STRATEGY CENTRAL
By Practitioners, For Practitioners
By Monte Erfourth, November 24, 2024
Introduction
The world's political landscape is marked by diverse forms of governance, each with unique features and consequences for society. Democracy, autocracy, oligarchy, and totalitarianism represent distinct models, each defining how power is distributed and how citizens are engaged in the political process. At the core of these regimes lies a spectrum of approaches to authority and individual rights. These regime types influence international relations. Each form of governance heavily influences how the regime decides to leverage power and influence others to advance and protect its interests geopolitically.
Since WWII ended, the U.S. democratic approach to international relations—founded on the rule of law, respect for human rights, and promotion of a rules-based order—has long been considered a more sustainable and morally grounded way of engaging with the world. During the Cold War, this approach starkly contrasted the closed, repressive regimes of the communist Eastern Bloc, garnering support from countries seeking a path to stability, security, and prosperity under a liberal world order. This model promotes transparency and accountability, allowing for checks on power and fostering alliances based on mutual respect and shared values. It helped shape international institutions like the United Nations and the World Bank, which have played crucial roles in fostering cooperation and reducing global conflict.
However, the American democratic model does not resonate with nations under autocratic rulers or those looking to prioritize rapid development over democratic ideals. The rise of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), the Russian attack on Ukraine, and the expanding influence of BRICS countries—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—underscore a preference in some quarters for an alternative path that emphasizes economic growth without the obligations of political liberalization. The allure of rapid, large-scale infrastructure investments with fewer strings attached makes the autocratic model more attractive to some nations, especially those in the Global South. Additionally, autocratic regimes, which prioritize control and stability, often find the U.S. approach threatening, perceiving its promotion of democratic values as a challenge to their power structures.
Moreover, pushback against the U.S. model has emerged externally and internally. Growing skepticism within large segments of the U.S. population regarding the costs of foreign engagement and the perceived failures of nation-building abroad has weakened the global appeal of the "Western Liberal" approach. As a result, the United States and its allies' international influence has been challenged by rising powers advocating for a multipolar world order and by domestic voices questioning the country's role as the global "policeman." This has led to a significant divergence from the unified front that helped win the Cold War, exposing vulnerabilities in a democratic approach that relies heavily on domestic support for its foreign policy objectives.
The ideological dynamic that profoundly shaped the Cold War is not as pronounced in the current geopolitical moment of great power competition. The heavy use of words like “revanchist” and “malign actors” in U.S. national security and academic circles obscures the fact that political ideologies remain very much in play. If setting the rules for global order is the prize in great power competition, then understanding the alternative systems of order becomes an essential tool in the national security toolbox. This analysis explores the state of international order, the common systems of governance, and what impact the evolving regime types may have on national security approaches. To get there, it will be necessary to explore governance types, compare their definitions, highlight their differences, and examine each regime type's influence on foreign policy.
The State of International Order
Today's state of the international order is largely defined by great power competition, with powerful nations like the United States, China, and Russia striving for dominance and influence. A complex mix of economic interests, military power, and ideological confrontations shapes this environment. The U.S. national security policy has increasingly centered on "strategic competition," particularly with China and Russia. While this competition is not a full-scale Cold War, it is characterized by persistent rivalries over influence, resources, and regional leadership, often conducted through economic, diplomatic, and informational campaigns rather than direct military conflict.
Powerful nations vie, as they always have, to be the power that can dictate the terms of international order every other nation must abide by. While the nation exerting this level of control will pay a high price in sustaining the global order, they will also reap the benefits of supreme advantage in access to markets, resources, and influence. This is the ultimate objective for powerful nations at all times and remains true today for the United States, China, and Russia.
In the current international order, powerful nations tend to pursue their interests by leveraging various tools, from alliances and economic partnerships to military posturing and political influence. For example, China's Belt and Road Initiative and Russia's attempts to influence former Soviet states highlight how nations use economic and political tools to expand their influence. The United States, in response, has focused on strengthening alliances, supporting a rules-based international system, and expanding its technological and economic competitiveness to counter the influence of these authoritarian states.
Since the end of the Cold War, the United States' ideological approach has been to extol the virtues of democracy and capitalism as the best means for humanity to profit and live in peace. The “Pax Americano” has been enforced through military might, diplomacy, trade, and cultural influence. Communism and socialism were seen as antithetical to democracy and capitalism and held sway in large swaths of the global governance systems. Ideology, or the underlying theory of order, has two fundamentally different approaches.
