H-Diplo: New posted content
H-Diplo Review Essay 625: Lee on Applebaum, _Autocracy, Inc._
H-Diplo Review Essay 625
Anne Applebaum. Autocracy, Inc.: The Dictators Who Want to Run the World. Doubleday, 2024. ISBN: 9780385549936.
1 April 2025 | PDF: https://hdiplo.org/to/E625 | X: @HDiplo | BlueSky: @h-diplo.bsky.social
Editor: Diane Labrosse
Commissioning Editor: Daniel R. Hart
Production Editor: Christopher Ball
Pre-Production Copy Editor: Masami Kimura
Review by Junhyoung Lee, University of Ulsan
Anne Applebaum’s Autocracy, Inc.: The Dictators Who Want to Run the World offers a penetrating analysis of how authoritarian regimes in the twenty-first century collaborate to challenge the liberal democratic order. Applebaum examines the rise of the transnational authoritarian network that is bound by mutual interests in kleptocracy, repression, and power consolidation. She argues that despite their ideological and cultural differences, modern autocracies operate as interconnected entities, exploiting global systems to undermine democratic norms and values. The book situates this authoritarian challenge within the broader context of a multipolar world order, where states like Russia and China champion anti-Western solidarity and alternative normative frameworks, rejecting traditional liberal norms under the banner of “multipolarity” (103). Applebaum’s central question revolves around how democracies should respond to this coordinated threat (1-3).
Applebaum organizes her analysis into five thematic chapters, each of which addresses a key facet of autocratic cooperation, and an epilogue. In chapter 1, “The Greed That Binds,” she explores how kleptocracy serves as the foundation of the autocratic alliance. Autocrats, particularly in Russia and China, leverage financial networks to launder wealth, bypass sanctions, and insulate themselves from international accountability. Applebaum highlights how Western systems, which were initially complicit in facilitating these practices, inadvertently strengthened the transnational kleptocratic network. She provides vivid examples, including the exploitation of sanctions to create illicit trade routes between authoritarian states, and the devastating impact of such networks on ordinary citizens, as illustrated in Zimbabwe, where the Zimbabwe Human Right Forum reported widespread abuses, including 137 political abductions, nineteen disappearances, 107 murders, and six politically motivated rapes (60). This analysis contributes fresh insights into scholarly debates on the political efficacy of sanctions and their unintended consequences.[1]
In chapter 3, “Controlling the Narrative,” Applebaum delves into the sophisticated propaganda mechanisms employed by autocracies to shape public opinion and undermine democratic legitimacy. She underscores how autocrats monopolize societal discourse, fostering political nihilism and disengagement among citizens. This strategy, she argues, thrives in a post-truth era where misinformation is pervasive, underscoring the importance of information literacy for sustaining democratic societies. Applebaum also connects this to China’s global media influence, which is supported by institutions like the Confucius Institutes.[2]
Applebaum’s analysis of the global strategies employed by autocracies to shape narratives and bolster their legitimacy is well-supported by existing scholarship on China’s use of soft power and information control. Samuel Brazys and Alexander Dukalskis illustrate how China employs sophisticated propaganda campaigns to promote a pro-China narrative while undermining democratic values. Their study of China’s “message machine” reveals the strategic use of state-sponsored media and international platforms to amplify favorable messaging, particularly in regions critical to China’s economic and political interests.[3] Dukalskis extends this analysis by exploring the role of Confucius Institutes as tools of grassroots influence, where cultural diplomacy blurs the line between education and political agenda-setting.[4]
Applebaum’s discussion of narrative control by autocracies is further enriched by Johannes Gerschewski’s framework of soft repression, as detailed in his analysis of the “three pillars of stability,” legitimation, repression, and co-optation. Gerschewski defines soft repression as the subtle infringement of civil liberties and political rights, contrasting it with hard repression, which involves violations of physical integrity.[5] This distinction provides a theoretical foundation for Applebaum’s account of how authoritarian regimes discredit opposition actors through defamation, misinformation, and the strategic manipulation of public discourse. Gerschewski emphasizes that over-politicizing autocracies amplify a friend-foe distinction to justify even hard repression, portraying opposition figures as existential threats. However, de-politicizing regimes prefer soft repression, avoiding overt violence to maintain a silent autocratic contract with a disengaged populace. This framework aligns closely with Applebaum’s depiction of how authoritarian regimes smear democrats and opposition figures, framing them as corrupt, unpatriotic, or incompetent. Applebaum documents how state-sponsored media and troll farms disseminate targeted campaigns to stigmatize opposition leaders, presenting them as threats to national stability or cultural identity (113). Gerschewski’s insights underscore how these tactics not only delegitimize democratic forces but also foster political apathy and disengagement, achieving repression without visible coercion. This nuanced mechanism of control enables autocracies to maintain a façade of stability while systematically dismantling democratic opposition under the guise of public opinion and legitimacy.
