Competitive authoritarianism: The end of liberal democracy?

The rules-based orthodoxy which has sustained the global order since the end of World War II in 1945, concurrently anchored on liberal democracy in progressive climes, is witnessing, like never before, a systematic deconstruction. By rules-based orthodoxy, is meant the consistent application of the rule of law as the foundational basis of the administration of justice, governance, and legislation, in domestic and global affairs. Distilling that proposition implies utilising international law, and institutions emanating thereof, like the United Nations, and key organs viz the Security Council, the International Court of Justice (ICJ); the World Trade Organisation, World Health Organisation, the International Criminal Court, and others, as a cornerstone for consensus-building, global policy development, and international dispute resolution.

Philosophically, it encompasses freedom, liberty, and the consistent application of human rights. The inference being that international peace and security is optimally enhanced via transnational cooperation, demonstrable justice, and equity; which gives a modicum of certainty, and order, in global affairs in a demonstrably chaotic, albeit interdependent world. Crucially, the rules-based global order does not usurp sovereign power.



Analytical purchase for that proposition is established in the preamble to the1945 UN Charter. It provides inter alia: “We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom; ..

. to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security; and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples.” Compelling? Absolutely! Relevant? Yes! Effectiveness? Variable! The real question then is why? Cleisthenes, the Athenian philosopher, in 507 B.

C. characterised democracy or “demokratia” as the “rule by the people” Abraham Lincoln in his 1863 Gettysburg address, articulated the concept as the “government of the people, by the people, and for the people” Nigeria’s visionary nationalist and philosopher, Obafemi Awolowo, in 1960, contended that democracy is the fundamental objective of civilised government, where that aspiration is the moral, physical, and spiritual welfare of the people. And which way ever democracy is analysed in present times, the reality remains that it is in a toxic collision with competitive authoritarianism or authoritarian constitutionalism in liberal democracies.

Yet, the fundamental thesis of enlightened liberal democracy, is the brigading of democracy, liberalism, freedom, liberty, human rights, free and fair elections, transparent justice, and the rule of law. It is evidenced by genuine separation of powers between the executive, legislature, and judiciary, where each arm of government is truly independent, albeit exercising constitutionally defined coordinate jurisdiction, maintaining corresponding checks and balances; such that no one branch thereof wields absolute powers; thereby becoming unaccountable! Within the construct of competitive authoritarian regimes, formal democratic institutions are perceived as the principal means of obtaining and exercising political authority and disproportionate power is concentrated in the executive/incumbents. By objective baseline standards for democracy, incumbents, and institutions under their control in competitive authoritarian “democratic” regimes persistently violate the rule of law, for example via repression, strangulating opposition parties, free speech, freedom of association, press freedom, human rights, and exercise quasi-dictatorial media control.

To the extent that competitive authoritarianism and constitutional authoritarianism are underpinned by authoritarianism, they are similar. However, the key distinction between competitive authoritarianism and constitutional authoritarianism, is one of degree. The latter exploits constitutional processes like edicts, decrees, expansive or restrictive executive orders, pronouncements to embed authoritarianism.

Simply put, it creates a spectre of real democracy, when in fact, it is authoritarian in substance. Accordingly, this critique utilises both terms interchangeably for brevity! Examples of competitive authoritarianism in West Africa in 2025, include Burkina Faso under Ibrahim Traore, Mali under Assimi Goita, and Niger under Abdourahamane Tchiani. Nigeria’s Babangida’s military regime (1985-1993), which for a period, had elected civilian governors under the National Republican Convention and Social Democratic political parties, fits this bill.

Other instances include Croatia under Franjo Tudjman (1990-1999), Serbia under Slobodan Miloševic (1989-1997), Russia under Vladimir Putin (2000 to present); Ukraine under Leonid Kravchuk (1991-1994) and Leonid Kuchma (1994-2025), Peru under Alberto Fujimori (1990-2000) etc. In How Democracies Die (2018), Harvard University political science professors, Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, argued that since the American Civil War (1861-1865) no U.S.

politician had come close to Donald Trump in posing a dangerous authoritarian risk to the United States’ democracy. Their thesis was based on four markers: 1.) Rejecting or showing weak commitment to democratic rules; 2.

) Denying the legitimacy of political opponents; 3.) Encouraging or tolerating violence; and 4.) Readiness to stifle or limit civil liberties of opponents, including media.

Levitsky informed Newsweek at the time that “Trump was easily identifiable as someone who is not committed to the democratic rules of the game...

