HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019286.jpg
2.24 MB
Extraction Summary
1
People
1
Organizations
6
Locations
4
Events
3
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Report or book chapter
File Size:
2.24 MB
Summary
This document, titled "Back to the Future," outlines how modern authoritarian regimes initially maintained power through subtle means like economic openness and controlled media pluralism rather than overt brutality. It argues that while these regimes made concessions to democratic norms post-Cold War, they are now reverting to older, more repressive tactics, exemplified by Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
People (1)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Tyler Roylance |
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Freedom House |
Timeline (4 events)
Cold War
Syrian civil war
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine
annexation of Crimea
Relationships (3)
→
→
→
→
→
→
Key Quotes (3)
"Until recently, a distinguishing feature of modern authoritarianism was the ruling group’s ability to consolidate political power without resorting to the brutal tactics that defined the mainstream dictatorships of the 20th century."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019286.jpg
Quote #1
"Freedom House’s Tyler Roylance has described a “common set of concessions” that 21st-century authoritarians made to the prevailing democratic ethos"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019286.jpg
Quote #2
"The most extreme departure from the modern authoritarian policy... was Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and annexation of Crimea."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019286.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (4,281 characters)
BREAKING DOWN DEMOCRACY: Goals, Strategies, and Methods of Modern Authoritarians
Chapter 8
Back to the Future
Until recently, a distinguishing feature of modern
authoritarianism was the ruling group’s ability to con-
solidate political power without resorting to the brutal
tactics that defined the mainstream dictatorships of
the 20th century.
authoritarianism was the ruling group’s ability to con-
solidate political power without resorting to the brutal
tactics that defined the mainstream dictatorships of
the 20th century.
The political leadership maintained control of the
commanding heights of the media while tolerating
a small group of critical outlets as a safety valve for
dissent and in order to tout the existence of diverse
opinions in the news. Reformist nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs) were allowed to operate, but
not to grow or gain traction. The regime used violence
against its critics, but only sparingly, targeting a few
dissidents or independent journalists as a deterrent to
others. And they were careful to keep the number of
political prisoners to a minimum.
commanding heights of the media while tolerating
a small group of critical outlets as a safety valve for
dissent and in order to tout the existence of diverse
opinions in the news. Reformist nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs) were allowed to operate, but
not to grow or gain traction. The regime used violence
against its critics, but only sparingly, targeting a few
dissidents or independent journalists as a deterrent to
others. And they were careful to keep the number of
political prisoners to a minimum.
Perhaps most importantly, modern authoritarian
regimes generally refrained from overt acts of hostility
toward their neighbors. Some, such as China, boasted
of a policy that sought harmonious, mutually ben-
eficial relations with other regional states. Turkey
similarly claimed a policy of “zero problems” with its
neighbors in the period before the Syrian civil war.
regimes generally refrained from overt acts of hostility
toward their neighbors. Some, such as China, boasted
of a policy that sought harmonious, mutually ben-
eficial relations with other regional states. Turkey
similarly claimed a policy of “zero problems” with its
neighbors in the period before the Syrian civil war.
Freedom House’s Tyler Roylance has described a
“common set of concessions” that 21st-century au-
thoritarians made to the prevailing democratic ethos
in the wake of the Cold War, when these regimes were
balancing domestic political control with the need
for deeper integration into the global diplomatic and
economic systems:
“common set of concessions” that 21st-century au-
thoritarians made to the prevailing democratic ethos
in the wake of the Cold War, when these regimes were
balancing domestic political control with the need
for deeper integration into the global diplomatic and
economic systems:
• Economic openness: Rather than attempting
to preserve a closed, command, or autarkic
economy, the typical “modern authoritarian”
regime cultivated extensive connections with
the outside world, creating a sense of freedom
and prosperity. However, state enterprises and
crony tycoons retained a dominant position, and
pliant legal systems allowed the leadership and
other corrupt officials to set and routinely reset
the terms of economic participation for foreign
companies, investors, and local entrepreneurs.
to preserve a closed, command, or autarkic
economy, the typical “modern authoritarian”
regime cultivated extensive connections with
the outside world, creating a sense of freedom
and prosperity. However, state enterprises and
crony tycoons retained a dominant position, and
pliant legal systems allowed the leadership and
other corrupt officials to set and routinely reset
the terms of economic participation for foreign
companies, investors, and local entrepreneurs.
• Pluralistic media: Formal prepublication censor-
ship and media monopolies were abandoned in
most cases, clearing the way for a proliferation
of commercialized, well-produced, and often
entertaining media outlets. But the state and its
agents retained direct or indirect control of key
sectors, manipulated mainstream news cover-
age, and kept truly independent journalism on
the margins of the information landscape.
ship and media monopolies were abandoned in
most cases, clearing the way for a proliferation
of commercialized, well-produced, and often
entertaining media outlets. But the state and its
agents retained direct or indirect control of key
sectors, manipulated mainstream news cover-
age, and kept truly independent journalism on
the margins of the information landscape.
• Political competition: Most regimes allowed
multiparty systems to emerge, and held regular
elections, but opposition parties were fabricat-
ed, coopted, or defanged in practice, allowing
the ruling group to retain a de facto monopoly
on power.
multiparty systems to emerge, and held regular
elections, but opposition parties were fabricat-
ed, coopted, or defanged in practice, allowing
the ruling group to retain a de facto monopoly
on power.
• Civil society: Nongovernmental organizations
were permitted to operate, but they were kept
under close watch and forced to compete with
state-sponsored groups. Organizations focusing
on apolitical topics like public health or educa-
tion often received less scrutiny than critical
human rights activists, who were variously
belittled, harassed, or suppressed.
were permitted to operate, but they were kept
under close watch and forced to compete with
state-sponsored groups. Organizations focusing
on apolitical topics like public health or educa-
tion often received less scrutiny than critical
human rights activists, who were variously
belittled, harassed, or suppressed.
• Rule of law: Twentieth-century authoritarian sta-
ples like martial law, curfews, mass arrests, and
summary executions were largely left behind,
and force began to be used more selectively,
so that most of the population rarely experi-
enced state brutality. Dissidents were punished
through the legal system, with its vaguely word-
ed laws and obedient judges, and in cases where
extralegal violence was used, state authorship
was either hidden or not acknowledged. Only
certain ethnic minorities faced naked military
force or deadly police tactics.¹
ples like martial law, curfews, mass arrests, and
summary executions were largely left behind,
and force began to be used more selectively,
so that most of the population rarely experi-
enced state brutality. Dissidents were punished
through the legal system, with its vaguely word-
ed laws and obedient judges, and in cases where
extralegal violence was used, state authorship
was either hidden or not acknowledged. Only
certain ethnic minorities faced naked military
force or deadly police tactics.¹
While more calibrated and less expansive
methods of repression are the defining feature
of modern authoritarianism, the past few years
have seen a reemergence of older methods that
undermine the illusions of pluralism, openness,
and integration into the global economy.
methods of repression are the defining feature
of modern authoritarianism, the past few years
have seen a reemergence of older methods that
undermine the illusions of pluralism, openness,
and integration into the global economy.
The most extreme departure from the modern
authoritarian policy of balancing national am-
bitions with participation in global governance
was Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and annexation
of Crimea. No breach of international standards
of that magnitude had been committed since
authoritarian policy of balancing national am-
bitions with participation in global governance
was Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and annexation
of Crimea. No breach of international standards
of that magnitude had been committed since
52
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019286
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019286
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document