The Democracy Death Spiral: When Military Strongmen Start Making Sense

---

Captain Ibrahim Traoré wants his people to “forget” about democracy. Not postpone it. Not reform it. Forget it entirely.

The Burkina Faso military leader who seized power in 2023 isn’t even bothering with the usual strongman playbook of promising elections “when conditions improve.” He’s telling his country that democratic rule simply wouldn’t work for them. Period. End of discussion.

Here’s what makes this particularly chilling: he might be right.

Not morally right — I’m not about to argue that people don’t deserve self-governance. But tactically, strategically, maybe even practically right. And that should terrify anyone who still believes democracy is the natural endpoint of political evolution.

Photo by Tara Winstead / Pexels

The New Honesty of Authoritarianism

Traoré’s bluntness represents something new in the authoritarian playbook. Previous generations of military leaders at least paid lip service to democratic ideals. Remember Jerry Rawlings in Ghana promising a “holy war” against corruption before eventually returning to civilian rule? Or even Pinochet in Chile, who held his referendum in 1988 and actually respected the results when he lost?

Those days are over.

Today’s strongmen aren’t apologizing for authoritarianism. They’re selling it as a feature, not a bug. Traoré isn’t alone in this approach — he’s part of a broader pattern where military leaders across the Sahel have embraced permanent rule as the solution to their countries’ problems.

The scary part? Their arguments aren’t entirely without merit. Burkina Faso has been wracked by jihadist violence that has displaced over two million people. The previous democratic government, led by Roch Marc Christian Kaboré, was widely seen as ineffective against the security crisis. When Traoré and his allies staged their coup, there wasn’t much public outcry.

This is the democracy death spiral in real time. Citizens lose faith in democratic institutions because those institutions fail to deliver basic security and services. Military leaders step in promising order and stability. And then, instead of the usual promises about transitional periods and constitutional conventions, they just… stay.

The Pattern Spreads

Look around the world right now and you’ll see this same dynamic playing out across multiple theaters. The common thread isn’t ideology — it’s the abandonment of democratic pretense.

In Syria, the Assad regime has stopped bothering to explain away the systematic kidnapping of Alawite women and girls. The Times investigation into these abductions reveals something truly horrifying: the government isn’t just failing to acknowledge the scale of the problem, it’s actively covering it up. This isn’t the behavior of a government that cares about legitimacy or public opinion. It’s the behavior of a regime that has decided raw power is sufficient.

The kidnappings themselves tell a story about state breakdown that goes beyond the headlines. When minority communities — even those historically aligned with the government like the Alawites — can’t protect their women and children from systematic abduction, you’re looking at a failed state masquerading as a functional government.

But here’s the twist: Assad is still there. Still in power. Still making decisions that affect millions of lives. The international community has largely moved on from Syria, accepting that his brutal approach “worked” in the sense that he survived when everyone predicted his fall.

Photo by Mathias Reding / Pexels

Cuba’s Quiet Revolution

Meanwhile, in Cuba, something fascinating is happening that nobody’s talking about enough. Anti-government protests are growing despite the complete absence of organized opposition. Think about that for a moment — political dissent is emerging organically in one of the world’s most tightly controlled societies.

The regime has managed to eliminate traditional opposition by forcing critics into exile. But they haven’t eliminated dissatisfaction. And now that dissatisfaction is finding new forms of expression that don’t fit the old models of political organization.

This matters because Cuba represents the opposite end of the spectrum from places like Burkina Faso. Where Traoré is rejecting democracy before it can fail, the Cuban government is trying to maintain authoritarian control in the face of growing popular pressure. The question is whether bottom-up pressure can succeed where top-down transitions have failed.

My read? The Cuban government is more vulnerable than it appears, but the protesters lack the organizational capacity to capitalize on their growing numbers. It’s a race between popular frustration and state repression, and the state still has better resources.

The French Paradox

Here’s where things get really interesting. While authoritarians abroad are abandoning democratic norms, established democracies are struggling with their own authoritarian impulses.

