The Paradox of Authoritarian Networks: Mechanisms, Conditions and Dynamics of Disrupting Democracy and Stabilizing Autocracy

It is an established observation that networks play a crucial role in the dissemination of ideas, practices, and policy elements. Equally remarkable, however, is the fact that the exact functioning of such networks has received little attention so far. Research often takes the existence of these networks for granted, leaving their internal dynamics, agency, structures, actors’ mindsets and normative commitments, and processes and practices underexplored. As a result, we know little about the actors who drive and sustain such networks, about the conditions for success, and about internal and external strategic orientations. This paper aims at conceptualizing the mechanisms, conditions and dynamics of authoritarian networks and networking strategies of illiberal and authoritarian actors. How do these networks and actors facilitate the diffusion, promotion, and amplification of illiberal and authoritarian practices, norms, policies, and institutions? In answering this guiding question, we introduce a new angle: We argue that the building and operation of authoritarian networks occur across all regime types and thus in both democracies and autocracies, albeit with different motivations, goals, and outcomes. In autocracies, authoritarian networks are primarily designed to guarantee regime stability and ensure its persistence. In democracies, however, the aim shifts to disruption by destabilizing and discrediting democratic institutions and principles, mobilizing anti-democratic followers and sowing mistrust in the citizenry. Finally, we are interested in the spatial dimension of these mechanisms and how they operate across different spatial levels: here we consider direction (horizontal as well as vertical) and scope (national and transnational) of the networks. We propose an actor-centered yet structure-sensitive understanding of networks, emphasizing roles (e.g., initiators, mobilizers, brokers), the content of ties (material, reputational, informational), and the effects of network configurations (hierarchy, cliques, brokerage) on collective action and resilience. Recognizing data constraints and clandestine features common to authoritarian settings, the framework highlights complementary methodological strategies that combine social network approaches with qualitative and discourse-oriented designs. Our paper tries to start a conversation on a research agenda and key questions on authoritarian actor network formation, maintenance, adaptation, and functional practices to better identify when authoritarian networks stabilize autocracy versus disrupt democracy.