Topic 1: Boundaries and key definitions

Working definition

In political science, democracy is most commonly defined as a system of government in which political leaders are chosen and removed through regular, free, and fair elections, and where citizens have meaningful opportunities to participate in political life.

At its core, democracy is about popular sovereignty: the idea that political authority ultimately derives from the people. Elections are therefore essential. However, democracy in this minimal sense does not automatically guarantee individual rights, equality before the law, or protection of minorities.

This distinction is important because many political systems today meet democratic criteria procedurally (they hold elections) while failing to protect broader freedoms. As several authors in the course emphasize, democracy alone tells us who rules, but not necessarily how power is exercised or what limits exist on that power.

Key takeaway
Democracy is fundamentally about elections and participation — but elections alone do not tell us whether a political system is liberal, fair, or rights-protecting.

Sources:
Enyedi (2024); Markowski & Kotnarowski (2025)

Working definition

Democracy does not mean liberal democracy. Liberal democracy combines democratic procedures with liberal principles that limit political power. In addition to elections, liberal democracy requires the rule of law, separation of powers, independent courts, free media, and the protection of individual and minority rights.

Liberal democracy treats democracy not only as a method of choosing leaders, but as a normative project based on pluralism, equality before the law, and state neutrality toward different worldviews. These liberal elements are designed precisely to prevent the “tyranny of the majority.”

A system can therefore remain democratic in a procedural sense while ceasing to be liberal if courts are captured, minorities are excluded, or checks on executive power erode.

Key takeaway
Liberal democracy is democracy plus limits on power. When those limits weaken, democracy may survive — but liberal democracy does not.

Sources:
Enyedi (2024); Laruelle (2022); O’Donnell (1998)

Working definition

Illiberalism is a political ideology and governing logic that rejects core liberal principles such as pluralism, universal rights, state neutrality, and institutional constraints on power — while often accepting elections and popular legitimacy.

Illiberal actors typically argue that:

• majorities should not be constrained by courts or constitutional rules,
• the state should actively promote particular moral, cultural, or national values,
• excessive pluralism weakens social cohesion.

Importantly, illiberalism is not simply authoritarianism. It does not necessarily oppose elections or democracy outright. Instead, it challenges the liberal foundations that limit democratic power.

Key takeaway
Illiberalism is best understood as anti-liberal, not anti-democratic — at least initially.

Sources:
Enyedi (2024); Laruelle (2022); Kauth & King (2020)

Working definition

Illiberal democracy is not an oxymoron. An illiberal democracy is a political system in which democratic procedures exist, but liberal guarantees are systematically weakened. Elections take place, opposition parties may operate, and governments claim democratic legitimacy — yet courts, media, minority rights, and constitutional checks are under sustained pressure.

Illiberal democracy is not a contradiction. It reflects the reality that democracy and liberalism are analytically distinct. A system can be democratic in how leaders are selected, while illiberal in how power is exercised.

Research shows that illiberal democracies can be stable, not merely transitional. In some cases, they coexist with democracy for long periods; in others, they become stepping-stones toward more authoritarian rule.

Key takeaway
Illiberal democracy is a real and empirically observable regime type, not just a temporary deviation.

Sources:
Enyedi (2024); Markowski & Kotnarowski (2025); Wagner et al. (2025)

Working definition

Authoritarian or autocratic regimes are political systems in which power is highly concentrated, accountability is severely limited, and meaningful political competition is constrained or eliminated. Courts, media, and oversight institutions are subordinated to the executive, and opposition actors face systematic disadvantages or repression.

Unlike illiberal democracies, authoritarian regimes no longer rely primarily on democratic legitimacy. Elections, if they exist, are often tightly controlled and do not allow genuine alternation of power.

Authoritarianism is therefore defined not only by repression, but by the absence of effective constraints on rulers.

Key takeaway
Illiberalism weakens liberal democracy; authoritarianism replaces it.

Sources:
Enyedi (2024); Markowski & Kotnarowski (2025); Lührmann (2021)