In recent months, we have noticed a phrase emerging in the discourse surrounding the modern threats to American democracy: competitive authoritarianism. It isn’t as stark or shocking as words like totalitarianism or dictatorship, and it doesn’t evoke the obvious repression of regimes like North Korea or the one-party rule of China. It’s subtler, quieter, and arguably more dangerous for a country like ours, where democratic traditions and institutions have long been taken for granted.

Competitive authoritarianism refers to a system in which elections are still held, courts still convene, and newspapers still publish, but the very structures meant to ensure fairness, accountability, and civic participation are systematically hollowed out from within. In a competitive authoritarian regime, the surface-level features of democracy remain intact, but their integrity has been corroded.

This is how democracy can be attacked in plain sight. Unlike overtly authoritarian systems, where dissent is criminalized and opposition crushed outright, competitive authoritarian regimes use legal tools and institutional levers to tilt the playing field in favor of the ruling party. They don’t ban elections; they simply make them less fair. They don’t shutter the media; they just discredit, defund, or intimidate it. They don’t suspend courts; they pack them with loyalists who are unlikely to check executive power. All of this is done while claiming to respect the rule of law.

In such regimes, leaders often come to power democratically. But just as quickly, they begin chipping away at the guardrails that limit their authority. They consolidate control over civil service appointments, politicize law enforcement, and use state resources to punish opponents. Slowly, the line between party and state begins to blur.

We’ve seen this play out in places like Hungary, where Viktor Orbán used state advertising to gut independent media, and where laws were passed to restrict university funding and stifle civic organizations critical of the government. Turkey, too, has followed this model, with crackdowns on journalists, purges of public employees, and the erosion of judicial independence.

What makes competitive authoritarianism so insidious is that it relies on the public’s faith in the democratic symbols that remain. Citizens are told that because elections happen, everything is fine. But when those elections are rigged through gerrymandering, voter suppression, disinformation, or the selective enforcement of laws, the outcomes cease to reflect the will of the people.

In many cases, even dissent carries a cost. Government critics find themselves facing spurious investigations, funding cuts, or public smear campaigns. Agencies meant to serve the public become politicized arms of the ruling administration. Watchdog institutions are defanged. Over time, people begin to self-censor, withdraw, or simply give up hope in their ability to shape their government.

Sound familiar?

Here in the United States, liberal democracy is facing pressure unlike any in recent memory. Political scientists and democracy scholars are increasingly warning that we are not immune from the same tactics and trends seen abroad. Whether it’s politicized attacks on the press, retaliation against academic institutions, or attempts to concentrate power in the executive branch, the markers of competitive authoritarianism are cropping up across our political landscape.

But unlike countries with weaker democratic traditions, we Americans have tools to fight back. We have courts that still function. We have laws that protect speech and assembly. And most importantly, we have a population that, when properly informed and engaged, has the collective power to say “no.”

That’s why civic engagement matters more than ever, and that’s why Civic Nebraska exists – to defend and strengthen democratic institutions, to empower everyday people to take action, and to build resilience against creeping authoritarianism in all its forms.

We urge Nebraskans and all Americans not to be lulled by appearances. Democracy isn’t just holding elections. It’s whether people have equal access to those elections, whether the press can hold power to account, and whether laws are applied fairly to all. It’s about trusting the system and whether it works for everyone.

Let’s hold onto the substance of democracy, not just its symbols. Because once competitive authoritarianism takes hold, it’s much harder to dislodge.