Page Contents
Click to jump to any of these sections
- Goal of this resource
- Key definitions and assumptions
- The 7-point scale for assessing actions
- Scoring categories and actions in each one
- Interpreting scores
- Judges doing the scoring
- Leader scores
- Further exploration
Overview
Goal of this resource: to build public abilities to
- Recognize actions and conditions likely to promote autocracy
- Put leaders’ statements and actions into context (vs. viewing them in isolation)
- Understand roles and threats to independent media and other institutions that promote democracy
Key definitions and assumptions:
- Autocracy – a system in which the leader holds absolute power and isn’t subject to
- Legal accountability includes to a justice dept and other branches of government (can vary based on party control)
- Public accountability includes to voters and independent media representatives
- Democracy – a system of government with widespread voter input (e.g., to hold elected officials accountable) requiring work to maintain
- Autocratic norms and structures tend to arise without consistent effort to maintain democratic ones (a global concern)
- Unchecked power tends to have corrupting effects, although a strong executive branch can be useful in emergencies
- Common autocratic outcomes include incompetent leadership and corruption (self-enrichment and cronyism)
- Conditions promoting autocracy include a populist leader, a party with weak democratic principles, vulnerable democratic institutions, and a base of frustrated and credulous voters
- This scale tells part of a larger story that requires consideration of historical and cultural contexts in which actions occur (i.e., qualitative analysis)
The 7-point scale for assessing how much a leader’s actions promote or oppose autocracy
(scores are based on the estimated net effect of domestic and international actions related to each item)
| Value | Examples of Actions Meriting Each Score |
|---|---|
| -3 | Using multilateral force or sanctions (economic, diplomatic, or both) to discourage autocratic behaviors |
| -2 | Threatening to use lawful force or sanctions in response to human rights violations, passing new laws to protect rights |
| -1 | Sharing concerns publicly and discussing them with other leaders, using ethical practices |
| 0 | Having a net effect that is neither encouraging nor discouraging of autocracy (or else not known) |
| +1 | Not criticizing or drawing attention to others' autocratic actions, normalizing relations with oppressive regimes |
| +2 | Publicly celebrating others' autocratic actions, providing weapons used to quell dissent, requesting more power |
| +3 | Using excessive (e.g., lethal) force to quell non-violent expressions of dissent in one's own country |
Scoring categories and actions (click each to expand):
Limiting public information access
Shifting norms and conversations to limit thought/public scrutiny
-
1A. Using de facto or official state media/discouraging independent media
Shifting norms and conversations to limit thought/public scrutiny
-
1D. Undermining the idea of objective truths/reality
Minimizing public and media criticism
Obstructing free and fair elections
-
2A. Restricting rights to assemble to protest or otherwise criticize the leader
Obstructing free and fair elections
-
2D. Capturing support of elites by doing them favors
Altering roles to suit the leader’s interests
Focusing on loyalty to the leader (vs. a constitution or other laws)
-
3A. Weakening agencies' and directors' roles, autonomy, or scopes of influence
Focusing on loyalty to the leader (vs. a constitution or other laws)
-
3E. Making loyalty to the leader a governmental job requirement (especially in law enforcement)
Manipulating legal systems for personal benefit
Assuming judicial roles
Avoiding legal obstacles and accountability
-
4A. Using intimidation or manipulating court composition to increase loyalty
Assuming judicial roles
-
4C. Creating/deploying unaccountable law enforcement agencies
Avoiding legal obstacles and accountability
-
4E. Ignoring court rulings on personal or policy matters unfavorable to the leader
Assuming legislative roles
Avoiding legislative accountability
-
5A. Blocking or redirecting government spending to suit the leader's interests
Avoiding legislative accountability
-
5E. Aoviding legislative confirmation for appointments
Interpreting scores
For each category, average scores also range from -3 to +3. Scores greater than 0 indicate a leader’s actions promoting autocracy over democracy:
- Between 0 and 1 = slightly promoting autocracy
- Between 1 and 2 = significantly promoting autocracy
- Between 2 and 3 = aggressively promoting autocracy
Note: Actual conditions in different countries with pro-autocratic leaders can vary depending on the strength of democratic institutions and norms
Judges
We’re in the process of recruiting an international group of historians and other experts to produce the most accurate scores possible. Stay tuned!
Leaders
Table of scores of foreign leaders and U.S. presidents (additions coming)
Donald Trump scored demo
Further exploration
Grade 9 and up
Grade 11 and up
College
- Examine a given autocratic action and how one or more leaders use or avoid it
- Interview a political reporter about why they chose that profession as well as their experiences covering protests or a specific leader
- Pick an action, category, or total score (once available) and compare any two leaders
Grade 11 and up
- Class project: fill out a scale for a leader and discuss the results, with smaller groups researching autocracy-related actions for each category
- Debate about certain actions or categories being especially relevant or important in the US (or another country) right now
- Discuss emergencies likely to require somewhat autocratic approaches and how to navigate them without undermining democracy in the long term (e.g., using Lincoln or FDR)
College
- Pick a country and consider times when autocratic leaders scored higher or lower on the scale (once available) and consider leadership styles and other factors
- Look at a theme like violence or loyalty and explore ways they impact governments or countries
- Have different groups score a leader and debate differences in their assessments
Grade 9 and up
Grade 11 and up
College
- Create a lesson plan to teach younger learners about leadership styles and autocracy
- Advocate for stronger democratic institutions (e.g., independent media) Create a resource (e.g., PSA) to promote distinguishing between independent and state-influenced or run media
- Interview political candidates about their positions on one or more autocracy-related actions and publicly share the findings
Grade 11 and up
- For a database contribute examples of actions by a leader related to autocracy
College
- Build a searchable database to house data of autocracy-related actions by a leader
- Interview an expert on a given leader, have them submit a score using the scale, and share the findings with 3Levels.org
In order of expected complexity:
- How do different leaders' autocracy-related actions compare?
- How do different political parties (current or historical, in the U.S. or elsewhere) temper greed for power? Which ones are enabling (or have enabled) autocracy?
- How free is the U.S. compared to other countries or itself at an earlier point in history? (see the Freedom Index or other resources)
- How might a leader's management style impact their autocracy score?
- How can defenders of democracy effectively respond to undemocratic actions taken by leaders (executive, legislative, justice, etc.)?
- How might cultural, historical, and political contexts influence a leader's autocracy scores?