! Donald, take a look in the mirror.

2. Weaponized Government

In democratic systems, government institutions enforce laws impartially. In authoritarian systems, those same institutions become instruments for rewarding allies and punishing critics.

Examples of How authoritarians Weaponized Governments

How Russia’s Putin Weaponized Its History

Since coming to power in 2000, Vladimir Putin has used the state to reshape Russia’s historical narrative into a political weapon. Key methods include:

• Rewriting school curricula to portray Putin as restoring Russian greatness.
• Glorifying the Soviet victory in World War II while downplaying Stalin’s repression.
• Criminalizing historical dissent, including laws against “falsifying history” or “discrediting” Russia’s military.
• Closing independent historical organizations, most notably Memorial, which documented Stalin-era political repression.
• Using history to justify foreign policy, including portraying Ukraine as an artificial state and invoking historical claims to legitimize the 2014 annexation of Crimea and the 2022 invasion of Ukraine.
• By controlling historical memory, the Kremlin has fostered nationalism, weakened public criticism, and provided ideological justification for authoritarian rule.

How Turkey’s Erdogan Weaponizes Its Justice System

Following the failed 2016 coup attempt, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan dramatically expanded executive control over Turkey’s judiciary. Key methods include:

How Nicaragua Weaponizes State Institutions to Eliminate Domestic Dissent

President Daniel Ortega and Vice President Rosario Murillo have transformed nearly every major state institution into an instrument of political control. Key methods include:

• Arresting nearly every viable opposition presidential candidate before the 2021 election.
• Closing thousands of nongovernmental organizations, universities, and civic associations.
• Revoking citizenship from hundreds of political opponents, journalists, clergy, and activists.
• Confiscating private and organizational property belonging to critics of the government.
• Using police, prosecutors, courts, and electoral authorities to suppress dissent.
• Driving independent media into exile while criminalizing critical reporting.

Rather than relying solely on overt repression, the Ortega government has systematically coordinated the judiciary, legislature, police, electoral authorities, and regulatory agencies to eliminate organized political opposition.

Weaponization of the Government in the United States

Political rhetoric in the Trump administration, especially in Trump 2.0, increasingly includes promises to prosecute opponents, purge career civil servants, expand executive authority, and use federal agencies against perceived enemies. Whether these proposals become policy remains contested, but the willingness to view government as a political weapon rather than a neutral institution represents a significant democratic warning sign.

Trump has frequently described government not as an impartial instrument of law, but as a weapon that has been used against him and should be redirected against his opponents.

Trump also moved to weaken the independence of the federal civil service. His administration fired thousands of federal employees and later expanded a system allowing as many as 50,000 career positions to lose traditional job protections. Such changes make it easier to remove professional employees and replace them with officials personally loyal to the president.

At the Justice Department, Trump appointees weakened the Public Integrity Section, which had investigated political corruption since the post-Watergate era. The department also pursued investigations of Trump critics, including former FBI Director James Comey, Senator Adam Schiff and New York Attorney General Letitia James. Some of those efforts were blocked or dismissed by courts, but the use of federal investigative authority itself sent a message: opposition to the president could carry personal and legal consequences.

This is how institutional neutrality erodes. The government does not have to imprison every opponent. It only has to make opposition costly enough that others begin to censor themselves.

3. Press Intimidation

Authoritarian governments rarely eliminate independent journalism immediately. They first delegitimize it.

Reporters become “enemies.” Independent media are labeled dishonest, corrupt, or traitorous. Economic pressure, lawsuits, regulatory threats, and public harassment gradually shrink the space for independent reporting.

Examples of Authoritarians Intimidating the Press:

Press intimidation in Hungary

During Viktor Orbán’s years in power, Hungary demonstrated how a government can weaken independent journalism without imposing an obvious, nationwide censorship system. The government and its allies:

• Converted public broadcasting into a government messaging system, while marginalizing opposition voices.
• Concentrated private media ownership among businesspeople and foundations closely connected to Orbán’s Fidesz party.
• Directed government advertising toward friendly outlets, depriving critical organizations of an important source of revenue.
• Restricted journalists’ access to public information and government officials.
• Used regulatory and licensing decisions against independent broadcasters, including the refusal to renew Klubrádió’s frequency.
• Conducted smear campaigns portraying critical journalists as foreign agents, political activists or enemies of Hungary.
• Used surveillance against investigative reporters, including journalists identified as targets of Pegasus spyware.

