In recent years, we have witnessed some influential figures and organizations—politicians, academics, entertainers, journalists, and members of the modern bourgeoisie—attempt to steer the general public away from liberal ideals. Instead, they promote a veiled agenda leaning towards authoritarian practices reminiscent of systems once condemned by the West, like those in former communist regimes.

In the United States, for instance, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the new administration actively “persuaded” social media companies to control narratives that deviated from the official stance. Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta (formerly Facebook), admitted on live television that his platform was directed by the U.S. government to suppress content contradicting its COVID-19 narrative. This example illustrates a concerning trend: influential powers pressuring private companies to limit public discourse under the guise of maintaining social order.

Prior to COVID-19, during the lead-up to the 2020 presidential election, one political party subtly endorsed resentment toward wealth through an unspoken rallying cry, “Loot the looters.” This rhetoric recalls Bolshevik tactics from the 1917 Russian Revolution, where Lenin and his followers dismantled the established social order by mobilizing the working class against the Whites and imperialists. The looting that ensued across the U.S. in 2020 seemed to be tacitly encouraged, with organizations like Black Lives Matter (BLM) implicated and hatred of white people. Such incidents, while meant to advocate for marginalized communities, instead reinforced harmful stereotypes that law-abiding Black citizens have long battled against. In states like California, laws permitting theft under $1,000 without prosecution only added to the perception of lawlessness—a far cry from true democratic values.

“Dictatorial” tactics are not limited to the modern U.S. but has been observed globally. In Russia, after the Bolsheviks took power, they established elections only to dissolve them when unfavorable results emerged, ultimately establishing a one-party system. A police state was formed under the Soviet KGB, later reconstituted as the modern FSB, to monitor and to imprison dissents. Similarly, in Brazil, under the guise of protecting public order, Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes has allegedly used his power to silence critics, with some even jailed for questioning his actions. De Moraes further ordered the blocking of X (formerly Twitter) in Brazil, marking a stark instance of digital censorship and raising alarms about judicial influence over online platforms, directly opposing constitutional freedoms.

De Moraes is now undergoing impeachment proceedings, accused of abusing judicial power. His actions highlight an unsettling trend: the blending of judicial authority with political influence, a practice that increasingly mirrors authoritarian regimes. This parallel with Soviet-era tactics is striking, as is the report of people fleeing Brazil to avoid imprisonment simply for expressing dissent.

Even in Europe, once a beacon of liberalism, we see similar developments. In the United Kingdom, a private email with alleged “racist” remarks prompted police intervention, despite the sender’s claim that it was a personal commentary based on her experiences. Such incidents evoke images of a “thought police,” stifling individual opinions that conflict with the prevailing social narrative.

In the U.S., the judiciary’s involvement in political matters has fueled public perception that law enforcement is being used to silence political opposition. Although this is officially denied, such actions appearing around election periods can undermine public confidence in democratic norms. Across the West, concerns are rising over judicial actions, sometimes supported by agencies like the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in the U.S., that seem to undermine constitutional freedoms—practices the Fourth Amendment was designed to prevent. While this amendment does not apply globally, the principle of keeping judicial and police powers separate from political influence remains essential to democracy.

This increasing acceptance of authoritarian practices is both anti-democratic and illiberal, challenging core values and freedoms across nations that have long prided themselves on upholding the ideals of democracy and freedom of speech.

By Luis de Andrade