Why do so many prefer authoritarian governments?

“Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world

Like a Colossus, and we petty men

Walk under his huge legs and peep about

To find ourselves dishonorable graves.

Men at some time are masters of their fates.

The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,

But in ourselves, that we are underlings.”

Wm. Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, Act One Scene Two

It is insufficient to cast all blame on individuals such as Trump or Orban – though they are the beneficiaries – or to cite economic, social and civic problems – though they are the headliners and motivators. 

Internationally, a significant proportion – but still a minority – of those surveyed believe an authoritarian government would be preferable to a democratic government.  Authoritarian preferences are strongest among younger people: “only 57% of respondents aged 18 to 35 felt democracy was preferable to any other form of government, against 71% of those over 56, and 42% of younger people said they were supportive of military rule, against just 20% of older respondents.”[1].  Within the United States “roughly four-in-10 Americans thought the country was so far afield from normal that it was time for a leader who would break the rules to fix the system. Among Republicans, the number almost reached half. The same think tank also found a surge in support for resorting to political violence; in March 2021, pollsters found 15% of Americans agreed that violence was merited, a number that rose to 23% this year. Among Republicans, that number reaches 33%.”[2]  Even in Canada, “27 per cent of Canadians … do not reject the idea of authoritarianism for their country”[3]

What drives people away from democracy?  One response is that many believe that their vote or participation has no influence on government decisions or their civic life: two-thirds of Canadians believe that way, rising to three quarters of Canadians under 35.  Only a minority believe that government will act in the best interests of the people.  There are some differences by party affiliation, with Conservative Party supporters the most sceptical of government motives and NDP members the most trusting (but still only half).

Only 60 to 70 percent of eligible Canadians vote in federal elections.  Clearly those who do not vote should have no expectation of their views influencing government.  Indeed, one-third of those who did not vote in the last election stated that they were not interested in politics.  A slightly larger proportion reported they were too busy to vote.[4]

The lack of interest in politics, coupled with the widespread belief that participation in politics would have no influence on government policies or actions, certainly explains a lack of enthusiasm for democracy.  But how does one get from that lack of enthusiasm to the belief that an authoritarian government would be better?

Could it be the rise of populism?  Populism and authoritarianism are often lumped together.  With populism, citizens are offered clear and simple (often simplistic) ‘solutions’ to economic and social problems, and the easiest way to get those things done is to support a strong leader who can act without legislative or regulatory limitations.

Populism undoubtedly plays a part in this, but I submit that support for authoritarian solutions goes deeper than populism.  I think that democratic politicians have failed to communicate honestly with Canadians, sowing the doubt and scepticism that encourage approval for authoritarian measures.

I believe that most Canadians are capable of understanding that some problems are indeed nearly intractable and that solutions will be complex and costly.  But politicians generally do not present issues that way.

Consider the current government’s actions to combat climate change.  When the carbon pricing initiatives were announced, they were presented as having no net cost for most Canadians.  Yes they would pay more for fuel, but they would receive a rebate from the government that would cover the cost.  With the latest ratchetting up of the carbon tax, Canadians heating with oil (especially in Atlantic Canada) found that the carbon tax was going to amount to a significant net charge.  While a short term ‘hoist’ of the new charge may have resolved the short term issue, it is clear that Canadians were substantially misled about the impact of measures to fight climate change.  It becomes a reason not to trust politicians.

Consider the promise that the 2015 election would be the last fought under the ‘first past the post’ electoral rule.  That rule was the one which allowed the Liberal Party to win a large majority of the seats (54%) with a lesser plurality (40%) of the popular vote.  The promise was abandoned in the first term of the Liberal Party, and a number of voters were significantly disillusioned.

Consider the government’s actions to combat food price inflation.  A Minister promised a stern conversation with food industry executives and there would be action by last Thanksgiving.  In fact there was no action taken; in the meantime food industry profits soared, as did the salaries of food industry executives.

I don’t think there is a need to add to this list here.  We can all produce more examples, going back decades.

This form of Pollyanna politics is not confined to the governing party.  The opposition offers simplistic populist solutions – defund the CBC, fire the Governor of the Bank of Canada, axe the tax, etc. – which will either fail to do the job promised (at best) or worsen the problem.

Politicians are afraid to bear bad news, even if the news is real and cannot be dodged.  Bad news costs votes – or so it is argued.  Politicians would rather ‘kick the can down the road’ with a glossy promise; by the time the reality must be faced, they may be in another career or the problem has become someone else’s responsibility.

I submit we can restore trust in systems of democratic governance if politicians learn to trust the electorate and are prepared to speak truthfully and frankly to them.  However, ‘adult behaviour’ will be required from both sides.

To start with, the electorate needs to understand:

• Simple solutions are as rare as hens’ teeth.
• There are winners and losers in all policy decisions.
• Changes in government policies are not easy to make.
• Results from changes in government policies are often slow to see.

Politicians need to:

• Make greater efforts to move outside the Ottawa bubble of politics, polling and the press.  Voters are in local coffee shops, shopping malls, community halls and church basements; speak to them there.  It is more about understanding their views than in reaching the masses.
• Communicate frankly with voters, even with unpopular policies or forecasts.  People are faced with difficult choices and painful choices in their own lives; they have the capacity to understand difficult government choices, if not in detail, certainly in principle.
• Be prepared to be unpopular – and to lose because of it.  An earlier Trudeau is alleged to have argued “What’s the point of being right if you’re not in power?”  The practical pragmatism is clear but it is ultimately corrosive to voter faith in the electoral system.

If the above seems unduly harsh on the political prospects of politicians, indeed it is.  But there are cases where the electorate has rewarded clear policy positions and difficult consequences.  Premier Michael Harris of Ontario promised and implemented large cuts to public spending and social welfare.  Widely attacked and reviled at the time, he nonetheless won a second majority government.   Prime Minister Chrétien also implemented very large cuts in public spending, and his government was never seriously challenged.

How likely is this to happen?  I concede: not very.  But there are politicians out there who have the capacity speak frankly and clearly.  Former federal Finance Minister Morneau is one example.  Possible politician Mark Carney is another.  The current situation is not producing good results.  If we are to avoid an authoritarian ‘solution’, there need to be courageous democrats.

---

[1] Manchester Guardian, 2023/09/23, quoting a survey commissioned by the Open Society Foundation.

[2] Time Magazine, 2024//1/01, quoting a poll by the Public Religion Research Institute.

[3] Angus Reid Institute, 2022/11/07

[4] Statistics Canada, 2022/02/16: Reasons for not voting in the federal election, September 20, 2021