Reporters Without Borders estimated that Fidesz-aligned interests came to control approximately 80 percent of Hungary’s media landscape. The resulting system depended less on mass imprisonment than on ownership, patronage, selective regulation and economic pressure.

Russia’s Press intimidation

Vladimir Putin’s government has moved progressively from controlling major television networks to criminalizing nearly all meaningful independent reporting. Russian authorities have:

• Taken control of, closed or blocked independent news organizations.
• Designated journalists and outlets as “foreign agents” or “undesirable organizations.”
• Criminalized reporting that contradicts official accounts of the war against Ukraine.
• Prosecuted journalists under laws concerning terrorism, extremism, treason and military “disinformation.”
• Imprisoned reporters and conducted secretive or closed trials.
• Forced hundreds of journalists into exile.
• Harassed the relatives of exiled reporters and filed charges against journalists in absentia.
• Expanded online censorship, internet restrictions and state surveillance.

The 2022 laws prohibiting supposedly false information about the armed forces made independent war reporting especially dangerous. News organizations stopped operating inside Russia, and reporters faced severe prison sentences for describing events that the Kremlin denied or characterized differently.

By 2026, the Committee to Protect Journalists reported that hundreds of Russian journalists had been driven abroad and that at least 30 journalists were imprisoned in connection with their work. Exile has not guaranteed safety: Russian authorities have continued using criminal cases, financial restrictions and family harassment against reporters outside the country.

Turkey’s Repression of Journalism

Under Recep Tayyip Erdo?an, Turkey has repeatedly used the police, courts, broadcast regulators and national-security laws to intimidate journalists. The government has:

• Arrested journalists on terrorism, coup-related and anti-state charges.
• Prosecuted reporters for “insulting the president.”
• Used lengthy pretrial detention, imposing punishment before a case reaches judgment.
• Raided journalists’ homes and newsrooms.
• Closed or seized media organizations, particularly following the failed coup attempt of July 2016.
• Fined or suspended critical television broadcasters through the media regulator.
• Restricted online news and social-media content.
• Targeted reporters covering Kurdish politics, opposition demonstrations and government corruption.
• Used physical force and detention against journalists covering protests.

• In 2016, following the attempted coup, Turkey imprisoned scores of journalists and shut down more than 100 news organizations. Although the number imprisoned at any particular time has fluctuated, arrests, retrials and criminal investigations have remained powerful instruments of intimidation. During opposition protests in 2025, Turkish authorities detained journalists, raided homes, injured reporters and imposed penalties on broadcasters covering the unrest. More arrests continued in 2026, illustrating that the threat extends beyond imprisonment to the disruption of routine newsgathering. Turkey represents a model of judicialized repression: journalism is converted into evidence of terrorism, disinformation, presidential insult or disloyalty, allowing political intimidation to appear as ordinary law enforcement.

United States Press Intimidation

The First Amendment remains a powerful protection, yet repeated attacks on journalists, lawsuits against media organizations, and efforts to portray unfavorable reporting as inherently illegitimate have increased polarization around trusted sources of information. Democracies depend upon citizens having access to independent facts, even when those facts are politically inconvenient.

Press intimidation in the United States faces a troubling escalation, marked by federal subpoenas and home raids targeting journalists. This landscape is tracked by the Committee to Protect Journalists and Reporters Without Borders.

Trump has spent years attempting to delegitimize independent journalism. In 2017, he called major news organizations the “enemy of the American people,” transforming an attack on particular stories into an attack on the legitimacy of the press itself.

The second Trump administration has increasingly relied on federal subpoenas and investigations to target journalists who report on classified or internal information, drawing sharp rebukes from press freedom advocates

Trump has turned words such as “fake news” and “enemy of the people” into rallying cries and insults meant to undermine the free press — a staple of democracy (Poynter, 2026).

During his second administration, that pressure increasingly involved governmental authority. Trump-aligned regulators opened investigations and license reviews involving media organizations. ABC-owned stations called an accelerated Federal Communications Commission review of their licenses politically motivated and unconstitutional. In July 2026, the Justice Department subpoenaed four New York Times reporters after their reporting about security concerns involving a Qatari-provided Air Force One.

Not every criticism of journalism constitutes authoritarianism, and presidents are entitled to dispute inaccurate reporting. The warning sign appears when a president combines public vilification, legal threats and regulatory power to intimidate disfavored news organizations.

