Illiberalism

Illiberalism refers to a mode of governance in which elections and formal institutions exist, but liberal democratic norms—such as protection of civil liberties, the independence of the judiciary, the rule of law, and pluralism—are weakened or selectively applied. In analysis, illiberalism is often distinguished from outright authoritarianism by the continued presence of elections and some formal legal framework, even as rights and checks on power are curtailed.

The term gained prominence in late 20th-century discussions of post-communist transitions and is frequently associated with Fareed Zakaria’s articulation of illiberal democracy. It has since been used to describe governments that claim a popular mandate while constraining opposition, media independence, and minority protections, thereby enabling centralized decision-making without broad liberal accountability.

Common features include concentration of power in the executive, amendments or policies that weaken judicial independence, media control or coercive messaging, suppression of political opposition, changes to electoral rules to entrench incumbents, and nationalist or majoritarian rhetoric that frames liberal rights as incompatible with national interests.

Scholars debate whether illiberal approaches deliver stability and policy responsiveness or undermine long-term legitimacy and human rights. Critics warn that illiberalism risks democratic backsliding, weaker rule of law, and the empowerment of unaccountable networks. Proponents sometimes argue that liberal norms can be costly or ill-suited to rapid reform.

Illustrative cases include Hungary under Viktor Orbán since 2010 and Poland under the Law and Justice party, where constitutional changes, media reforms, and judicial oversights raised concerns about checks on power. The concept is contested and applied variably to other regions.