NEO-AUTHORITARIAN INTERVENTION: PURPOSE, SUBJECTS, TOOLS, CONSEQUENCES

Abstract

This paper will explore the purpose, system of subjects, principal tools and consequences of neo-authoritarian intervention. The peculiarities of the neo-authoritarian regime, neo-authoritarian intervention, and export of neo-authoritarianism are clarified. China and Russia are selected as the main cases for analysis. The purpose of neo-authoritarian intervention is defined as the intention to strengthen the internal stability of non-democratic regimes and to broaden their influence on international processes, the effort being to change the world order and destroy liberal-democratic values. It is argued that the key subjects of neo-authoritarian intervention are the governments of neo-authoritarian states and a great number of actors (puppet parties; government-organized non-governmental organizations; marginal, ultra-radical social and political movements; state-controlled media; unscrupulous analytical centres; and international multilingual networks of TV, radio broadcasts, news agencies, which are financed by neo-authoritarian governments). The system of tools of neo-authoritarian influence includes tools of: power; influence within the soft power; subversion;  value modification; election tampeering; and pressure on international organizations. The tools of neo-authoritarian intervention are based on the classic tools of authoritarianism, but are modernized due to digitalization, information and communication progress, and the other technologies. Neo-authoritarian intervention is proven to increase the risks to global security. The main consequences of the strengthening of neo-authoritarian intervention on a global scale are the growth of threats to democracy, the risks of changing the world agenda. The consequence of neo-authoritarian interference in the internal affairs of non-democratic states is the growth of dependence on neo-authoritarian exporter states, further socio-political instability, increased use of force in solving socio-political problems. The research states that in the case of neo-authoritarian intervention in the affairs of democratic states, the consequences may include both effective counteraction to neo-authoritarian interventions and thus strengthening of the quality of democracy, and destructive tendencies including the growth of populism, radicalism,corruption, and hate speech.