The purpose is not necessarily to silence every journalist. It is to create uncertainty about the personal, financial and legal costs of publishing information the government does not want disclosed. It is a mainstay of autocratic rule. We see no signs that Trump is lowering the temperature on his assault on the press.

4. Normalization of Extremism

Perhaps the most subtle warning sign is not the appearance of extremist ideas, but their normalization.

Ideas once considered beyond democratic boundaries become ordinary political discourse. Public officials excuse political violence, tolerate conspiracy theories, or portray opponents as existential enemies rather than fellow citizens.

Examples of Authoritarian Normalization of Extremism

Fascist Italy’s Normilized Extremism

Benito Mussolini’s movement normalized political extremism by presenting violence, militarism and absolute loyalty as necessary remedies for national weakness. Before Mussolini became prime minister in October 1922, Fascist Blackshirt squads attacked socialist offices, labor unions, newspapers, cooperatives and local governments. Their violence was not incidental to fascism; it helped destroy organized opposition and persuaded conservative elites that Mussolini could restore order. Once in government, the Fascists transformed extremist practices into official institutions:

talian Fascism demonstrates how extremism can become normal when political violence is excused as public order, militant nationalism is treated as civic virtue and state institutions adopt the movement’s ideology.

Nazi Germany: The Deadly Consequences of Nazi Ideology

Nazi Germany shows the most catastrophic consequences of extremist normalization. Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party turned racial antisemitism, conspiracy theories and fantasies of national purification into governing principles. After Hitler became chancellor on January 30, 1933, the Nazis rapidly transformed Germany from a multiparty republic into a one-party dictatorship. Extremism was normalized through a succession of escalating measures:

The Holocaust evolved from exclusion and persecution into organized mass murder. Nazi Germany and its allies and collaborators murdered six million European Jews. The regime also persecuted and killed millions of others, including Roma and Sinti, people with disabilities, Soviet prisoners of war, Poles, political opponents and other targeted groups.

The central warning is that genocide did not begin with killing centers. It developed through propaganda, legal discrimination, professional exclusion, confiscation, segregation, deportation and the progressive removal of moral and institutional restraints. The “Final Solution” was the culmination of a process that began with systematic persecution in 1933.

Right-Wing Extremism in Hungary

Hungary under Viktor Orbán should not be equated with Fascist Italy or Nazi Germany. It has not reproduced their systems of mass political violence or extermination. The relevant comparison is the process by which exclusionary nationalist ideas move from the political margins into government rhetoric, public policy and mainstream debate. During the Orbán era, the government and its allies normalized elements of far-right politics through several methods:

• Ethnic nationalism. The government increasingly defined Hungary as a culturally Christian and ethnically coherent nation rather than a pluralistic political community.
• Anti-migrant campaigns. Refugees and migrants were repeatedly associated with crime, terrorism, cultural invasion and threats to Hungarian women.
• Government-sponsored fear campaigns. Billboards, public consultations and state-aligned media amplified messages portraying migration and outside influence as existential dangers.
• Attacks on George Soros. Government campaigns depicted the Hungarian-born Jewish philanthropist as the organizer of a hidden international effort to weaken Hungary. Critics argued that these campaigns drew upon longstanding antisemitic conspiracy imagery, even when government officials denied antisemitic intent.
• Hostility toward LGBTQ people. Political rhetoric and legislation as threats to children, families and national continuity.
• Stigmatization of Roma, Muslims and civil-society organizations. Minority groups and human-rights advocates were regularly depicted as social burdens, foreign agents or obstacles to national sovereignty.
• Historical revisionism. Official narratives sometimes minimized Hungary’s responsibility for the persecution and deportation of Hungarian Jews during the Holocaust while rehabilitating controversial nationalist figures.
• Absorption of far-right themes. Fidesz adopted issues and rhetoric once associated primarily with Jobbik and other radical-nationalist movements, reducing the distance between the mainstream right and the extremist right.

The Council of Europe reported that Hungarian public discourse had grown increasingly xenophobic, divisive and antagonistic, particularly toward migrants, refugees and LGBTQ people. Freedom House likewise documented inflammatory government claims presenting migrants as security and sexual threats.

Hungary illustrates normalization without full totalitarianism. The danger lies not in claiming that contemporary Hungary is Nazi Germany, but in recognizing familiar mechanisms: defining national belonging narrowly, converting minorities into threats, repeating conspiratorial claims and using government power to shift the boundaries of acceptable public discourse.

United States Extremism

Political rhetoric has become increasingly apocalyptic. Language describing opponents as traitors, enemies of the people, or existential threats has become commonplace. Political violence, once universally condemned, is more frequently rationalized depending upon who commits it.

The danger lies less in isolated incidents than in society gradually becoming accustomed to them.

Trump has repeatedly blurred the boundary between mainstream politics and political extremism.

Trump also transformed people prosecuted for the Capitol attack into political martyrs. At rallies, he referred to imprisoned January 6 defendants as “hostages,” played a recording of defendants singing the national anthem and promised to pardon them.

On January 20, 2025, his first day back in office, Trump granted clemency to nearly all of the more than 1,500 people charged in connection with January 6. The order included people convicted of assaulting police officers and granted clemency to leaders of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers who had been convicted of seditious conspiracy.

The White House later described the recipients as “patriotic Americans,” recasting an effort to obstruct the constitutional transfer of power as an act of national loyalty. (The White House)

This is how extremism becomes normalized. Conduct once considered disqualifying is redefined as courageous. Convicted participants become heroes. Political violence is condemned or excused depending on whether the perpetrators support the leader.

In my book, The Trump Files, I argue that the U.S. media and political establishment have actively “normalized” Donald Trump by trivializing his criminal actions, bigotry, and authoritarian rhetoric. I contend that treating Trump’s disruptive behavior as ordinary erodes the foundations of American democracy.

My core arguments regarding the normalization of Trump include:

• Media Complicity: I criticize the media for treating Trump’s attempts to undermine liberal democracy—such as his election denialism and use of executive power—as standard political theater rather than threats to the constitutional order.
• Trivializing Illegal Actions: Pundits and institutions have trivialized Trump’s felony and civil convictions, conditioning the public to accept corruption and authoritarian tendencies as normal.
• Erosion of Institutions: Trump’s utilization of political spectacle, the hollowing out of federal scientific/research agencies, and the scapegoating of opponents as mechanisms slowly degrade democratic values without sparking immediate resistance.

5. Transfer of Power Crises

Perhaps no democratic norm is more important than the peaceful transfer of power.

Authoritarian leaders often refuse to accept defeat. They claim elections were stolen, pressure institutions to overturn results, or encourage supporters to reject legitimate outcomes. I’ve linked articles about election fraud in Belarus, Venezuela, and Russia to highlight contemporary examples of leaders refusing to accept defeat in elections.

Authoritarian examples of Transfer of Power

Fraudulent Presidential Election in Belarus

Belarus’s presidential election of August 9, 2020, illustrates how an authoritarian government can manufacture an electoral victory and then use state violence to suppress the public response.

President Alexander Lukashenko had ruled Belarus since 1994. Before the 2020 vote, authorities detained or excluded important opposition candidates, intimidated activists and restricted independent election monitoring. Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya entered the race after her husband, an opposition candidate, was imprisoned.

The government-controlled Central Election Commission announced that Lukashenko had received approximately 80 percent of the vote. The opposition rejected the result, alleging that Tsikhanouskaya had actually won. The transfer of power was obstructed through:

• Excluding and imprisoning potential challengers
• Controlling election commissions
• Restricting independent observers
• Conducting nontransparent vote counting
• Pressuring election workers
• Shutting down internet access
• Arresting protesters and opposition organizers
• Forcing leading opponents into prison or exile

An OSCE investigation concluded that the election was not transparent, free or fair and documented credible allegations of widespread irregularities and serious human-rights violations. Mass demonstrations followed the announced result. Instead of permitting a recount, independent investigation or new election, the government used police violence, detention and reported torture to preserve Lukashenko’s rule. Belarus demonstrates electoral fabrication followed by coercive consolidation: the government announced the result it required and then treated objections to that result as threats to the state.

Fraudulent Elections in Venezuela

Venezuela under Nicolás Maduro illustrates how an authoritarian system can preserve electoral institutions while making them incapable of removing the incumbent.

Before the July 28, 2024, presidential election, the government disqualified María Corina Machado, the opposition’s chosen candidate. The opposition ultimately rallied behind Edmundo González Urrutia. The government maintained decisive advantages through:

• Disqualifying opposition candidates
• Arresting campaign workers and activists
• Controlling the national electoral authority
• Using state resources for Maduro’s campaign
• Dominating television and other mass media
• Restricting overseas voting
• Changing or obstructing polling arrangements
• Intimidating witnesses and election observers
• Refusing to publish complete polling-station results

Venezuela’s National Electoral Council declared Maduro the winner but did not release the detailed polling-station-level results needed to substantiate that announcement. The Carter Center concluded that the election failed to meet international standards and could not be considered democratic. It also said it could not verify the official result.

The opposition collected and published copies of polling-station tally sheets that it said showed González winning decisively. The government responded with arrests, repression and legal action against opposition leaders rather than a transparent verification process.

The Carter Center subsequently described Maduro’s victory claim as false. Venezuela therefore represents institutionalized electoral authoritarianism. Citizens vote, but the bodies responsible for registering candidates, counting ballots, hearing disputes and certifying results are not sufficiently independent to compel the government to surrender power.

Russian Election Fraud

Russia’s electoral system under Vladimir Putin operates less as a genuine mechanism for transferring power than as a recurring demonstration of regime control. The Russian government has progressively eliminated the conditions necessary for competitive elections:

• Serious challengers have been imprisoned, disqualified, exiled or otherwise excluded.
• Alexei Navalny, Putin’s most prominent opponent, was imprisoned and died in custody in February 2024.
• Independent media have been closed, blocked or forced abroad.
• Antiwar speech has been criminalized.
• Government employees and dependent institutions face pressure to produce turnout and support.
• Independent monitoring has been severely restricted.
• Electronic and multiday voting have reduced transparency.
• Voting has been conducted in occupied Ukrainian territories.
• The government declined to invite OSCE observers for the 2024 presidential election.

The OSCE said Russia’s refusal to invite observers violated its international commitments and prevented an impartial assessment of the election. Putin was officially credited with more than 87 percent of the vote in March 2024. But the deeper problem was not simply what happened during ballot counting.

The government had already controlled who could run, what voters could hear, which organizations could monitor the process and whether open opposition was legally possible. Russia demonstrates preemptive electoral control: the regime neutralizes viable alternatives before election day, making the announced result largely predictable.

United States Concept of Transfer of Power Interrupted

Donald Trump’s conduct after the 2020 United States election belongs in a different category from Belarus, Russia and Venezuela.

The 2020 election itself was not found to have been fraudulently awarded to Joe Biden. Trump and his allies made numerous allegations of widespread fraud, but recounts, audits, election officials and court proceedings did not establish fraud sufficient to alter the result.

The authoritarian warning concerns Trump’s effort to reverse a legitimate electoral defeat, not proof that the underlying election was stolen.

After the election, Trump and his allies:

• Repeated claims of widespread fraud that were unsupported by sufficient evidence
• Pressured state officials to change or reject certified results
• Asked Georgia’s secretary of state to “find” enough votes to reverse the state’s result
• Encouraged state legislators to intervene
• Supported the creation of alternative electoral-certificate slates
• Pressured Vice President Mike Pence to obstruct or delay certification
• Sought to use the Justice Department to lend credibility to fraud claims
• Promoted a political campaign that culminated in the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol

A federal indictment alleged that Trump and co-conspirators used knowingly false fraud claims in an effort to overturn the legitimate result. An indictment states accusations rather than a judicial finding of guilt, and the federal case did not produce a trial verdict.

This distinction matters. In Belarus, Venezuela and Russia, incumbents controlled state institutions strongly enough to predetermine or impose the outcome. In the United States in 2020, courts, state officials, Congress and other institutions ultimately resisted the effort, and Biden took office on January 20, 2021.

Trump’s conduct nevertheless provides an example of failed authoritarian-style election subversion: an incumbent attempted to remain in power by delegitimizing the count, pressuring officials and obstructing certification, but institutional resistance prevented the attempted reversal from succeeding.

The events surrounding the 2020 election and January 6, 2021, demonstrated that even long-established democracies are vulnerable when losing political leaders refuse to concede.

The constitutional system ultimately held, but Ben-Ghiat argues that the true test of democratic resilience is whether peaceful transfers of power remain unquestioned in future elections.

Trump refused to concede after losing the election. He spread claims of widespread fraud, pressured state legislators and election officials, encouraged the creation of alternative elector slates and urged Vice President Pence to interfere with the electoral count. He still claims the election was stolen from him.

On January 6, Trump summoned supporters to Washington, told them the country was being stolen and directed them toward the Capitol, where Congress was meeting to certify Biden’s victory. After rioters breached the building, assaulted police officers and forced lawmakers into hiding, Trump waited hours before forcefully telling them to leave.

