Steven Levitsky explains how the US is moving towards becoming an authoritarian regime.

247 - Political scientist and Harvard University professor Steven Levitsky, one of the authors of the book How Democracies Die (How Democracies Die), has once again sounded the alarm about the risks to democracy in the United States. In an interview with IntelligencerLevitsky analyzed how the country is moving toward what he and fellow political scientist Lucan A. Way define as "competitive authoritarianism." The concept, recently described in an article published in Foreign AffairsThis refers to regimes in which elected leaders use institutions to undermine the opposition, weaken the press, and consolidate their power while maintaining a democratic facade.

Levitsky views with concern the speed at which this process has unfolded. "We're in deep trouble," he stated. "We knew the Republicans wouldn't pose major obstacles, but they were even weaker than I expected. Congress, instead of acting as a counterweight, essentially neutralized itself in the face of the Executive's advance."

The Elon Musk factor and the concentration of power.

Among the aspects that surprised Levitsky is the role of billionaire Elon Musk in the current political landscape. According to him, Musk represents a new and worrying factor in the authoritarian dynamic. "We have never seen such a vast concentration of economic, political, and media power in the hands of an unelected individual," he warned. "This is uncharted territory. We don't know what he can do with data or how he can influence the political landscape."

Levitsky also pointed to Trump's erratic behavior as a risk factor. "He's not building a sustainable coalition like Chávez, Orbán, or Erdoğan did. He's burning bridges quickly and impulsively creating enemies."

Passive Democrats and a lack of resistance

Asked about the reaction from Democrats and civil society, Levitsky expressed frustration with the lack of organized resistance against attacks on democracy. He criticized the tendency of Democratic leaders to focus solely on economic issues, such as inflation and the cost of living, to the detriment of defending institutions. "When democracy is under threat, you can't simply say 'my data shows it's better to talk about the economy.' You need to defend the Constitution."

The political scientist compared the current political moment to a boxing match, where Trump, the challenger, enters the ring attacking with everything he's got and leaves the opposition disoriented. "We don't know how long he can maintain this pace. But he caught everyone by surprise, because the establishment was asleep."

The myth of Trump's "landing victory"

Levitsky also criticized the way the media and the Democratic Party reacted to Trump's election victory. "We're talking about a 1,5 percentage point margin. But when Trump wins by one, it feels like he won by 30, because he dominates the narrative. The New York Times He even called it a "crushing victory," when clearly it wasn't.

According to him, if Trump falls in the polls, his aura of invincibility could crumble. "If he drops to 40% approval, we'll see some Republicans distancing themselves. If he gets to 35%, it could be a watershed moment. CEOs, politicians, and allies might start jumping ship. That doesn't mean he can't do damage, but it could slow him down."

The future of the Republican Party

Regarding the Republicans' unwavering loyalty to Trump, Levitsky pointed out that, historically, personalistic parties tend to fall along with their leaders. "The ANC in South Africa ended up breaking with Jacob Zuma. UMNO turned against Mahathir Mohamad in Malaysia. In many cases, when a leader dominates a party so absolutely, his downfall drags the party down with him."

For now, however, he sees few signs of change. "The Republican Party is completely subservient to Trump. Unless he becomes very unpopular or suffers a physical decline, there is no incentive for them to abandon him."

"I never thought the US would go down this path."

Finally, Levitsky admitted that he never imagined the United States would become a practical example of his theories on competitive authoritarianism. "In the 2000s, when we published our first article on this, we were asked if the US could follow this path. We thought not. But today, unfortunately, that is the reality."

The big question, according to him, is whether American society will react in time. Otherwise, the US could become yet another example of a democracy corroded from within, like so many others throughout history.