The Paris police department tried to ban a four-day Muslim gathering, claiming it posed a terrorism risk. French courts overturned the ban, but the fact that it was attempted at all reveals something important about how even liberal democracies are responding to security concerns.

France has been grappling with terrorism for years, and each attack has chipped away at civil liberties in small but meaningful ways. The attempted ban on the Muslim gathering isn’t an isolated incident — it’s part of a broader pattern where security concerns are used to justify restrictions on peaceful assembly and religious practice.

The courts pushed back this time. But what happens when the next attack occurs? How many more restrictions will be justified in the name of public safety? France is walking a tightrope between maintaining democratic norms and responding to legitimate security threats, and it’s not clear they’re going to maintain their balance.

This is the democracy trap that authoritarian leaders like Traoré are explicitly rejecting. Why deal with courts and civil liberties and public debate when you can just impose order directly? It’s a seductive argument, especially when democratic governments appear to be moving in the same direction anyway, just more slowly and with more hand-wringing.

The Technology Wild Card

The Rima Hassan case adds another layer to this story. A member of the European Parliament is facing seven years in prison for quoting — not endorsing, but quoting — a perpetrator of a 1972 massacre in Israel. She could go to jail for words. In Europe. In 2024.

This is happening at the same time that Italy’s Uffizi Gallery is dealing with cyber-attacks on its IT systems. The hackers didn’t steal art, but they demonstrated something important: in our interconnected world, anyone can be reached by anyone else, anywhere, at any time.

These two stories connect in ways that aren’t immediately obvious. Hassan’s prosecution shows how democratic governments are expanding their definition of dangerous speech, while the Uffizi attack demonstrates how vulnerable even the most carefully protected institutions are to digital interference.

For authoritarian leaders, this creates both opportunities and challenges. On one hand, they can point to democratic governments prosecuting speech and say, “See? We’re all doing the same thing, we’re just honest about it.” On the other hand, they’re just as vulnerable to cyber-attacks and digital organizing as everyone else.

The question is whether technology ultimately favors authoritarians or democrats. My bet? It favors whoever adapts fastest, and right now that’s looking like the authoritarians.

Photo by Mathias Reding / Pexels

Shanghai’s Impossible Balance

The situation in Shanghai reveals another dimension of this story. The city’s cosmopolitan character doesn’t fit neatly into the Communist Party’s narrative of Chinese victimhood and Western sins. But rather than change the narrative, Beijing is trying to change Shanghai.

This is authoritarianism 101: when reality conflicts with ideology, change reality. The Communist Party has decided that Shanghai’s international character is a problem to be solved rather than an asset to be leveraged. They’re willing to sacrifice the economic and cultural benefits of cosmopolitanism to maintain ideological consistency.

What makes this particularly significant is that Shanghai has been one of China’s most successful cities precisely because of its international character. The Party is essentially saying that success isn’t worth the ideological complications that come with it. They’d rather have a poorer, more isolated Shanghai that fits their preferred narrative than a richer, more connected one that doesn’t.

This is the kind of decision that democratic governments struggle to make. In a democracy, you have to explain to voters why you’re making them poorer for ideological reasons. In an authoritarian system, you just do it and dare anyone to complain.

The American Factor

The Iran war updates add a crucial element to this global picture. An American F-15E warplane has been shot down over Iran — the first time during what’s described as a “five-week war” that a U.S. aircraft has been brought down over Iranian territory.

Wait. Five-week war? When did that start? And how are we just hearing about downed American aircraft now?

This is either incredibly sloppy reporting or evidence of how dramatically the information environment has changed. Either way, it suggests that major military confrontations can now occur with much less public attention than in previous decades.

If there really is an ongoing conflict between the U.S. and Iran that’s significant enough to involve American warplanes over Iranian territory, and if that conflict isn’t dominating global headlines, then we’re living in a fundamentally different world than the one that existed during the Iraq or Afghanistan wars.

For authoritarian leaders watching this, the lesson is clear: you can get away with a lot more than previous generations thought possible. If the United States can conduct a five-week war without massive public protests or media attention, then smaller countries can certainly crack down on domestic opposition without facing meaningful international consequences.

