In democratization theory, scholars often assume that expanding civil and democratic rights and giving people the chance to elect their leaders would eventually lead to a more democratic and peaceful society. Democratic Peace Theory extends this notion to state foreign policy, claiming that democracies pursue more peaceful foreign policies and are less likely to engage in war, especially with other democracies.
However, with the fall of Socialism and the inability of Liberalism to appeal to large masses, something strange is happening recently in democracies such as Israel, the United States (U.S.), and even some European countries. With increasing focus on ethnic/religious/sectarian identities, the Western democratic model has begun to transform into a right-wing populist tool to control society by elites. The unbearable transformation of "democratic" Israel into an expansionist state that does not refrain from committing genocide against civilians for security reasons, or Trumpist populism that openly discriminates against some people or institutions, are clear examples of the failure of the democratic model. There are many other examples of far-right parties in Europe which are running towards gaining governing power by using xenophobia, hatred towards migrants and minorities, etc. At this point, it is now legitimate to ask whether a "dicta blanda" could work better and lead to a more peaceful country than a populist democracy slipping into fascism?
"Dicta blanda," or "dictablanda," is a Comparative Politics term for a kind of "soft dictatorship" in which the government holds absolute or authoritarian power but chooses to preserve, restore, or tolerate certain civil liberties and political freedoms rather than destroy them entirely. The term is a Spanish pun that wordplays on "dictadura" (dictatorship). It replaces "dura" (hard) with "blanda" (soft) to convey flexibility and the role of freedoms compared with dictatorial regimes.
In such regimes, while the state maintains control primarily through structural regulation, political pragmatism, and negotiated consent rather than relying exclusively on military force or violent oppression, citizens are also granted selective basic rights, such as limited freedom of speech, assembly, or contested elections, even though the political system remains highly unequal or non-democratic. PRI regime in Mexico in the 20th century, the single-party regime in Atatürk's Türkiye in the 1920s and 1930s, and the General Dámaso Berenguer (1930–1931) period in Spain are some successful examples of the dicta blanda model, where the countries developed considerably despite the lack of democratic freedoms. The Chinese miracle under CCP (Chinese Communist Party) rule, or the current Xi Jinping regime, could also be added to that list despite structural and ideological differences.
The main advantage of dicta blanda against populist democracy is that it gives the state a chance to fix structural "big" problems. While electoral democracies force governments to think about the next election and keep them from solving their country's real problems, dicta blanda gives the ruler a chance to do things that help the nation and the country become stronger in the medium and long run, despite short-term problems. In short, "soft-authoritarian" regimes can be far more successful than populist democracies by prioritizing academia, the bureaucracy, and expertise in general. Conversely, democracies can descend into mediocrity, where leaders and parties—driven by electoral concerns—increasingly turn toward banal, simplistic, day-to-day political affairs and policies that fail to address structural problems.
Just think of Türkiye's great transformation under Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Would it be possible to change the alphabet and give Muslim women the right to vote if this were asked of people? The same applies to the current Recep Tayyip Erdoğan regime trying to solve Türkiye's century-old Kurdish Problem. If some concrete steps are not taken now to disarm the PKK and give Kurds their basic rights despite populist opposition coming from secular Turkish nationalists, the Kurdish Question might dangerously escalate again in the future and cause the loss of another ten thousand citizens in addition to millions of dollars. The "Terror-Free Türkiye" (Terörsüz Türkiye) process alone shows why democracies can sometimes be less successful. The opposition, intent on ousting Erdoğan, opposes the resolution of a decades-old conflict that has claimed tens of thousands of lives—simply because they want to change the regime—and instead leans toward extreme nationalism. Just imagine: in a country that is a candidate for full European Union membership, the very act of speaking or teaching Kurdish remains a subject of debate.
Of course, my aim here is not to disparage democracy; however, implementing sweeping reforms and resolving structural issues is no easy task in democracies. Authoritarian models, provided they do not sacrifice individual freedoms, can resolve major political and sociological problems far more effectively because they can act swiftly and decisively. How democracies will overcome this challenge is undoubtedly a matter for experts to debate. Furthermore, the fact that democratic regimes are currently exhibiting peculiar symptoms in foreign policy—such as the U.S. desire to acquire Greenland from Denmark or Israel's expansionist policies—raises questions that require explanation and casts doubt on the validity of the Democratic Peace Theory. It is striking, indeed, that Israel and the U.S. are contending with Hamas, a group that rose to power through elections held in Gaza.
In short, although it is a speculative hypothesis, realities on the ground show that democracies do not perform very well and can lead people to extremist ideologies through populism. On the other hand, the efficiency of governance in authoritarian regimes leads us to think that democracy is just an illusion. Of course, democracy is real and necessary, but to protect democracy, states have to find ways to eliminate radical ideas. Otherwise, authoritarianism will prevail...
Prof. Dr. Ozan ÖRMECİ
