(Credit: Valentina Shilkina/Shutterstock)
SAN DIEGO — In an era where democracy seems increasingly under threat worldwide, new research reveals a disturbing trend: authoritarian regimes are becoming more sophisticated at maintaining power by manipulating the very international institutions designed to promote democracy. Three studies, published as part of UC San Diego’s Future of Democracy initiative, show how dictators and autocrats are using everything from fake election monitors to strategic manipulation of international organizations to maintain their grip on power while creating the illusion of democratic legitimacy.
The Future of Democracy, led by the UC Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation (IGCC), brings together researchers from across the University of California system to understand why illiberal regimes are on the rise and what this means for populations worldwide. Co-directed by Emilie Hafner-Burton from UC San Diego’s School of Global Policy and Strategy and Christina Schneider from the Department of Political Science, the initiative has produced a special issue of the Review of International Organizations focusing on these challenges to democracy.
“When citizens lose trust in the electoral process, they may question the legitimacy of elected officials and the institutions they represent, which undermines the foundational principle that government authority is derived from the will of the people,” says Lauren Prather, an associate professor at UC San Diego’s School of Global Policy and Strategy, in a university release. “And as we saw with the Jan. 6 insurrection in the U.S., people’s beliefs about elections—whether it was free and fair, whether there was fraud, whether they trust the outcome—are incredibly important to peace and security, not just to democracy.”
Study 1: The Rise of “Zombie” Election Monitors
The first study reveals a dramatic rise in “zombie” election monitors – organizations that validate clearly fraudulent elections to help authoritarian regimes maintain power. These questionable monitors were present at just 23% of elections in 2000, but by 2020, they were showing up at nearly 40% of elections worldwide.
The research, conducted by Prather, Christina Cottiero, and Sarah Sunn Bush, analyzed 141 different election monitoring organizations observing national elections between 2000 and 2020. They found that these fake monitors often directly contradict the findings of legitimate international observers, creating confusion that helps autocratic leaders maintain their hold on power.
Consider Azerbaijan’s 2020 parliamentary election. While legitimate monitors from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) found the election lacked genuine competition, observers from the Commonwealth of Independent States – a group dominated by authoritarian states – praised it as “competitive and free.”
The study found that countries with stronger ties to Russia and membership in authoritarian regional organizations were more likely to host these low-quality monitors. Russia, in particular, has emerged as a key supporter of these fake monitoring organizations, using them to counter democracy promotion efforts and validate questionable elections.
Study 2: How Autocracies Use International Organizations
The second study, authored by Hafner-Burton, Cottiero, Haggard, Prather, and Schneider, examines how illiberal regimes navigate international organizations and what the consequences are for international cooperation and domestic politics. Their research identified three major ways authoritarian regimes are manipulating international institutions:
- Powerful autocratic states like China and Russia are building coalitions within multilateral organizations to challenge democratic norms. The UN Human Rights Council has become a battleground where authoritarian states work together to water down human rights standards.
- Authoritarian leaders are creating their own regional organizations or co-opting existing ones. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization and Russia’s Eurasian Economic Union are prime examples of regional bodies designed to protect and promote authoritarian interests.
- Even traditionally democratic international organizations are struggling with members who are backsliding away from democracy. The European Union faces challenges from Hungary and Poland, while the Organization of American States must deal with Venezuela and Nicaragua openly flouting democratic norms.
The researchers found that participation in these illiberal organizations reduces the prospects for political liberalization and democratization in member countries, effectively creating a support network for authoritarian governance.
Study 3: The Facade of Good Governance
The third study, by Hafner-Burton, Schneider, and Jon Pevehouse, reveals how authoritarian-dominated international organizations often adopt official policies promoting “good governance” – but these are largely for show. Analyzing 48 regional organizations with majority autocratic membership between 1945 and 2015, they found a cynical pattern of behavior.
Organizations like the African Union adopt formal mandates supporting human rights and fighting corruption, but these are either purely symbolic or only applied to non-member states. Often, these mandates are adopted under pressure from democratic partners like the European Union, but they have little practical effect on improving governance within member states.
The study found that the more autocratic an organization’s membership, the more likely they were to avoid internal governance mandates. When they do adopt such mandates, they tend to make them applicable only to non-member states or define them in ways that minimize their impact on member governments.
“In the past, the standard route from democracy to autocratic rule came through the military coup. Now, duly elected leaders are using executive offices to erode democracy from within,” explains Stephan Haggard, distinguished research professor at UC San Diego. “Such actions—for example, against the judiciary or the integrity of the electoral system—are harder to see and counter.”
Discussion & Takeaways
Collectively, these three studies from the Future of Democracy initiative paint a troubling picture of democracy’s future. Authoritarian regimes have evolved far beyond crude power grabs through military coups. Instead, they’ve developed a sophisticated playbook that turns the very institutions meant to protect democracy into tools for undermining it.
From deploying fake election monitors to create confusion about electoral integrity, to manipulating international organizations from within, to adopting hollow good governance policies that serve as democratic window dressing, autocratic leaders are finding new ways to maintain power while creating the illusion of democratic legitimacy.
The findings suggest that traditional approaches to promoting democracy through international institutions may need fundamental rethinking. As authoritarian regimes become more adept at gaming the system, democracy advocates will need to develop new strategies to counter these subtle but powerful forms of democratic subversion.
The future of democracy may well depend on how effectively the international community can respond to these challenges, adapting its institutions and approaches to protect democratic values in an era where the threats to them are becoming increasingly sophisticated and harder to detect.
