How the GOP and the Republican felon might rig the midterm elections.
#CompetitiveAuthoritarism #Authoritarism #Democracy #AntiFascism #midterms #midtermelections #pliantjudges #pliantSCOTUS #Project2025 #trumpsrevenge #RepublicanFelon
www.theguardian.com/us-news/comm...
Difficult as long as the Congress is dominated by Republicans who don't protect the Constitution. The Trump regime and the complicit SCOTUS might find ways to make sure that no opposition will get in their way to #CompetitiveAuthoritarism and to a fascistoid celebration of violent power.
bsky.app/profile/ceca...
#CompetitiveAuthoritarism #Authoritarism #Democracy #AntiFascism
#CompetitiveAuthoritarism #Authoritarism #Democracy #AntiFascism
"A mildly competitive authoritarian state". It might get worse than mild.
#CompetitiveAuthoritarism #Authoritarism #Democracy #AntiFascism
The felon's regime isn't only competitive authoritarian. Stephen Miller is telling ICE they have immunity. That adds a fascist GeStaPo element to what the regime and the Congress Republicans allows to happen in the USA.
chriscillizza.substack.com/p/competitiv...
#CompetitiveAuthoritarism #Authoritarism #Democracy #AntiFascism
![https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/levitsky/files/SL_elections.pdf
Steven Levitsky and Lucan A. Way, Elections Without Democracy - THE RISE OF COMPETITIVE AUTHORITARIANISM, page 53,
Journal of Democracy Volume 13, Number 2 April 2002
«[...] Competitive authoritarianism must be distinguished from democracy on the one hand and full-scale authoritarianism on the other. Modern democratic regimes all meet four minimum criteria:
1) Executives and legislatures are chosen through elections that are open, free, and fair;
2) virtually all adults possess the right to vote;
3) political rights and civil liberties, including freedom of the press, freedom of association, and freedom to criticize the government without reprisal, are broadly protected; and
4) elected authorities possess real authority to govern, in that they are not subject to the tutelary control of military or clerical leaders.
Although even fully democratic regimes may at times violate one or more of these criteria, such violations are not broad or systematic enough to seriously impede democratic challenges to incumbent governments. In other words, they do not fundamentally alter the playing field between government and opposition.
In competitive authoritarian regimes, by contrast, violations of these criteria are both frequent enough and serious enough to create an uneven playing field between government and opposition. Although elections are regularly held and are generally free of massive fraud, incumbents routinely abuse state resources, deny the opposition adequate media coverage, harass opposition candidates and their supporters, and in some cases manipulate electoral results. Journalists, opposition politicians, and other government critics may be spied on, threatened, harassed, or arrested. Members of the opposition may be jailed, exiled, or—less frequently—even assaulted or murdered. Regimes characterized by such abuses cannot be called democratic. [...]»](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:lftldd4k2bnecjcxja2zz2d7/bafkreib4n5ylvym5flcfj36hdcdchhqb6gcc74xrvhug4xkcdqtbcsrak4)
https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/levitsky/files/SL_elections.pdf Steven Levitsky and Lucan A. Way, Elections Without Democracy - THE RISE OF COMPETITIVE AUTHORITARIANISM, page 53, Journal of Democracy Volume 13, Number 2 April 2002 «[...] Competitive authoritarianism must be distinguished from democracy on the one hand and full-scale authoritarianism on the other. Modern democratic regimes all meet four minimum criteria: 1) Executives and legislatures are chosen through elections that are open, free, and fair; 2) virtually all adults possess the right to vote; 3) political rights and civil liberties, including freedom of the press, freedom of association, and freedom to criticize the government without reprisal, are broadly protected; and 4) elected authorities possess real authority to govern, in that they are not subject to the tutelary control of military or clerical leaders. Although even fully democratic regimes may at times violate one or more of these criteria, such violations are not broad or systematic enough to seriously impede democratic challenges to incumbent governments. In other words, they do not fundamentally alter the playing field between government and opposition. In competitive authoritarian regimes, by contrast, violations of these criteria are both frequent enough and serious enough to create an uneven playing field between government and opposition. Although elections are regularly held and are generally free of massive fraud, incumbents routinely abuse state resources, deny the opposition adequate media coverage, harass opposition candidates and their supporters, and in some cases manipulate electoral results. Journalists, opposition politicians, and other government critics may be spied on, threatened, harassed, or arrested. Members of the opposition may be jailed, exiled, or—less frequently—even assaulted or murdered. Regimes characterized by such abuses cannot be called democratic. [...]»
Steven Levitsky and Lucan A. Way,
"Elections Without Democracy
THE RISE OF COMPETITIVE AUTHORITARIANISM",
page 53,
Journal of Democracy Volume 13, Number 2 April 2002
#CompetitiveAuthoritarism #Authoritarism #Democracy #AntiFascism
scholar.harvard.edu/files/levits...
