WHILE Pakistan clings to fantasies of hybridity regarding its political framework, the Economist Intelligence Unit has categorised it as an authoritarian regime. The EIU’s latest Democracy Index ranks Pakistan 124 out of 165 states and among the top 10 worst performers on factors such as government functioning, political participation and culture, electoral processes and civil liberties.

We are not alone. The EIU classifies 60 countries as authoritarian regimes, which means 39.2 per cent of the global population is living under authoritarian conditions (45pc live in democracies, full or flawed, while 15pc are in hybrid regimes with features of both electoral democracies and authoritarianism). Europe has the strongest democratic performance, but this is tenuous — The Economist published an analysis showing that hard-right parties are Europe’s most popular by vote share, which will likely increasingly reflect in government composition and policymaking over coming years.

The EIU attributes this backsliding to several factors: economic pressures and growing wealth inequality; the paucity of new political narratives or solutions to challenges such as inflation, migration and joblessness; the sense that governments and political parties are estranged from the voting public; the impotence of governments as more decision-making is outsourced to non-elected bodies (courts, central banks, corporations); civic disengagement and a resort to reactionary, populist politics.

What these global analyses don’t highlight sufficiently is the societal impact of authoritarianism. There is a ripple effect of authoritarian and autocratic politics at the social, communal and even familial levels. Recognising this is key to understanding that none of us are immune to the impact of authoritarianism. And this recognition may spark less complacency and resignation in the face of democratic erosion.

This backsliding is due to several factors.

The societal impact of authoritarianism stems from the fact that authoritarians want to stay in power. To do so, they must cultivate an elite around them that is equally vested in their retaining power. In the case of military-run regimes, this elite is usually the military institution itself, though it may extend to political parties, the judiciary and media.

In this context, political participation is reconfigured as demonstrations of loyalty to the authoritarian rulers. The need to demonstrate loyalty results in an implicated elite consolidating support for authoritarianism, even if it goes against their own interests. In this scenario, ‘public interest’ is redefined as the need to appease the powers that be. Our parliament over the past year, from the 26th Amendment to Peca, has demonstrated how this works.

Once entrenched, authoritarian regimes and their enablers focus on the few agenda items that are critical to ensuring their survival at the expense of all other policy areas. Many domains thus fall to neglect, increasing inequality, driving marginalisation and fuelling grievances — and so creating those oppositional currents that reinforce authoritarian narratives that breed fear and emphasise the need for centralised control.

From attempts to militarise agriculture to silence dissent and neutralise universities by putting them under the purview of subservient bureaucrats, we can see this process in Pakistan. What is to be done? Protest and legal and political challenges remain fragmented and are targeted by ascendant authoritarians. External stakeholders who in the past may have gently rapped ruling wrists and nudged for free speech or religious freedoms are now preoccupied rolling back their own civil liberties and slashing aid budgets.

What’s left is an ‘each person for himself’ mentality, which further ero-des the national fa--bric. Signs of this un-----fortunately abo-u-nd in Pakistan today. The richest are offshoring, and the poorest are handing their fates to human traffickers and rickety boats. According to the Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, 37pc of Pakistanis want to leave the country, with the desire most pronounced among the most educated.

Those left behind are taking a cue from the authoritarians in charge and prioritising the need for survival. Only this can explain the daily slew of horrific news: children killed by reckless drivers; religious minorities threatened with baseless blasphemy accusations; wives’ bodies offered up to settle gambling debts; civilians snacking at eateries assaulted by some influential’s private security guards; miners sent down deadly shafts; Baloch people ‘disappeared’. The truth is, there’s no hiding from the destructive effects of authoritarianism, and escape comes at high, possibly fatal, costs. A common purpose, rather than an isolationist survival instinct, may be the only way forward.

The writer is a political and integrity risk analyst.

X: @humayusuf

Published in Dawn, March 3rd, 2025