There is no such thing as a distinction between “democracy” and “authoritarian”.
There is an implied distinction, in so far as "authoritarian" is intended to be perceived as a kind-of minority or even monarchical rule, while "democratic" is perceived as popular and driven by lay citizens. But this distinction is superficial, as it fails to penetrate the nature and origin of governmental authority.
The same liberals that laud democratic ideals will recoil at the idea of "populism" as a means of political organizing. Politics still needs to get filtered through some number of academics and bureaucrats to establish legitimacy. And any decision that isn't liberal - and therefore isn't "correct" - earns the moniker of "authoritarian" regardless of how many people support it.
Meanwhile, non-representative bodies like gerrymandered electoral districts, the Electoral College, the US Senate, the US Courts, the Joint Chiefs, the Federal Reserve, the Chamber of Commerce, etc are never described as "authoritarian" despite their obviously non-democratic components. They gain the auspices of democracy by their perceived relationship to democratic activity and publicized popular opinion. The military becomes legitimized as democratic because it is described as popular. Senators are considered democratic because the office is elected. Courts are democratic because the seats are appointed by elected officials. Markets are democratic because commerce is ostensibly participatory. Etc.
These terms do mean things and they are functionally distinct, but the propaganda through which they are involved very deliberately distorts their application. At a certain level, yes. Jeff Bezos can get up on a national platform and call Vladimir Putin a tyrant, despite the President of Russia having far more popular support than the Executive Chairman of Amazon.
But these terms are also somewhat self-fulfilling. By invoking nationalist language, Bezos accrues domestic legitimacy in the same way that Putin does. And so Bezos maintains dictatorial control of the world's largest retail distribution network in a Lockean consent-of-the-governed sense by dint of his employees declining to rebel against him.
Americans do not need the kind of heavy handed "authoritarian" rule imposed upon the frontier of empire precisely because they do not routinely rise up in open rebellion. In that sense, "democractic" may well be described as "absent the necessity of authoritarian controls". Individuals are assumed to be democratically lead when they decline to resist the rule of law.
What happens if someone picks up a gun and tries to oppose the democratic consensus? Do you just sit by and let the democracy be destroyed? No, the democratic state uses its own authority to oppress the opposition.
Except we have seen instances in which democracies are dismantled without an armed resistance. We saw it in Chile. We saw it in the USSR. We saw it in Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia and Germany and Rome and the UK and Mexico and Australia and Iran. Within the borders of the US alone, we routinely build and dismantle and rebuild democratic institutions decade by decade, both locally and nationally. Whether through coups or intrigues or simple neglect, democracies regularly fail.
What can you say of such countries, where democratic institutions are demolished without resistance? Are they authoritarian, if the people meekly accept the new leadership. Are they undemocratic if the new institutions rapidly gain domestic support?
There is an implied distinction, in so far as "authoritarian" is intended to be perceived as a kind-of minority or even monarchical rule, while "democratic" is perceived as popular and driven by lay citizens. But this distinction is superficial, as it fails to penetrate the nature and origin of governmental authority.
The same liberals that laud democratic ideals will recoil at the idea of "populism" as a means of political organizing. Politics still needs to get filtered through some number of academics and bureaucrats to establish legitimacy. And any decision that isn't liberal - and therefore isn't "correct" - earns the moniker of "authoritarian" regardless of how many people support it.
Meanwhile, non-representative bodies like gerrymandered electoral districts, the Electoral College, the US Senate, the US Courts, the Joint Chiefs, the Federal Reserve, the Chamber of Commerce, etc are never described as "authoritarian" despite their obviously non-democratic components. They gain the auspices of democracy by their perceived relationship to democratic activity and publicized popular opinion. The military becomes legitimized as democratic because it is described as popular. Senators are considered democratic because the office is elected. Courts are democratic because the seats are appointed by elected officials. Markets are democratic because commerce is ostensibly participatory. Etc.
These terms do mean things and they are functionally distinct, but the propaganda through which they are involved very deliberately distorts their application. At a certain level, yes. Jeff Bezos can get up on a national platform and call Vladimir Putin a tyrant, despite the President of Russia having far more popular support than the Executive Chairman of Amazon.
But these terms are also somewhat self-fulfilling. By invoking nationalist language, Bezos accrues domestic legitimacy in the same way that Putin does. And so Bezos maintains dictatorial control of the world's largest retail distribution network in a Lockean consent-of-the-governed sense by dint of his employees declining to rebel against him.
Americans do not need the kind of heavy handed "authoritarian" rule imposed upon the frontier of empire precisely because they do not routinely rise up in open rebellion. In that sense, "democractic" may well be described as "absent the necessity of authoritarian controls". Individuals are assumed to be democratically lead when they decline to resist the rule of law.
Except we have seen instances in which democracies are dismantled without an armed resistance. We saw it in Chile. We saw it in the USSR. We saw it in Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia and Germany and Rome and the UK and Mexico and Australia and Iran. Within the borders of the US alone, we routinely build and dismantle and rebuild democratic institutions decade by decade, both locally and nationally. Whether through coups or intrigues or simple neglect, democracies regularly fail.
What can you say of such countries, where democratic institutions are demolished without resistance? Are they authoritarian, if the people meekly accept the new leadership. Are they undemocratic if the new institutions rapidly gain domestic support?