In recent years, the U.S. political landscape has seen a shift away from traditional democratic principles, with growing calls for 'competitive authoritarianism'—a term coined by scholars to describe systems where elected leaders wield power through mechanisms that prioritize stability over democratic ideals. Viktor Orban’s tenure in Hungary exemplifies this trend, as he embraced autocratic tactics to consolidate power despite his democratic roots. Similarly, President Trump’s actions, such as pardoning individuals involved in the January 6 Capitol attack, have raised questions about whether the U.S. remains a democracy or a regime. However, critics argue that these practices may reflect broader anxieties about political polarization and the erosion of civil liberties. Levitsky and others argue that competitive authoritarianism operates on two levels: first, it transforms democratic institutions into tools of control, and second, it seeks to maintain power through fear and repression. What makes this phenomenon particularly intriguing is its ability to blend authoritarian strategies with democratic values, challenging the assumption that absolute rule is inherently beneficial. In my opinion, this trend highlights a deeper tension between individual freedom and collective security, urging policymakers to explore alternatives that balance governance with accountability.
