The New Authoritarianism—How Discourse Dismantles Democracy

Democracies have always been susceptible to information manipulation. Today, however, the distortion of truth has intensified to a degree that shifts politics from rational debate to a strategic battle over perception. Objective reality is no longer the foundation of democratic decision-making but has instead become a pawn in a contest where dominant narratives shape the direction of societies.

This column argues that the convergence of discursive power, profit-driven social media, and post-truth politics fundamentally destabilize democratic institutions.

From Shared Reality to Strategic Narratives

We live in the era of post-truth politics (McIntyre, 2018), where facts play a diminishing role in political decision-making, and public opinion is shaped by emotionally charged, strategically constructed narratives. Instead of evaluating information based on objective criteria, fact and fiction are blurred. Truth is not merely ignored or suppressed but actively replaced by alternative realities that serve the strategic interests of various elites.

This phenomenon is no longer confined to traditional authoritarian regimes that rely on state propaganda and censorship. It now pervades democracies, where election outcomes, scientific consensus, and judicial rulings are increasingly contested as components of a politically constructed reality. Political actors craft alternative discourses in which ideological loyalty outweighs factual accuracy. The rise of social media intensifies this process, facilitating the spread of disinformation while fracturing the epistemic foundations of democracy into polarized and segmented information bubbles.

A striking illustration of this phenomenon occurred during the 2016 Brexit referendum in the United Kingdom. Pro-Brexit campaigners prominently featured the claim that the UK sent £350 million per week to the European Union and that this money could instead fund the National Health Service (NHS). Despite repeated fact-checks disproving this figure, the message resonated emotionally and visually, most notably emblazoned on the side of a campaign bus. The strength of the narrative, not its factual accuracy, played a decisive role in shaping public opinion. In this case, emotional appeal and strategic simplification blurred fact and fiction, illustrating how truth was not merely suppressed but replaced by an alternative reality that served political interests.

The destabilization of a shared epistemic framework has profound implications beyond the realm of public discourse. As the line between fact and fiction dissolves, it is not only societal debates that are affected, but also the very institutions designed to mediate and safeguard democratic processes.

The Erosion of Democratic Institutions

As truth ceases to function as a shared foundation for governance, democratic institutions lose their legitimacy and stability. Elections are no longer accepted as legitimate expressions of public will but are reduced to contests over which narrative prevails. Judges, journalists, and scientists—once seen as guardians of objective information—are reframed as enemies of “the people.” Instead of institutions acting as safeguards against political overreach, they become reshaped by discursive power dynamics.

This shift is not a temporary consequence of populism but signals a more profound transformation in the way political reality is constructed. In a post-truth society, deception is not simply an instrument of power—it becomes the mechanism by which power is legitimized. Instead of democratic deliberation, governance becomes a function of narrative dominance.

This process is unfolding in real time across multiple democracies. The United States serves as a stark example: Donald Trump’s persistent challenges to election results, attacks on the judiciary, and construction of an alternative political reality have demonstrated how discourse can be wielded to undermine democracy from within. Once a democracy crosses the threshold into post-truth politics, authoritarian governance does not arrive abruptly but emerges through the gradual adaptation of institutions to a shifting political reality. The most profound changes occur at the level of discourse, not through legal or constitutional abolition of democratic norms but by redefining concepts such as legitimacy, truth, and power.

Discourse and Power

Power is not solely a matter of economic dominance or repression—it is produced and maintained through discourse. Those who define how reality is discussed ultimately shape how reality is perceived and what is accepted as legitimate and true within a society. Michel Foucault (1982) argued that power and knowledge are inextricably linked: whoever controls knowledge, controls power. Beyond governments and courts, power resides in those who shape discourse, determining which ideas gain prominence and which are marginalized.

Building on this, Jan Blommaert (2005) emphasizes that discourse is not a neutral medium of communication but a mechanism that reinforces and reproduces social and political inequality. His concept of discursive stratification highlights how certain voices are granted authority while others are excluded, reflecting existing power structures. Not all voices are equal. In political contexts, dominant discourses serve to legitimize power while silencing opposition.

A clear example is how political leaders manipulate discourse to entrench their rule. Elections, judicial independence, and press freedom—often seen as the pillars of democracy—are systematically undermined when discourse erodes their legitimacy. In such contexts, power no longer derives from institutions themselves but from control over the narratives defining their function. Elections are deemed legitimate only if they produce the "right" result, judges are dismissed as politically biased when they contradict government policy, and independent media are labeled as “enemies of the people.”

This aligns with Blommaert’s notion of the struggle for meaning, where power is exercised not just through laws and institutions but by controlling the language in which political reality is framed. This process is further intensified in the digital age, where decentralized, algorithmically driven media have replaced traditional mechanisms of information control.

From Manufactured Consent to Algorithmic Control

While Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman (1988) described how mass media manufacture consent through media control, agenda-setting, and selective framing, today's landscape is shaped by decentralized, algorithmically curated platforms. While mass media once functioned as centralized institutions capable of shaping public perception, the rise of social media has transformed this dynamic. Instead of a single dominant narrative, political actors now exploit fragmented digital spaces to create competing realities, further polarizing society and undermining institutional trust.

Unlike traditional media, which maintained editorial oversight and journalistic standards, social media platforms operate through engagement-driven algorithms. These systems prioritize content that generates strong emotional reactions—outrage, fear, and identity politics—rather than factual accuracy. As a result, populist and authoritarian discourses gain a structural advantage, as they are more likely to provoke engagement than moderate or evidence-based perspectives.

This shift has profound consequences. As epistemic instability increases, political discourse no longer aims to persuade through reasoned argument but to mobilize affective responses. Social media, rather than reinforcing a shared epistemic framework, exacerbates polarization. But social media does not simply replicate elite interests; it introduces new dynamics by giving marginalized actors new visibility, even as it strengthens dominant narratives. It thus acts both as a tool of dominant power and as an unpredictable force that can destabilize established hierarchies. Movements such as #MeToo and Black Lives Matter exemplify how social media can empower previously marginalized groups, while the viral spread of conspiracy theories shows its darker potential. 

The Tangible Effects of Epistemic Crises

Epistemic crises have real-world consequences. Steve Fuller (2018) describes them as disruptions in societal mechanisms for establishing truth. When traditional mechanisms of fact-verification—such as courts, the press, and academic institutions—are undermined or replaced by competing truth regimes, democratic governance becomes destabilized. Instead of institutions functioning as neutral arbiters, they become instruments of political power, aligning themselves with dominant narratives rather than objective reality.

A striking example of this phenomenon is how political leaders manipulate discourse surrounding international conflicts. U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly framed events in Ukraine in ways that contradict established facts, demonstrating how epistemic crises manifest through the deliberate distortion of geopolitical realities.

Trump has falsely claimed that Ukraine initiated the war with Russia, despite overwhelming evidence that the conflict began with Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. By reversing the roles of aggressor and victim, this narrative serves to undermine international support for Ukraine and align public perception with a revisionist history that benefits Russian geopolitical interests.

Another tactic central to epistemic crises is the delegitimization of democratic leaders. Trump described Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy as a "dictator without elections" and falsely claimed that his approval rating was a mere 4%. According to recent polls, however, Zelenskyy enjoys a trust rating of approximately 63%.This mischaracterization of leadership is a textbook example of how political discourse can manufacture distrust, even in the face of verifiable public opinion.

Trump also criticized Ukraine for postponing elections, implying that Zelenskyy avoided democratic accountability. However, under Ukraine’s constitution, elections cannot be held under martial law, a provision widely supported by the Ukrainian public given the ongoing war. This example highlights how discourse can be weaponized to frame adherence to constitutional law as authoritarian overreach.

Another key strategy in epistemic crises is the distortion of economic realities. Trump exaggerated the scale of U.S. aid to Ukraine, claiming it amounted to $350 billion, a figure that is vastly inflated compared to official reports. This type of misinformation feeds into broader narratives of economic resentment and fosters skepticism toward foreign assistance policies.

These examples illustrate how epistemic crises are not just abstract shifts in discourse; they have tangible effects on governance, public trust, and international relations. When political leaders deliberately distort facts to shape public perception, institutions such as the judiciary, electoral systems, and international alliances are forced to adapt to an increasingly fragmented reality. Courts that uphold legal norms are branded as partisan; media outlets that fact-check misinformation are dismissed as biased; and democratic leaders are reframed as illegitimate actors.

The erosion of a shared epistemic framework creates a political landscape where competing realities are no longer debated but assumed as immutable truths by polarized constituencies. This process fundamentally reshapes the functioning of democratic institutions, making consensus-based decision-making increasingly difficult.

The Irreversible Shift?

Although the current situation is extraordinary, it is not entirely without precedent. Richard Nixon’s tactics of accusing political opponents of communism during election campaigns — despite privately acknowledging the falsehood of such claims — reveal that strategic misinformation has long been a tool in democratic societies. Another historical example is the "stab-in-the-back" myth propagated in post-World War I Germany, where military defeat was falsely attributed to internal betrayal by political and ethnic minorities. This narrative, though factually baseless, gained immense political traction and eroded public trust in the fledgling Weimar Republic, ultimately paving the way for the rise of authoritarianism under the Nazis.

These examples show that the deliberate distortion of truth to serve political ends is not a new phenomenon. However, what distinguishes the contemporary moment is the scale, speed, and technological infrastructure that facilitate the spread of alternative realities. Whereas previous manipulations of public perception required time and coordination through limited media channels, today's social media environment allows for the immediate and decentralized construction of competing political narratives.

Transitions from democracy to illiberal governance — whether in Weimar Germany, interwar Europe, or contemporary Hungary — rarely occur through abrupt coups. They typically unfold through gradual, discursive shifts that hollow out democratic norms from within, reshaping public understanding of legitimacy, truth, and governance. The question is no longer whether democracies are vulnerable to authoritarian shifts, but how rapidly and through what mechanisms these shifts materialize.

The struggle for truth is ultimately the struggle for democracy’s survival. As long as truth remains subordinated to power, the transition to authoritarianism is not a possibility but an inevitability. Epistemic crises are not temporary disruptions but structural shifts that redefine the conditions of governance. By restructuring reality through narrative control rather than empirical validation, political leaders consolidate power without resorting to direct repression.

The epistemic crises unfolding across contemporary democracies today are difficult to reverse. Social media's role, while sometimes emancipatory, predominantly destabilizes shared realities essential for democratic governance. Democracy depends not only on free elections and constitutional guarantees but on a shared commitment to a reality that can be collectively debated and shaped. Once a society loses its shared reality, power no longer stems from institutional design but from discursive dominance.

So discourse is not merely a reflection of power. It is power.

References

McIntyre, L. (2018). Post-Truth. London, England: MIT Press.

Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and power. Critical inquiry, 8(4), 777-795. 

Blommaert, J. M. E. (2005). Discourse: A critical introduction. Cambridge University Press.

Herman, E. S., Chomsky, N. (1988). Manufacturing consent. New York City: Pantheon Books.

Fuller, S. (2018). Post-truth: Knowledge as a Power Game. London and New York: Anthem Press..