JOURNAL OF DEMOCRACY

PARADOXES OF THE NEW AUTHORITARIANISM BY IVAN KRASTEV

ASSIGNMENT NO :01
SUBMITTED TO: Dr MUHAMMAD NADEEM MIRZA

COURSE: COMPARATIVE POLITICS

REVIEWED BY: SANA ULLAH

REG NO: 04202113008

OCTOBER 29, 2023

spir
Sanaullahkhanwazir73@gmail.com
REVIEW

Ivan Krastev works in the Institute of Human Sciences in Vienna, and he is the director of the
Centre for Liberal Strategies in Sofia, Bulgaria. "The Anti-American Century" (2007) and
"Shifting Obsessions: Three Essay on the Politics of Anticorruption" (2004) are among his
well-known books.

Ivan Krastev's article "Paradoxes of New Authoritarianism" offers analysis of the durability
of modern governments with a special focus on Russia. He provides arguments against
intellectuals arguing that the opening of borders and the absence of strong ideas and the
modern economy led to the collapse of the authoritarian regimes.

The article uses a qualitative research method because it uses social and political factors and
theoretical arguments for the case in study of this article.

The author examines the unexpected resilience of contemporary authoritarian regimes

particularly Russia challenging the prevalent belief that they would inevitably transition to
democracy. He highlights two major and important factors that contributes to their endurance.
Firstly, these new authoritarian regimes lack in a strong ideological foundation which is
separating these regimes from previous totalitarian regimes and that paradoxically makes
them more adaptable and less dangerous to the west. While traditional ideologies such as
Marxism provided foundation for the stability and mobilization, modern authoritarians often
lack a cohesive ideology. Instead, they engage in public relations and corporate-like
management.

Second is that the existence of open borders allows the citizens to leave the country and it had
led to a decline in a reformist spirit and political activism particularly among the middle-class
citizens. For example, in the state such as Russia, the availability of the "exit" options similar
like the emigration has resulted into a decline in political reformism. The middle class, which
is most likely to be dissatisfied with government, usually opt to leave the country rather than
participate in political activism. Another facet of exit in the modern age is the use of the
internet where Russians for example spend a significant amount of time on social networks.
This virtual exit represents another challenge traditional political activism. According to
Krastev, these factors combine to help authoritarian regimes such as Russia maintain their
hold on power with democratic change that appears less likely than to a gradual decay.
The author then draws the comparison among the outburst of reformist energy in the 1980s
and the current lack of such enthusiasm. He explains that while sealed borders have always
played a role in the collapse of Soviet communism but the open borders and exit options
available in modern authoritarian regimes hinder into the reformist efforts.

Krastev's arguments are both thought provoking and have the power of persuasion which is
challenging conventional wisdom in the subject like political science. However, some of the
areas could benefit from a much deeper empirical analysis and case studies to support his
claims.

Krastev's article provides a detailed examination of how authoritarian governments,

particularly in Russia maintain their power in the region. The article invokes the famous
Albert O. Hirschman's concepts of exit and voice suggesting that the middle class in
authoritarian regimes might prefer to leave or exit (leaving the country) to voice. It then
explains how open boarders facilitate exit and thereby making a resistance to the
authoritarianism even more challenging. It asks into question simple ideas and emphasizes
the many paradoxes involved in comprehending this. However more real-world examples and
date are required to make his arguments more strength. It then focuses primarily on Russia,
and it would have been better if it looked at other countries too. Furthermore, it should
consider opposing viewpoints such as how open borders may eventually lead to increased
demands for democracy. Finally, the article could have discussed what Western countries
should do while dealing with the authoritarian states making it more practical.

In conclusion the author in his article challenges commonly held beliefs about the major
factors that have contributed to the resilience of current authoritarian states and regimes.
While it had provided a new perspective and raises important questions and more strong
empirical foundation, and a broader comparative approach would strengthen the argument
even further to his paper.