Distinctions With a Difference: Illiberalism and Authoritarianism in Scholarly Study

Illiberalism is often associated with the concept of “authoritarianism,” but their relation can be underspecified, confused, contradictory, or overlapping. This is in no small part due to the tricky conceptualization of authoritarianism itself, which holds to surprisingly different definitions across several social-scientific disciplines and deals with the same common problems of usage imprecision. This chapter conceptualizes the relationship between illiberalism and the several understandings of authoritarianism current in the mainstream academic literature. In doing so, it shows how the concept of authoritarianism understood as a form of political regime is the most useful for most scholars working on the subject of illiberalism, although in some ways also the most difficult to adhere. In support of this conclusion, the chapter reviews several prominent and influential alternative definitions of authoritarianism, including psychological-dispositional, psychological-behavioral, policy-ideological, and practice-process conceptualizations. It notes that these other variants of authoritarianism suffer from diverse, internal problems with conceptual coherency, parsimony, bias, rigor, and empirical replicability. Furthermore, they are particularly susceptible to obscuring or even hindering the empirical and theoretical application of illiberalism in scholarly study, although important exceptions and further avenues of exploration are noted as well. Familiarity with definitional problems associated with non-regime conceptualizations of authoritarianism will ultimately facilitate a more precise and nuanced scholarly research approach on illiberalism.

Illiberalism and Authoritarianism

Waller

2024

Illiberalism and Islam

Sibgatullina

2024

The evolution and spread of illiberalism occurs against the backdrop of increased contact between Muslim-majority countries and Western democracies. This chapter examines two ways in which non-Muslim illiberal movements engage with Islam to define themselves and their agendas. On the one hand, the growing visibility of Muslim groups in the Global North has led to the rise of illiberal discourse that seeks to exclude Muslims by portraying them as a threat. Nevertheless, some illiberal actors instead endorse certain Islamic principles, seek cooperation with Muslim groups, or even convert to Islam. The instrumental use of Islam by illiberal actors relies on images of the religion as a homogeneous, conservative, and male-centered system of faith. The discussion shows that the convergence between illiberal and Muslim elements primarily occurs as a critique of cultural liberalism, and it tends to be driven by expediency, is temporary in nature, and does not challenge existing power relations.

Illiberalism in Liberal Democracies

Kauth

2024

How can we account for the persistence of illiberalism in liberal democracies? This chapter first offers a taxonomy of illiberalism to bring clarity to the empirical and theoretical aspects of the concept. Illiberal political practices in liberal democracies can be ordered along three dimensions relating to their relevant actors, targets, and sources: illiberal practices by private and state actors; disruptive illiberalism targeting democratic institutions (democratic backsliding) or liberal values (ideological illiberalism); and illiberalism originating from within the liberal democratic order or imported from outside its boundaries. Such an analytical schema allows researchers to investigate the logics causing illiberalisms as well as their consequences. The chapter then shows that illiberal practices by state actors emerge not only from anti-liberal political ideologies but also from conflicts over societal membership within political liberalism itself. Specific policy areas—illiberal pockets like migration, welfare, and security—are particularly prone to illiberal incursions.