Donald Trump’s Authoritarian Threat
Liberal democracies can take different forms, but all require that individuals be able to live without fear of government.
HAVANA TIMES – When we think of the imposition of an authoritarian regime, the image that usually comes to mind is that of an army seizing power, leaders overthrown and freedoms immediately suspended. In today’s world, however, authoritarianism is less and less imposed abruptly. The preferred style of autocratic leaders is to gradually erode democratic institutions. This allows them to concentrate more and more power while maintaining a democratic façade.
As Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt show in their book How Democracies Die, contemporary autocrats prefer to manipulate rather than abolish elections, to control parliaments rather than shut them down, to favour the press that supports them while silencing the press that denounces them. Oxford political scientist Nancy Bermeo describes this phenomenon as “autocratic coups”, to distinguish it from traditional “coups d’état”.
The evidence is everywhere. Viktor Orbán (the same man whom Trump proudly pointed to as an example of the support he has among foreign leaders, praising him as “one of the most respected men” and celebrating his intelligence) has turned Hungary into a full-blown autocratic regime. Erdoğan has manipulated elections, purged institutions and imprisoned journalists in Turkey.
Vladimir Putin, the great poisoner, has stung the opposition in Russia in every conceivable way, while continuing to hold elections. Chávez and Maduro in Venezuela, Ortega in Nicaragua, Duterte in the Philippines, Modi in India and Bukele (the “coolest dictator”) in El Salvador have employed similar tactics: capture of the judiciary, pressure and harassment of journalists, illegal surveillance mechanisms, and persecution of critics.
Whatever techniques each chooses (some poison, others imprison or exile), the result is always the same: a gradual weakening of democracy and a docile state at the service of one man, or a political elite.
Donald Trump has shown tendencies that align with several of the tactics used by these authoritarian leaders, albeit in a context where institutions are incomparably stronger and have so far offered resistance. Like Maduro after the 2015 parliamentary elections, Trump has sought to undermine the legitimacy of electoral processes. His refusal to accept defeat in 2020, his insistence on electoral fraud without evidence, and his attempt to reverse the results reflect tactics of political manipulation. Added to this is his central role in the assault on the Capitol on 6 January 2021, an unprecedented and direct attack on the heart of American democracy.
Most recently, in July 2024, at a rally in Florida, Trump declared that, if re-elected, in four years, there would be no need to vote again: “We will have fixed it so well that you won’t need to vote,” he told a crowd of Christians. Remember dictator Fidel Castro’s “elections for what?” Well, that.
Trump has not only expressed his intention to use the state apparatus to punish his critics, he has begun to do so. In his first days in office, he has used his power as commander-in-chief to attack his enemies inside and outside the government. He has announced the restructuring of the Kennedy Center’s board, appointing himself as chairman of the board, with the aim of reshaping the cultural arena and security policies to suit his agenda.
In an attempt to control institutional memory and government transparency, Trump removed the national archivist, a traditionally non-partisan figure, thus weakening institutional oversight and facilitating the consolidation of his unaccountable power. For the time being, it is his secretary of state, Marco Rubio, who assumes the position, while the guardian of former Republican president Nixon’s legacy, Jim Byron, has been appointed Senior Advisor at the National Archives. This position gives him a role in the management and oversight of historical and government documents, which has raised concerns about possible interventions in their preservation and public access.
Not only that, Trump has vowed to use the Justice Department against his opponents, which is characteristic of dictators like Chávez, Maduro and Ortega. He has expressed his desire to prosecute critics and opponents, including journalists and members of the deep state. Like Duterte or Modi, Trump has used aggressive and polarising rhetoric, presenting himself as the defender of the “real people” against corrupt elites, immigrants and political opponents.
And what about his attitude towards the press, the cornerstone of any democracy? Well, Trump has tried to undermine its credibility, calling it the “enemy of the people” while celebrating only media that fawn over him. He is unlikely to gain control of the press like Orbán or Putin, but like them he has encouraged disinformation and media polarisation. Suffice it to think that during his first presidency Donald Trump made more than 30,500 false or misleading claims, according to the Washington Post’s Fact Checker analysis. Most recently, he has vetoed the Associated Press (AP) news agency from his press conferences and from access to the Oval Office and Air Force One.