There is real cause for concern for the health of our democratic institutions.” Nevertheless, incumbents leading competitive authoritarian regimes aren’t from the moon after all. What is it about them that commands popular support? In the capricious competition for public education, housing, healthcare and jobs, in developed and developing economies, have the united objectives of justice and the rule of law been sacrificed on the altar of xenophobic nativism and racism? What’s the prognosis for the rules-based orthodoxy of the last eighty years post-WWII? In Africa, what are the practical dividends of democracy given ravaging by ethno-religious terrorism, crushing poverty, disease, and starvation? Has the so-called liberal permissiveness, homosexual, lesbian, transexual rights supplanted cultural originalism and heritage? Is the world witnessing an era of subjugation of sovereign power of weak states by super powers? In short, has liberal democracy failed? These are as much rhetorical as they are practical questions affecting life as we know it globally.

And there are no easy answers. Liberal democracy certainly has significant limitations. First, the unanimity principle inherent in liberal democratic models can heighten inertia and effective decision making.

Second, liberal democracy can escalate inequality and social unrest, as the protection of individual rights and freedoms can lead to unequal distribution of wealth and public resources. Third, liberal democracy heightens the probability of nativist political leaders exploiting the fears and anxieties of ordinary people, with toxic propaganda to push extremist ideologies and specious mantra under the guise of populism. Fourth, liberal democracy, like competitive authoritarianism; can be corruptly exposed to special interest groups, which can utilise their financial leverage to reframe policy, thereby undermining democratic credibility.

Finally, bilateral and multilateral international treaties, and related legal frameworks scarcely adapt to the speed of sociological evolution, the rapid advance of algorithmic social media and Artificial Intelligence, which combines and disproportionately shares, informative and toxic messages across vast populations and boundaries. In other words, opinions and at times outright lies can be spread rapidly for a particular agenda. For example, the July 2024 UK riots, triggered by a mass stabbing incident in which three children were killed, were exacerbated by lies, misinformation and disinformation on social media.

Is liberal democracy blameworthy?! Hypothetically, local authority A, in country B, has 50 social housing units applying a strict lawful criterion of genuine need. There is a waiting list of three years and hundreds of locals have queued. Genuine refugees, are granted a fifth thereof, on the basis of destitution, homelessness, protection of children, and crucially, compliance with the cornerstone 1951 UN Refugee Convention.

Locals stage violent demonstrations. Has the local authority A breached any law? No! Can locals protest? Absolutely! Violently? No, that’s unlawful! These are just some of the moral dilemmas in typical liberal democratic societies. However, aggrieved locals in this illustration, would tend to gravitate towards nativist political parties and political leaders, who exploit their fears and anxieties.

In the final analysis, the deconstruction of the liberal democratic order is real. Russia unlawfully invaded Ukraine on February 24, 2022; setting a dangerous precedent for global peace and security, whilst wantonly violating Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which stipulates that all members shall refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity, sovereignty of any state. Russia, a permanent UNSC permanent five member justified the invasion on geopolitical grounds.

The United States, a superpower, which has itself threatened to acquire Canada and Greenland, engaged in a high-level rapprochement with Russia on geoeconomic grounds again, signalling to the world, that its strategic interests and realpolitik override any rules-based orthodoxy and liberal-democratic credentials; opening a grim diplomatic chasm with European and NATO allies. However, what do these dynamics portend for warlords, and crucially, peace-building efforts, in Israel, Gaza, Sudan, Congo, Rwanda, Nigeria, Yemen etc? Likewise, serious questions are being asked by countries as to the efficacy of international asylum and refugee protocols, as they contend with socio-economic challenges and community cohesion tensions; the place of heritage in policy formulation; and the frontiers of minority rights. Furthermore, given U.

S. President Trump’s commanding mandate from the American electorate at the 2024 elections, he has issued a slew of controversial radical executive orders, driven by his “America First” ideology with far-reaching global and domestic ramifications on energy, immigration, national security, and healthcare. For example, Executive Order 14203, “Imposing Sanctions on the International Criminal Court”; and the US withdrawal from the WHO; justify the claim that some superpowers view the global rules-based orthodoxy, liberal democracy disdainfully, whilst accentuating ideological pre-eminence and overriding strategic national interests.

Does the foregoing imply end of liberal democracy as we know it and the pre-eminence of competitive authoritarianism? Not necessarily. However, global orthodoxy and liberal democracy are on extremely shaky foundations given the ideological stance of powerful leaders with authoritarian inclinations. Whilst nuanced constructive engagement on mutually beneficial pragmatic terms is a strategic option, nevertheless, isn’t that appeasement?! Ojumu is the Principal Partner at Balliol Myers LP, a firm of legal practitioners and strategy consultants in Lagos, Nigeria and the author of The Dynamic Intersections of Economics, Foreign Relations, Jurisprudence and National Development.

.