electedauthoritarian

Electoral authoritarianism, sometimes called elected authoritarianism, is a term used in political science to describe regimes that retain formal democratic institutions and regular elections while maintaining centralized, undemocratic control. The concept highlights a paradox: elections occur, but the ruling power uses state resources, coercion, and manipulation to prevent genuine political competition. The term gained prominence in the early 2000s in analyses of hybrid or semi‑competitive regimes, and is often treated as a subtype of authoritarian rule or a form of competitive authoritarianism.

Key features include a persistent incumbent advantage across media, politics, and policy, combined with selective access to information and resources. Electoral rules and procedures may be altered to favor the governing team, while opposition parties face unequal treatment, legal hurdles, or disqualification. State agencies, security forces, and the judiciary can be deployed to harass or deter opponents, and civil society organizations or independent media may be constrained. Despite these controls, elections are held with some regularity, and opposition actors can participate, which helps provide a veneer of legitimacy.

The presence of elections in electoral authoritarian regimes complicates assessments of democracy. Elections are often neither free nor fair, and outcomes are skewed by incumbency, propaganda, patronage, and intimidation. Scholars debate the boundaries between electoral authoritarianism, liberal democracy, and outright dictatorship, and use indices and case studies to gauge the degree of competitiveness and civil liberties. Examples cited in scholarship include various periods of governance in countries such as Russia, Hungary, Turkey, Venezuela, and Azerbaijan, though classifications can shift with political developments and differing criteria.