Successful autocracies?

Rudolphina: The recently published Democracy Report 2026 paints a rather gloomy picture. The global share of democracies has fallen back to the level of 1978, while autocracies are gaining ground. From your perspective, what are the reasons for this dramatic advance of autocracies around the globe?

Christian Göbel: The reasons for this are complex and mutually reinforce each other. Many people feel economically left behind, social media are spreading anti-democratic discourses, and party systems are not keeping up with increasing social complexity, which makes simplistic autocratic discourses seem more attractive.

And, of course, we also see the effects of political leaders deliberately undermining democratic institutions. It is also related to a weakening of the media, as we have seen in Hungary and to some extent also in the USA, to name two examples. The United States cannot be categorised as an autocracy; the courts still function too well for that, but also in the USA, we observe attempts to control the media and discourse. 

In addition, we detected a relatively high level of political apathy among the population of democratic countries. And that actually worries me a lot. When giving lectures or talks about China, I often hear the phrase "We are no longer living in a democracy here in Austria either". When I hear somebody saying this, I vehemently clarify that we are very much living in a democracy – and are, to name just one example, able to discuss politics without being afraid that someone will charge into the room and arrest us for doing so. 

Appreciation of democracy is often equated with material prosperity. A decline in prosperity conversely leads to people being dissatisfied with democracy.

Rudolphina: China has 'successfully' ruled as an autocratic state for decades, but nevertheless describes itself as the world's largest democracy. What is China's understanding of a Western democracy?

Christian Göbel: When we talk about Western democracy, we are talking about liberal democracies. In other words, democracies in which, among other things, political freedoms are guaranteed and free and fair elections are held. When the Chinese government uses the term 'Western democracy', they mean American democracy, since the United States is the reference point for China, that is, China considers the US as representative of the West. 

Overall, the Chinese propaganda apparatus increasingly paints a negative picture of the multi-party democracies in the West, citing as counterexamples the increasing prosperity in China, the fact that minorities are treated well and that poverty is being eradicated, although minorities in China are actually facing a very challenging situation. In fact, the gap between rich and poor is equally wide in China and the US.

Negative social and political phenomena, such as racism or poverty, are thus equated with the system of Western democracy in order to delegitimise this form of democracy in public discourse.

Rudolphina: Why is a liberal democracy not desirable for China?

Christian Göbel: Security is a high priority in China. And the most important aspect of security is regime security, which in turn means the continued existence of the one-party autocratic system. China's greatest fear is that the Communist Party will no longer rule.

Rudolphina: With around 1.4 billion inhabitants, China is the second most populous country in the world after India. How does the Party and/or the government manage to maintain power in such a large and diverse country?

Christian Göbel: There are three pillars that serve to maintain power. The first and probably most important pillar is performance. This means that the majority of the population does not realise (or should not realise) that they are living in an autocratic regime. "If I do not speak out against the government and follow the rules, I can lead a good life in China." This is how many Chinese people see it, and in fact, they have no alternative. 

The second pillar is propaganda, which is used to indoctrinate the population and portray China as the best and most successful political and economic system. And the third pillar – which is being used surgically – is repression. Persons who try to initiate even a kind of democratic movement, put themselves in danger. They usually disappear without a trace or, at best, reappear in court.

Rudolphina: Among other things, you are investigating the relationship between state and society and between local governance and protests, not only in China but also in Taiwan, which is today considered one of the most democratic states in Asia. What made the crucial difference in ensuring that the step towards democracy was successful in Taiwan?

Christian Göbel: Taiwan serves as proof that culturalist explanations do not work – we have a 'Chinese' democracy in Taiwan. However, Taiwan's history has largely been different to that of the People's Republic (PRC). The Japanese occupation brought not only suffering but also economic development and prosperity, creating a strong middle class that favoured democracy. 

In addition, the country developed close ties with the USA after the Second World War. In the 1970s, the legitimacy of the autocratic government declined. Countries broke off diplomatic relations in favour of the PRC, a Taiwanese democracy movement emerged, and the ruling Kuomintang (KMT) gradually became Taiwanese. The demonstrations during the democratisation wave of the 1970s certainly had an effect too. The government took the initiative and pushed ahead with liberalisation, ultimately leading to the democratisation of Taiwan.

Rudolphina: Never before have we had access to so much information thanks to the internet, social media, etc. And yet, autocracies like China are gaining ground and liberal democracies are in crisis. Why is that?

Christian Göbel: I can illustrate this with an example. The 1990s marked the high point of the so-called third wave of democratisation, which began in the 1970s. At the time, democracy was widely attractive. It was something people living under authoritarian regimes aspired to. 

In the wake of the advancement of autocratic regimes, it is now the other way around. Democracies now need to overcome multiple crises, and they do not always work out so well. These negative developments stand in stark contrast with the perceived stability of autocratic rule. 

In social media, democracy is being undermined not only by individuals but also by bots and controlled discourse. As a result, its image is no longer viewed positively. Instead, it is often associated with oligarchy, chaos and forms of social diversification that many find unsettling. 

Rudolphina:  For a long time, social media was considered and actually used as a tool to support liberation movements. Today, they seem to increasingly serve populists, dictatorships and autocracies. What characterises the social media landscape in China?

Christian Göbel: There is a separate ecosystem of Chinese social media. All the channels we are familiar with, such as Facebook, Instagram, Tiktok, etc., do not exist in China. Platforms that are only customised for the Chinese market are used instead, and these platforms are subject to tight control. Every social medium is responsible for its own censorship. Influencer accounts are monitored more closely than small accounts with few followers. There have also been several waves in which influencer accounts were shut down because they were too critical.

Another important point is that the Chinese state media and actors have a strong media presence. For example, the People's Daily and the China News Agency have around 150 million to 200 million followers on social media, giving them a very wide reach. This actually makes them the strongest and most important actors online, resulting in a de facto colonisation of social media by state accounts and content. There is also critical discussion, but it has become more difficult and is taking place below the surface.

Rudolphina: We are aware of repression and human rights violations, but still maintain close trade relations and cooperate with China in major sporting events such as the Olympic Games. In your opinion, is it a good idea to organise such globally prestigious events in an autocratic country?

Christian Göbel: The Olympic Games were held in China in 2008 and then again in 2022, with the idea that an event like this could lead to liberalisation and relaxation because it offers international contact and exchange. 

But the opposite occurred. China used the Olympics as a stage. At the same time, security measures were tightened, which ultimately led to the surveillance system and security measures becoming even stricter, making the political system even more autocratic.

The organisations themselves are also part of the problem. If the award processes of FIFA or the Olympic Committee are opaque and do not prioritise human rights criteria, autocratic regimes can easily use such major events to stage themselves.

Rudolphina: Let us take a brief look into the future. In your opinion, where is the political system of the People's Republic of China heading?

Christian Göbel: That is very difficult to answer, because many scenarios are conceivable. I think it is fairly safe to assume that the status quo will continue, i.e. that we will see the further centralisation of power and the attempt to continue to control the population with performance, propaganda and repression. In my opinion, there will be no liberalisation movement in the near future. I currently do not see any signs of such a movement emerging.

Rudolphina: In more general terms, in your opinion, will this current trend of autocratisation reverse again?

Christian Göbel: It depends on the system. The system is currently relatively successful in China, even if economic tensions are increasing. If we compare this with the USA, for example, we see that the undermining of democratic institutions does not work very well there. In terms of prosperity, we still have a higher increase in prosperity in democracies. Personally, I do not buy the argument that autocracies are more efficient. 

The differences between individual autocracies are enormous. There are a few success stories, such as China and Singapore, but there are also many cases in which authoritarian rule leads to stagnation and mismanagement. The success stories are the exception, not the rule.

If we are lucky, the current events in the USA and in other countries will delegitimise autocratic practices. When populist or illiberal forces come to power, this often not only restricts citizens' rights and heterogeneity, but also often leads to increasing government debt. It is my impression that illiberal governments will cost us dearly.

My very naïve hope is that people appreciate the democratic system in which they live, and that nobody participating in events or lectures says that we do not live in a democracy here anyway. Our system may not be perfect, and I understand a certain degree of political apathy, but we do live in a democracy. That is a fact.

Rudolphina: In your opinion, how could we increase the appreciation of democracy again?

Christian Göbel: I think, on the one hand, that this is up to the people themselves. Appreciation increases when democracy is perceived as a positive thing. So it is important to not just vote for a party and expect things to improve, but rather practise democracy yourself, for example in your neighbourhood or in your club. The connection between a functioning civil society and a resilient democracy is well documented. 

On the other hand, politics can also create opportunities for participation beyond elections. Citizens' councils are a good example of this. Third, we need an honest communication of what democracy is and what it is not. Democracy cannot guarantee that everything will go well, but it guarantees that we have the possibility to contribute to improving the system. I believe it is essential to increase this awareness, also through education. 

Rudolphina: Thank you very much for the interview.