The Moon Shot Metaphor

Here’s the strangest part of this whole picture: while democracy crumbles on Earth, humans are heading back to the Moon for the first time since 1972. Artemis II has left Earth’s orbit and is pushing toward the lunar far side.

That date — 1972 — keeps echoing. It was the height of American power and confidence, when the U.S. could put people on the Moon and bring them home safely while simultaneously fighting a war in Vietnam and dealing with political upheaval at home.

Now we’re finally going back, but the world we’re returning from is unrecognizable. The country that’s launching this mission is deeply polarized, its allies are struggling with their own democratic backsliding, and its adversaries have stopped pretending to respect international norms.

There’s something almost pathetic about reaching for the stars while we can’t figure out how to maintain basic democratic governance on our own planet. It’s like polishing the silver while the house burns down.

But maybe that’s exactly backwards. Maybe the Moon mission represents something that authoritarian systems can’t replicate: the ability to undertake massive, long-term projects that require sustained cooperation across multiple administrations and decades of consistent funding.

China has a space program, sure. But they don’t have the network of allies and partners that makes something like Artemis possible. Russia used to, but they’ve burned those bridges. The Moon shot might be the one area where democratic systems still have a clear advantage over authoritarian ones.

The Gucci Mane Principle

Even the Gucci Mane kidnapping story fits into this broader pattern. A rapper was allegedly forced at gunpoint to release another artist from his record contract. It’s a criminal matter, obviously, but it’s also a perfect metaphor for how power relationships are being renegotiated everywhere.

Traditional contracts, legal frameworks, and institutional arrangements are increasingly being settled through force rather than negotiation. Why go through the legal system to break a record deal when you can just kidnap someone and force them to sign the papers?

This is the same logic that military leaders like Traoré are applying to governance. Why go through the messy, time-consuming process of democratic politics when you can just seize power and implement your preferred policies directly?

The difference is that in Gucci Mane’s case, there are still law enforcement agencies investigating the crime and prosecutors bringing charges. In Burkina Faso, the people doing the kidnapping are the government.

What This All Means

I think we’re witnessing the end of the post-Cold War consensus about democracy being the natural endpoint of political development. That consensus was always more fragile than it appeared, and it’s now collapsing under the weight of its own contradictions.

The democratic governments that were supposed to serve as models have spent the last two decades failing to deliver basic services, getting bogged down in endless wars, and allowing massive increases in inequality. Meanwhile, authoritarian governments in China, Singapore, and elsewhere have shown that you can deliver economic growth and social stability without democratic politics.

The result is that democracy is no longer seen as obviously superior to authoritarianism. It’s just one option among many, and not necessarily the most attractive one if your primary concerns are security and prosperity rather than abstract political rights.

This doesn’t mean democracy is doomed. But it does mean that democratic governments can no longer count on their political system being inherently appealing to people living under authoritarian rule. They’re going to have to prove that democracy works better, not just assume that everyone naturally wants it.

Right now, they’re failing that test. Burkina Faso’s military government isn’t telling people to forget about democracy because they’re evil — they’re doing it because they genuinely believe that democratic governance has failed their country.

Until democratic governments can offer a compelling counter-argument, we’re going to see more countries following Burkina Faso’s lead.

The most dangerous thing about Traoré’s statement isn’t that it’s wrong. It’s that it might be right.

What I’m Watching

• February 2024: Whether Cuba’s protests expand beyond their current scattered form into something resembling organized opposition, particularly around the anniversary of last year’s demonstrations
• French municipal elections in March: How many candidates will run on explicitly security-focused platforms that mirror the Paris police department’s approach to the Muslim gathering ban
• Burkina Faso’s relationship with neighboring democracies: If Ghana or Benin start seeing similar military movements citing Traoré’s “successful” model
• Shanghai’s financial metrics through Q2 2024: Whether Beijing’s ideological pressure translates into measurable economic decline in the city’s international business sector