The House January 6 committee concluded that the attack occurred because Trump had disseminated false allegations, pressured public officials and attempted to block the constitutional certification process. Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation likewise alleged that Trump knowingly pursued unlawful means of overturning the election.

The constitutional system ultimately held. State officials certified the results. Courts rejected unsupported claims. Pence counted the legitimate electoral votes, and Congress reconvened after the attack.

But survival should not be confused with safety.

The United States lost its long term status as a liberal democracy—for the first time in more than fifty years. This was reported in the V-Dem Institute Democracy Report 2026 (V-Dem Institute).

The next transfer-of-power crisis may therefore begin from a more precarious position than the last one. Although the next U.S. election is not a presidential one, Donald Trump has been insisting on election oversight, and rules affecting who can vote since the beginning of Trump 2.0.

Incremental Erosion

One lesson emerges from comparative history.

Countries rarely wake up one morning to discover democracy has disappeared. Instead, democratic norms weaken incrementally. Institutions are tested repeatedly. Citizens adapt to changes that would once have seemed unacceptable.

Each individual step appears manageable.

Together, they reshape the political system.

History does not guarantee that the United States will follow the path of Hungary, Turkey, or Russia. Nor does it guarantee that it will avoid it. The 2026 U.S. elections is going to be the most recent test of American democracy.

Democracy survives not because constitutions exist on paper but because citizens, public officials, judges, journalists, and political leaders continue to defend democratic norms even when doing so is politically inconvenient.

That is Ben-Ghiat’s central warning.

The question is not whether America has already become authoritarian.

The question is whether Americans recognize these warning signs early enough to prevent authoritarianism from becoming entrenched.

Looking Back

We’ve explored the approaches and tactics that authoritarians use to gain and hold onto power. This chart summarizes three authoritarians from who had been in power since the 1930s to the present time: Hitler in Germany, Orbán in Hungary, and Trump in the United States.

Warning Sign	Hitler (Nazi Germany)	Orbán (Hungary)	Trump (United States)
Electoral Manipulation	Banned opposition parties, dismantled electoral competition, manipulated elections	Altered electoral rules, gerrymandered districts, restricted opposition	Sought to overturn election results, pressured officials, promoted fraud claims, changed voting rules, undermined trust
Weaponized Government	Used state to eliminate opponents, reward loyalists, centralize power	Rewarded allies, punished critics, weakened judiciary and civil service	Promised retribution, purged civil servants, used agencies against critics, weakened institutional independence
Press Intimidation	Suppressed independent journalism, established state propaganda, criminalized dissent	Delegitimized and pressured press, regulatory threats, lawsuits	Labeled press as “enemy,” legal threats, regulatory pressure, delegitimized independent journalism
Normalization of Extremism	Mainstreamed extremist, racist, and violent ideologies	Normalized right-wing extremism, nationalist rhetoric	Excused political violence, pardoned extremists, recast criminal actions as patriotic, blurred lines with extremism
Transfer of Power Crises	Eliminated peaceful transfer, outlawed opposition, totalitarian regime	Structured system to ensure continued rule, undermined fair transfer	Refused to concede, incited January 6 attack, pressured officials, challenged peaceful transfer of power

This post supports a civic inquiry seminar based on inquiry and cooperative learning strategies. It highlights the importance of identifying five warning signs of democratic erosion identified by historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat: electoral manipulation, weaponized government, press intimidation, normalization of extremism, and transfer of power crises. The content draws parallels between these signs and recent developments in the United States, particularly under Donald Trump. The discussion emphasizes the necessity of recognizing these signs to safeguard democracy, as it has eroded incrementally rather than collapsing outright, showcasing the risks tied to political actions and societal complacency.

As political norms weaken, we must be vigilant to recognize these signs early, ensuring that democratic values and peaceful transitions of power are preserved amid increasing polarization and extremism

1. Nord, Marina, David Altman, Tiago Fernandes, Ana Good God, and Staffan I. Lindberg. 2026. Democracy Report 2026: Unraveling The Democratic Era? University of Gothenburg: V-Dem Institute. ↩︎
2. The Global Thinking Project (GTP) is an international educational program co-created by Dr. Jack Hassard (Georgia State University) that links students globally via the internet to study environmental science and promote citizen diplomacy. ↩︎