One of the book’s greatest strengths lies in its interdisciplinary approach, which synthesizes insights from history, political science, and international relations. Applebaum draws compelling parallels between Cold War-era authoritarianism and contemporary autocratic practices. She highlights how globalization and technological advancements have enabled a more adaptable and insidious form of authoritarianism. Her discussion of Germany’s reliance on Russian energy infrastructure exemplifies the vulnerabilities of liberal democracies in an era of economic interdependence, providing a stark warning about the geopolitical risks of overreliance on autocratic regimes.
Despite its many strengths, the book could have expanded its analysis of the resistance of civil society. While Applebaum briefly references grassroots movements in Belarus and Venezuela (4-5), these examples raise broader questions about the interplay between domestic opposition and international autocratic networks. Integrating Alexander Dukalskis’s Making the World Safe for Dictatorship would have enriched the discussion, particularly in understanding how autocracies manage dissent through both soft repression and sophisticated information campaigns.[6] Together, this work affirms Applebaum’s assertion that autocracies do not merely operate domestically but seek to influence the global discourse by leveraging soft power and narrative control as weapons against liberal democratic ideals.
Applebaum’s conclusions resonate with recent scholarship on global authoritarianism, particularly Levitsky and Way’s theories on competitive authoritarianism.[7] By emphasizing the transnational dimensions of autocracy, Autocracy, Inc. extends these frameworks, offering fresh insights into the mechanisms of authoritarian resilience and adaptation. The book also challenges liberal democracies to confront their complicity in enabling autocracies, particularly through their roles in laundering oligarchic wealth (31-35).
In sum, Autocracy, Inc. is an indispensable resource for scholars, policymakers, and readers interested in the future of liberal democracy. Applebaum’s lucid prose and incisive analysis make this book a significant contribution to the literature on authoritarianism and international relations. Her call to defend democratic principles against an evolving autocratic network is as urgent as it is compelling.
Junhyoung Lee is a Research Professor at the University of Ulsan specializing in politics and international relations. His recent publications include “Collective Memory and Everyday Politics in North Korea: A Qualitative Text Analysis of New Year Statements, 1946–2019,” Asian Studies Review 48:2 (2024): 270-288. His research interests include authoritarian legitimation and collective memory in post-Communist countries in East Asia.
[1] Lee Jones, Societies under Siege: Exploring How International Economic Sanctions (Do Not) Work (Oxford University Press, 2015).
[2] Yingjie Fan, Jennifer Pan, and Tongtong Zhang, “Gender and Political Compliance Under Authoritarian Rule,” Comparative Political Studies (2024): 1-40, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00104140241283007.
[3] Samuel Brazys and Alexander Dukalskis, “China’s Message Machine,” Journal of Democracy 31:4 (2020): 59-73, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/jod.2020.0055.
[4] Brazys and Dukalskis, “Rising Powers and Grassroots Image Management: Confucius Institutes and China in the Media,” The Chinese Journal of International Politics 12:4 (2019): 557-584, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/cjip/poz012.
[5] Johannes Gerschewski, The Two Logics of Autocratic Rule (Cambridge University Press, 2023), 86.
[6] Dukalskis, Making the World Safe for Dictatorship (Oxford University Press, 2021).
[7] Steven Levitsky and Lucan A. Way, Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes after the Cold War(Cambridge University Press, 2010).
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário