The term Authoritarian rule refers to a form of government in which one person possesses unchecked power. It typically occurs when democratic institutions become ossified, citizens feel their voices are no longer heard through established parties and that elites are too removed from society. Individuals may then seek out authoritarian alternatives that promise to solve their problems directly.
Authoritarian projects cannot succeed without the cooperation or acquiescence of legislatures, courts, and other institutions designed to provide checks and balances. To that end, they often rewrite the rules or stack these competing institutions with lackeys and compliant allies. They also frequently justify their expansion of executive power with cults of personality and aggrandizement of the trappings of office while demonizing checks and balances as corrupt obstacles to the popular will.
In addition, these regimes often engage in what is known as “constitutional hardball.” This includes remaking electoral laws to favor their partisans or declaring national emergencies to seize broad powers. They may even scapegoat specific groups to create an “us versus them” dynamic that energizes their base and reinforces social solidarity.
Psychological studies have tried to make sense of why some people are amenable to authoritarian forms of leadership. One classic paper, The Authoritarian Personality, argued that some people have personality traits—such as a general willingness to submit to authority, a rigid cognitive style and conventional moral values—that can predispose them to supporting authoritarian forms of rule. However, this theory has since been called into question by other research.