The Paradox of Progress: Why Economic Liberalization Often Strengthens Autocracies
There’s a paradox at the heart of modern geopolitics that few seem to talk about: why do so many autocracies become more repressive when they open up their economies? It’s a question that defies the neat narratives we often tell ourselves about globalization and freedom. Personally, I think this is one of the most underappreciated dynamics in political science today. It’s not just an academic curiosity—it’s a trend that reshapes the lives of billions.
Let’s start with the obvious: the world is far less democratic than we’d like to believe. According to the V-Dem Project, 41% of the global population lives under autocratizing regimes. That’s not a typo—autocratizing. We’re not just stagnating; we’re sliding backward. What makes this particularly fascinating is that this reversal is happening during an era of unprecedented economic globalization. For decades, economists and policymakers have argued that opening up economies would naturally lead to democratic reforms. The logic seemed unassailable: privatize industries, deregulate markets, and watch as citizens gain economic independence, organize, and demand political freedoms.
But here’s the kicker: reality doesn’t care about our theories. Countries like Mexico, Malaysia, and Senegal have seen human rights abuses increase after embracing economic liberalization. From my perspective, this isn’t just a failure of policy—it’s a failure of imagination. We assumed autocrats would quietly step aside as their economies modernized. What we didn’t account for was the ruthless adaptability of authoritarian elites.
The Elite Bargain: Why Repression Pays Off
One thing that immediately stands out is how autocrats weaponize economic reforms to consolidate power. José Kaire’s work on this is eye-opening. He argues that economic liberalization isn’t just an economic shift—it’s a political threat to the ruling elite. When a dictator privatizes state-owned enterprises or opens markets to foreign investment, they risk empowering new players: business leaders, opposition figures, anyone who could challenge the old guard.
Here’s where it gets interesting: to survive, autocrats often double down on repression. It’s not just about silencing dissent; it’s about sending a message to their own elites. By cracking down on outsiders, they reassure insiders that their interests are protected. In my opinion, this is the real genius—and cruelty—of modern authoritarianism. It’s not about brute force; it’s about strategic signaling.
Take Mexico, for example. When the government liberalized the economy, it also intensified repression against opposition groups. Why? To compensate party elites who felt threatened by the reforms. If you take a step back and think about it, this is a masterclass in political survival. The dictator gets to look progressive to the international community while keeping their domestic power base intact.
The Washington Consensus: A Double-Edged Sword
What many people don’t realize is that this dynamic is baked into the very policies we’ve been exporting for decades. The Washington Consensus, with its emphasis on privatization and deregulation, was supposed to be a roadmap to democracy. Instead, it’s often become a playbook for autocrats. Leaders in places like Cuba and Venezuela are now facing pressure to liberalize their economies—but as Kaire points out, this could backfire spectacularly.
In Cuba, for instance, the military and party elites have gained more autonomy in recent years. If the government pushes economic reforms, these elites are likely to demand greater repression to protect their interests. What this really suggests is that external pressure for liberalization can inadvertently strengthen authoritarian rule. It’s a sobering thought: our well-intentioned policies might be making things worse.
The AI Factor: A New Frontier for Autocratic Adaptation
Here’s a detail that I find especially interesting: this dynamic isn’t limited to traditional economic sectors. The rise of artificial intelligence could be the next frontier for autocratic adaptation. China, under Xi Jinping, is already centralizing control over its AI sector, promoting firms aligned with the regime while sidelining independent entrepreneurs.
What this implies is that AI isn’t just a technological revolution—it’s a political one. By controlling this emerging sector, autocrats can create a new class of elites dependent on their patronage. This raises a deeper question: could AI become a tool for entrenching authoritarianism rather than democratization? I suspect the answer is yes, and that’s a future we’re not prepared for.
The Human Cost of Theory
What’s most striking about this entire debate is how little we talk about the human cost. Economic liberalization is often sold as a win-win: growth for the economy, freedom for the people. But for millions, it’s been the opposite. This isn’t just a policy failure—it’s a moral one. We’ve spent decades exporting a model that, in many cases, has led to more repression, not less.
If there’s one takeaway from all this, it’s that democracy isn’t a byproduct of economic progress. It’s a choice—one that requires constant vigilance and sacrifice. Autocrats will always adapt, always find new ways to cling to power. The question is whether we’ll adapt too, or keep repeating the same mistakes.
Personally, I think the answer lies in rethinking our assumptions. Economic liberalization isn’t inherently good or bad—it’s a tool, and like any tool, it depends on who’s wielding it. Until we acknowledge that, we’re just spinning our wheels. And in the meantime, the slide into authoritarianism will continue, one reform at a time.
