Democracy Paradox Podcast
About the Episode:

Dan Slater joins Justin Kempf, host of the Democracy Paradox podcast, to explain why authoritarian ideologies still matter, even after the Cold War. He argues that today’s autocratic wave cannot be understood without distinguishing between authoritarian movements of the right and left – and recognizing how both can threaten democracy in different ways.

Full Transcript

Show Notes:

Dan Slater joins the Democracy Paradox to discuss his recent Journal of Democracy article, “The Authoritarian Origins of the Third Wave.” Slater challenges the familiar story that the third wave of democratization began in Portugal in 1974 and then spread across the world. He argues that we misunderstand this period if we focus only on waves of democracy. Instead, we also need to examine waves of authoritarianism – especially how authoritarian regimes of the left and right rose, crested, and crashed in different ways.

The conversation explores why ideology still matters for understanding authoritarianism. During the Cold War, authoritarian regimes were often understood through a stark divide between communism and anti-communism. But after the collapse of the Soviet Union, scholars often shifted their attention to institutions rather than ideology. Slater argues that this left democracy scholars with an incomplete picture. Right-wing authoritarianism today is often rooted in anti-cosmopolitanism, nativism, and a desire to restore an imagined national purity. Authoritarian regimes with left-wing origins, meanwhile, often carry forward a deeper commitment to political monopoly, security-led rule, and opposition to the liberal international order.

Slater also distinguishes between the authoritarian temptations of the right and the left. He describes the right as animated by a “threat orientation” that sees diversity, social change, and egalitarian movements as dangers to a natural or deserved hierarchy. The left, by contrast, often begins from a “gains orientation” that seeks to overturn unjust hierarchies and deliver justice for marginalized groups. Neither orientation is inherently authoritarian, but either can become so when its adherents become willing to sacrifice democratic procedures in pursuit of their political vision.

The episode closes with a reflection on democracy itself. Slater argues that democracy cannot be non-ideological, but it must be multi-ideological. It has to make room for conservatives, liberals, social democrats, and others to compete for power within shared rules. This makes democracy frustrating because no side ever gets everything it wants. But that frustration is also part of democracy’s value: it provides insurance against the worst outcomes and prevents any single ideological project from monopolizing political life.

Links:
Listen: