Authoritarianism, perceptions of security threats, and the COVID-19 pandemic: A new perspective

Abstract

This article offers a new perspective on when and why individual-level authoritarian perceptions of security threats change. We reexamine claims that authoritarian members of the public responded to the COVID-19 pandemic in a counterintuitive fashion. The response was counterintuitive in that, rather than a desire for a stronger government with the ability to impose measures to address the pandemic and its consequences, authoritarian individuals rejected a stronger government response and embraced individual autonomy. The article draws on perceptions of security threats—issues that directly or indirectly harm personal or collective safety and welfare—from surveys in two different contexts in England: 2012, when perceptions of the threat from infectious disease was low relative to most other security threats, and 2020, when perceptions of the personal and collective threat of COVID-19 superseded all other security threats. We argue that the authoritarian response was not counterintuitive once we account for the type of threat it represented.

Introduction to the issue and volume 42 in review

“…It embodies a special issue on national security and infectious disease based on a call for papers issued in late 2022 entitled “COVID-19, International Relations, and Security Studies: Has the Pandemic Altered the Study and Practice of International Security.” The collection of articles includes theoretical arguments from Kosal (2024) and McDermott (2024) on the impacts of disease on international security. It also includes articles from Stevens et al (2024) and Topping et al (2024) regarding the role authoritarianism plays in response to crises of disease. As well, Walker and Cramer (2024) examine the link between disease and conflict, particularly examining civil unrest in Africa.…”