The turn of the 21st century has witnessed an alarming trend: the rise of authoritarian leaders within democratic systems. President Donald Trump in the United States, Prime Ministers Narendra Modi in India, and Giorgia Meloni in Italy are some figures that come to mind — individuals who leverage their democratic institutions to consolidate power and, some would argue, undermine the foundational principles of democracy itself. It is worthwhile to explore the causes, tactics, and consequences of this global shift toward authoritarianism, taking a close look at how these leaders have reshaped their political landscapes.

That being said, it would be too extreme — perhaps even uncharitable — to label these increasingly popular leaders as authoritarian. But we cannot ignore the similarities either. The difficulty in fitting them neatly into existing academic categories has led political analysts to coin the term authoritarian populism to refer to this leadership style.

Traditional authoritarianism rejects democratic institutions outright, relying on coercion, censorship, and centralized control to maintain power — think of classic autocrats like Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping. Authoritarian populism, however, is more subtle. Leaders in this category operate within democratic systems, using popular mandates to justify policies that erode institutional checks and balances. They position themselves as the sole voice of the “common people”, framing political discourse as a binary struggle between “us” — the virtuous majority — and “them” — a corrupt elite or marginalized group blamed for societal problems. Unlike outright dictators, these leaders do not abolish elections or suspend constitutions; rather, they strategically manipulate institutions, courts, and media to entrench their rule while maintaining a democratic façade.

This is why their rhetoric resonates so deeply with voters who feel disenfranchised or left behind by globalization and cultural shifts. The most obvious example here is Trump’s slogan “Make America Great Again”, which appealed to the working class grappling with economic stagnation and job insecurity due to outsourcing and automation. Narendra Modi’s emphasis on Hindu Nationalism has mobilized India’s Hindu majority by tapping into their cultural pride and fears of marginalization. Giorgia Meloni in Italy combines nationalism with opposition to progressive values, presenting herself as a defender of traditional family structures and national sovereignty.

While such rhetoric could stoke division, supporters see it as a necessary corrective to the excesses of globalization and liberal policies, which, in their view, have prioritized elites over working-class citizens. Protectionist policies and economic nationalism are framed not as steps toward authoritarianism but as legitimate responses to perceived unfair trade practices.

The issue at hand is not whether this binary framing oversimplifies complex societal problems or fuels polarization. Rather, it is that the supporters of these leaders believe they are addressing “real” grievances ignored by traditional political elites. Meloni herself has accused the left of hypocrisy, pointing out that conservative leaders like herself, Modi, and Trump are labeled threats to democracy despite winning democratic elections.

This debate is not easily resolved. Critics of authoritarian populism fear that the threat lies in the erosion of pluralism and institutional independence. New York University Historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat argues that leaders like Trump and Meloni dismantle democracy from within by exploiting its vulnerabilities. Other scholars at UC Berkeley have described how these leaders scapegoat marginalized communities andconsolidate power through fear mongering.

On the other hand, simply labeling these leaders as threats to democracy ignores their electoral legitimacy. Giorgia Meloni has recently criticized what she sees as double standards from those who praise left-wing alliances but condemn conservative movements for similar collaborations because she believes her leadership defends freedom and national sovereignty rather than undermining democracy.

Despite their electoral wins, the ascent of authoritarian populism cannot merely be associated with the leader’s charisma. Several factors contribute to their popularity:

Economic Inequality: Globalization has exacerbated income disparities and eroded middle-class stability in many democracies. In developed nations like the U.S., working-class voters have shifted toward populist leaders who promise protectionist policies and job creation.

Cultural Backlash: Progressive advancements in LGBTQ+ rights, gender equality, and racial justice have challenged traditional power structures. While these changes are celebrated by many, they have also triggered resistance from conservative segments who feel their values are under attack.

Failures of Democratic Institutions: Democracies worldwide face declining trust in electoral systems and political representation. In India, Modi's rise coincided with widespread dissatisfaction with corruption scandals under previous governments. In the U.S., Trump capitalized on distrust in mainstream media and institutions.

It is these systemic issues that provide fertile ground for leaders who promise simple solutions to complex problems. It is also worth noting that strong leadership and centralization are not inherently undemocratic. Many argue that decisive action – rather than bureaucratic gridlock – is necessary to enact meaningful policy changes. Modi’s supporters praise his ability to push through ambitious reforms that previous governments struggled to implement due to political inertia.

Once in office, authoritarian populists employ similar tactics to weaken checks and balances while maintaining the veneer of democracy:

Expanding Executive Power: Leaders like Trump have pushed boundaries through executive orders and legal maneuvers that bypass legislative scrutiny. Modi’s government has centralized decision-making authority while sidelining opposition voices.

Quashing Dissent: Independent media and civil society organizations are frequent targets. Trump popularized the term “fake news” to delegitimize critical coverage, while Modi’s administration has faced accusations of suppressing dissent through legal action against journalists and activists.

Cultivating Personality Cults: Charismatic leadership plays an important role in authoritarian populism. Modi’s image as a decisive leader is central to his appeal, while Trump’s rallies reinforce his connection with supporters as an anti-establishment figure.

Through these actions, while there are concerns about democratic backsliding we can also see the adaptability of these authoritarian populists within democratic frameworks. The rise of leaders like Trump, Modi, and Meloni places us in a period of shifting global paradigms. Authoritarian populism has made its way across Europe, Latin America, and Asia. These leaders often learn from one another's strategies while collaborating on shared goals and visions. In this interconnectedness, perhaps we are amidst a coordinated conservative movement or merely developments driven by similar socio-economic conditions. Meloni herself has advocated for global collaboration among conservatives to reshape political norms.

Leaders like Trump, Modi, and Meloni have undeniably reshaped political discourse by addressing issues often ignored. Yet their methods – centralizing power, suppressing dissent, and fostering divisions – must be called into question. We must move beyond ideological binaries, and acknowledge the legitimacy of voter concerns that drive support for leaders. Proponents of these leaders must grapple with the long-term risks posed by their government styles.

Ultimately, addressing the root causes – economic inequality, cultural polarization, and institutional dysfunction – is essential for safeguarding democracy against both internal erosion and external manipulation. As Justice Luís Roberto Barroso, President of the Supreme Court of Brazil, aptly noted, “Democracy is not delivering enough satisfaction where its representation of the people is concerned”. Until this deficit is addressed, authoritarian populists will continue to thrive within democracies.