In a democracy, foreign policy is shaped by a balance of public opinion, elected leaders, and institutional checks, often leading to more transparent, consensus-driven decision-making and a preference for alliances and international norms. Democracies seek to build legitimacy and stability through diplomacy, negotiation, and the rule of law, constrained by electoral accountability and the need to justify policies to citizens. In contrast, an autocracy's geopolitical approach is characterized by centralized authority, with decisions largely dependent on the ruler's ambitions or a narrow group of elites. This structure allows for swift, assertive actions unconcerned with public approval, often using coercion and unilateral moves to achieve national objectives, relying on secrecy and control to maintain internal stability and external influence. The ongoing battle between democratic governance with an orientation to the “public good” and authoritarian government control that benefits select elites is driving uncertainty and volatility in the international order.
Defining Democracy, Autocracy, Oligarchy, and Totalitarianism
Democracy is often celebrated as the form of government that provides the greatest level of individual freedom and representation. In a democracy, power rests with the people, either directly or through elected representatives, and is characterized by free and fair elections, protection of individual rights, and adherence to the rule of law. It is designed to allow the majority's will while safeguarding minority rights.
Autocracy, by contrast, refers to a system of governance where power is concentrated in the hands of a single individual or a small group that exercises absolute control. This structure typically lacks meaningful checks on power and relies on the whims of the autocrat to dictate the nation’s direction. Citizens have little to no role in decision-making, and dissent is often suppressed.
Oligarchy is a form of governance where power is held by a small group of individuals, often based on wealth, family ties, or military control. It contrasts with democracy in its exclusivity, limiting political influence to the elite few rather than extending it broadly among the citizenry. The members of an oligarchy may come from a wealthy business class or a politically influential family, thereby sustaining their control through connections rather than popular consent.
Totalitarianism is an extreme form of autocracy in which the state seeks total control over every aspect of public and private life. The government uses propaganda, censorship, and surveillance to maintain authority and suppress opposition. Citizens under totalitarian rule experience heavy regulation of their daily lives, and political power is wielded through an intricate system of coercion and ideological indoctrination.
Regime Type and the Approach to Great Power Competition
In today's international order, democracies, autocracies, oligarchies, and totalitarian regimes navigate the resurgence of great power competition with varying strategies reflective of their respective regime types. Democracies, like the United States, often rely on coalition-building, emphasizing shared values such as human rights, free trade, and international law to gain influence. Through multilateral institutions like NATO and the United Nations, democratic states seek legitimacy and cooperation, fostering a sense of collective security. For instance, the U.S. approach to countering Chinese influence in the Indo-Pacific involves partnerships like the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) with Australia, Japan, and India. Additionally, AUKUS is a trilateral security pact between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, announced in September 2021. The partnership focuses on enhancing defense capabilities and fostering greater technological collaboration among the three nations, primarily to counter China's growing influence in the Indo-Pacific region.
Autocracies like China pursue dominance by utilizing centralized control over the state's economic and military assets to leverage power. Beijing's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) exemplifies how an autocratic regime can expand its influence economically by investing in infrastructure projects across Asia, Africa, and Europe. This approach extends China's economic reach and secures political loyalty from partner nations. Meanwhile, oligarchies, such as Russia under Vladimir Putin, blend economic interests with coercive tactics to achieve their aims. Russian oligarchs—wealthy individuals with close ties to political power—play significant roles in exerting influence abroad, as seen in their involvement in European energy projects. Russia uses oligarchic influence to undermine adversaries through energy dependency and cyber operations while maintaining plausible deniability.
Totalitarian regimes, such as North Korea, take a fundamentally different approach, focusing on military power and information control to project strength and secure their regime. Pyongyang's frequent missile tests and threats to neighboring nations aim to deter foreign intervention and cement the regime's dominance regionally. By promoting a cult of personality and leveraging its nuclear capabilities, North Korea seeks to gain concessions from the international community, presenting itself as an unpredictable actor that must be appeased. The totalitarian model often thrives in creating fear and uncertainty, allowing the regime to remain unchallenged domestically while gaining international leverage through coercion.
If Democracy Became a Global Minority
As of 2024, there are more democracies than autocratic governments worldwide, but the gap has narrowed. According to data from Freedom House and other organizations tracking global political systems, approximately 55% of countries are classified as democracies, while about 45% are categorized as autocracies (including authoritarian, oligarchic, and totalitarian regimes). However, the quality of democracy in many nations is threatened, leading to the rise of "hybrid regimes" that blend democratic and autocratic characteristics.
If the international order shifts to feature more autocracies than democracies, the global balance of power could become increasingly volatile. Autocratic regimes prioritize state control and national sovereignty and often resist liberal norms like human rights and democratic governance. This shift would likely weaken multilateral institutions such as the United Nations and the World Trade Organization, predicated on cooperation and shared values. Without a broad base of democracies upholding these values, international norms might erode, creating a fragmented system where power politics and regional spheres of influence dominate. Countries may increasingly align based on economic dependencies and security guarantees rather than shared democratic ideals. This could further undermine collective approaches to addressing global challenges like war, climate change, cybersecurity, and terrorism.
