Managing Media and Shaping Messages through Soft Authoritarianism

• In Event: Media Influence in Authoritarian States

Abstract

While repression is a fundamental tool in sustaining non-democratic regimes, it carries substantial risks and costs, from draining resources to potentially inciting domestic and international support for the repressed. Autocracies – especially if they self-describe as democracies – thus use a diversified toolkit of regime survival tactic including softer and less invasive methods to ‘upgrade’ their rule. Our study argues that for authoritarian leaders controlling political discourse and agenda is imperative as a form of soft authoritarianism, which exists below the threshold of overt repression. We identify two primary methods: 1) managing information flows, which involves a strategic yet non-totalitarian control of media, and 2) setting and framing public debate agendas. These interrelated methods aim to establish discursive hegemony, preempt internal criticism and unrest, and legitimize policy measures for limiting media freedom.
We suggest an original framework of analysis of soft authoritarianism to control and dominate the public sphere which allows us to examine the tools used by authoritarian incumbents, their implementation, and the specific strategies of media management and framing they rely upon. These tactics are not primarily about overt censorship or brute force, but rather about subtly guiding and shaping public perception and discourse. We find that these methods can be grouped into two modes of influence: 1) actions that bolster media that are loyal to the regime and thus incentivize the creation of positive regime narratives by journalists, and 2) tactics to dissuade critical reporting and to silence the voice of opposing discourse positions.
For the empirical analysis, we use a controlled comparison with a small-n sample (Capoccia 2005, Slater & Ziblatt 2013). Our four case countries cover two world regions – the Middle East and North Africa (Morocco, Saudi Arabia) as well as South and Central America (Venezuela, Nicaragua). We demonstrate the varied application of media management and public sphere control across these countries. This cross-regional analysis sheds light on differing patterns of soft authoritarian public sphere control in both open and closed autocracies and in phases of democratic erosion and autocratic consolidation. Incorporating two Authoritarian Gravity Centers (Kneuer & Demmelhuber 2016, 2020) - Venezuela and Saudi Arabia - and their regional spaces of influence (Nicaragua and Morocco), our paper also reveals attempts to extend and disseminate soft authoritarianism into regional public spheres. Our framework and analysis incorporate both traditional media as well as the capacities and attempts of autocrats to control digital media. The internet offers the potential to counter autocrats’ informational hegemony and thus to de-stabilize authoritarianism. But it also opens new channels and forms of manipulation and control for non-democratic actors. Thus, the integration of digital soft authoritarianism is a crucial point of our analysis.
Our findings are remarkable and somewhat counter-intuitive insofar more open, electoral autocracies whose rulers rely on the democratic façade of elections to legitimate their rule should theoretically be more inclined to use these methods instead of open repression. However, we find that the soft authoritarian toolkit is not entirely replaced by hard repression even as regimes transition to harder authoritarianism or when we look at closed autocracies. The results of our analysis suggest a complex interplay between soft and hard authoritarian practices. Even as regimes may escalate to more overt forms of repression, the subtler techniques of media control and agenda-setting remain in play, often becoming more sophisticated. This persistence underscores the intrinsic value authoritarian leaders place on controlling the narrative, which is crucial not only for domestic stability but also for maintaining a favorable image on the international stage.
This coexistence of media and information management methods in various forms of authoritarian regimes suggests a nuanced understanding of the dynamics between soft and hard authoritarian strategies. Our study contributes to the broader discourse on authoritarianism, highlighting the complexity of regime survival tactics and their implications for both domestic and international politics.

Authors

• Marianne R. Kneuer, TU Dresden

• Erik Vollmann, TU Dresden