While scholars have tried to explain why some citizens may lean toward authoritarian styles of rule, it is still unclear whether such preferences stem from personality traits, parental and educational socialization, or exposure to economic and political crises and conflicts. What is known, however, is that citizens tend to be risk-averse and thus favor the stability and certainty offered by autocratic regimes.
Authoritarians use a playbook of tactics that includes curtailing civil liberties, fomenting fear and distrust, distributing conspiracy theories, attacking the media, universities and nongovernmental organizations, and remaking electoral rules to tilt them in their favour. Some also use legal or pseudo-legal rationales to gut institutions and weaken checks and balances. They can also declare national emergencies and seize unchecked powers to address security threats, claiming that the public needs a strong leader to tackle crisis situations.
In most cases, 21st-century authoritarians use “salami tactics,” chipping away at democracy a slice at a time. This process can take many years, but in the end, the dictator will have seized full power and established legitimacy through elections.
Some modern authoritarian regimes include a legislature and political parties, but these are often toothless and filled with lackeys who will never vote against the dictator. Others may incorporate an electoral system and allow some freedom of speech, but that is a democratic facade designed to maintain the illusion of legitimate government. Many autocrats also stoke violence to advance other aspects of their playbook such as quashing dissent.