Not only that: he has just taken direct control of the press pool covering the president, displacing the White House Correspondents’ Association. In other words, he will now be able to select which journalists have access and which do not. This has obviously set off alarm bells about press freedom and reflects a common pattern of authoritarian leaders: silencing and punishing the press that criticises them. To put it another way, only media that support their narrative will be allowed to ask questions or report from the White House.
His strategy of media control has been documented by Maria Marron in Misogyny and Media in the Age of Trump. The book shows that Trump has followed the same pattern as modern autocrats: discrediting truthful information while flooding the public space with propaganda. His social media presence and his use of inflammatory speeches have enabled the radicalisation of his base. Politics seems to be reduced to unconditional loyalty to his figurehead. Only authoritarian leaders make loyalty an absolute requirement.
None of this should come as a surprise. After all, political science studies have shown Donald Trump’s authoritarian profile, as well as that of many of his white voters. To mention just one example, a study by Jonathan Knuckey and Komysha Hassan showed that authoritarianism was a determining factor in support for Trump during the 2016 presidential election. Using data from the American National Election Studies, the authors found that white voters with authoritarian tendencies were significantly more likely to support him, regardless of their educational level. The article concludes that Trump’s campaign not only activated authoritarianism as a key criterion in the voting decision, but did so like no other campaign that has been studied.
Now, if there is one thing authoritarian leaders share wholeheartedly, it is the use of fear as a political weapon, something viscerally antithetical to liberal democracy. Liberal democracies may take different forms, but they all require individuals to be able to live without fear of government. It is precisely fear that has allowed dictatorships like Cuba’s to violate rights, destroy the dignity of citizens, divide them into loyalists and enemies, and even condemn them to misery. Fear paralyses, demoralises, outrages.
The truth is that many Latinos who voted for Trump now not only regret it, but live in a permanent state of terror. Their family members are at risk of raids, expedited deportations and even confinement in Guantánamo without due process, measures that are more reminiscent of totalitarian regimes than liberal democracies. They live in fear of going out on the streets, going to the markets or working in the strawberry fields. Note that Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric, which criminalises Latinos, has direct consequences on the perception of the Latino community by so-called “real Americans”. Those with nativist instincts do not know whether the person in front of them has papers or not, so they discriminate or harass them equally.
In addition, a part of its Latino electorate has been affected by the elimination of Humanitarian Parole, [SEE ALSO] which allowed reunification with family members who were given a chance to escape totalitarian regimes. More than a few fear for their fate. And this is not to mention the fear that some are afraid to speak out publicly against Trump, and even feel compelled to praise him, in order to avoid criticism from the fanatics who once applauded Fidel Castro and now applaud Trump, no matter how much damage and suffering results from the narcissism and megalomania of both.
But it is not just immigrants that are affected by fear. The American scientific community has been under attack with funding cuts and censorship. Feeling anxious and distressed, some have begun to turn to their Canadian colleagues for help. Clinics and community health centres have closed and essential educational programmes have been defunded. Federal employees describe a climate of “fear” and “chaos” as they face a barrage of executive orders from Donald Trump and threats to their jobs from the Office of Personnel Management, now controlled by billionaire Elon Musk.
As The New York Times warns in its editorial Standing Up to Donald Trump’s Fear Tactics, Trump has used fear as a tool to intimidate opponents and deter resistance in Congress, the judiciary, the business sector, higher education and the media. His aim is to make the cost of challenging him intolerable and thus reduce the limits on his power. Is this not, after all, the aspiration of every authoritarian leader?
Many Americans, used to living in a system where, regardless of the party in power, they always felt exempt from the fear so characteristic of dictatorships, no longer feel safe. The question is not whether Trump will try to consolidate his power through authoritarian strategies, but whether America’s democratic institutions will be able to resist his advance.
And, as with that barn wall in Animal Farm, the rules may continue to change bit by bit, until, when citizens finally realize, the democracy they thought they were protecting will be gone and MAGA will by then be an acronym for Make Authoritarianism Great Again.
Translated by GH for Translating Cuba.