This rise in autocracies is fundamentally shaping great power competition, as it would potentially favor actors like China and Russia, who prefer a multipolar world order free from U.S.-led liberal hegemony. Autocratic states might be more willing to leverage economic coercion, cyber warfare, and military influence without concerns about maintaining democratic legitimacy. The global order could become characterized by transactional relationships, where alliances are formed based on mutual convenience rather than ideological alignment. This shift would amplify the competition between great powers for influence in non-aligned countries, as the U.S. and other democracies would face rivals unconstrained by domestic public opinion or institutional checks and balances.
To maintain the global order and remain the dominant global power, the United States must recalibrate its approach, focusing on strengthening alliances with like-minded democracies while also engaging pragmatically with autocratic states. This could include revitalizing traditional alliances like NATO and enhancing partnerships with emerging democratic powers like India. Simultaneously, the U.S. should continue to leverage soft power—investing in diplomatic efforts, trade agreements, and international development to win hearts and minds in regions vulnerable to autocratic influence. It must also prioritize technological innovation and economic resilience to counterbalance the influence of authoritarian states, particularly China’s Belt and Road Initiative. By leading efforts to modernize international institutions and promoting inclusive economic growth, the U.S. can offer a compelling alternative to the authoritarian model.
Conclusion
The evolving global order, characterized by an increase in autocratic regimes, demands different approaches from democratic regime types regarding great power competition. Autocracies prioritize control and stability, leveraging economic coercion and military influence, while democracies focus on coalition-building and shared values. As more autocracies emerge, the United States must adapt to ensure it retains dominance and influence over a democratic-leaning world order. The national security logic is simple: a world that operates like the United States will enable the most security and best chance at economic success.
To maintain a global order best suited to United States interests includes bolstering alliances with democracies, promoting democratic norms, leveraging soft power, and adopting pragmatic engagement with autocratic states. This has been tried successfully in the decades following WWII but has faltered since the end of the Cold War as democracies have slowly slid more towards authoritarian power. Perhaps leading by example more and preaching less about specific rights or moral causes would help remedy this seemingly faltering approach. Whatever the strategy, it must be employed soon. The world keeps sliding towards autocracy, not democracy, which will create a world less favorable to American national security interests.
The rise of populism within the United States, evidenced by movements that question the value of liberal democratic ideals and promote isolationism, adds complexity to this landscape. The second Trump presidency seems to be pushing the U.S. towards autocratic tendencies (seeking to strengthen the executive at the expense of other branches of government contrary to the intent of the Constitution), which could fundamentally alter its role on the global stage. Suppose the United States itself were to lean towards autocracy. In that case, it is conceivable that it could lead a dominant autocratic world, albeit with a radically different approach to governance and global leadership than what has historically defined American influence. Ideology and how to rule the world still come down to a fundamental approach to exercising power. Will it be a more friendly hand or a steel fist? Time will tell.
Bibliography
Arendt, Hannah. The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1951.
Dahl, Robert A. On Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998.
Friedrich, Carl J., and Zbigniew Brzezinski. Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1965.
Levitsky, Steven, and Daniel Ziblatt. How Democracies Die. New York: Crown, 2018.
Müller, Jan-Werner. What Is Populism? Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2016.
Winters, Jeffrey A. Oligarchy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
Brands, Hal. The Twilight Struggle: What the Cold War Teaches Us About Great Power Rivalry Today. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2022.
Heath, Timothy R., Derek Grossman, and Asha Clark. China’s Quest for Global Primacy: An Analysis of Chinese International and Defense Strategies to Outcompete the United States. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2021.
Mazarr, Michael J. The Essence of the Strategic Competition with China. PRISM, Vol. 9, No. 1, October 2020.
Rolland, Nadège. China’s Vision for a New World Order. Washington, D.C.: National Bureau of Asian Research, Special Report #83, January 2020.
White House. National Security Strategy of the United States of America. Washington, D.C.: White House, 2017.
Friedberg, Aaron L. “Getting China Wrong.” Polity, 2022.
Mearsheimer, John J. "Bound to Fail: The Rise and Fall of the Liberal International Order." International Security, vol. 43, no. 4, 2019, pp. 7–50.
Stent, Angela. “Putin's World: Russia Against the West and with the Rest.” Twelve, 2019.
Freedom House. "Freedom in the World 2024: Democracy in Retreat." Freedom House, 2024.
Ikenberry, G. John. "The Next Liberal Order: The Age of Contagion Demands More Internationalism, Not Less." Foreign Affairs, July/August 2020.
Diamond, Larry. "Facing Up to the Democratic Recession." Journal of Democracy, January 2015.
Mearsheimer, John J. "The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities." Yale University Press, 2018.
Rachman, Gideon. "The Age of the Strongman: How the Cult of the Leader Threatens Democracy around the World." Bodley Head, 2022.
Comments