Alongside the growth of authoritarianism domestically and the rising influence of authoritarian states internationally, the increase in global authoritarianism has a transnational element, with authoritarian actors working together in transnational partnerships. Those wishing to confront authoritarianism therefore need a strategy for responding to these partnerships. But what should this strategy be? One set of options, frequently defended by commentators given the gravity of the threat posed by global authoritarianism, is the use of exacting, illiberal means against transnational authoritarians. These illiberal means range from the denial of democratic rights to the destruction of property, cyber hacking, verbal abuse, and physical force. This paper argues that, although superficially attractive, illiberal means should generally be eschewed. It first repudiates the (1) self-defence and (2) reciprocity-based defences of using liberal means, before arguing that (3) there are three types of errors with arguments for using illiberal means – the ‘alienation error’, the ‘cathartic error’, and the ‘idealisation error’. The final section explores, and defends, alternatives to using illiberal means that avoid these three errors and that do not involve the denial of democratic rights or wrongful harm.
