The Autocrat's Playbook

Learning from America's Democratic Crisis

If you were an aspiring autocrat in a modern democracy, what would your playbook look like?

You couldn't simply declare yourself dictator - that's far too obvious in 2024. Instead, you'd need a sophisticated strategy that gradually erodes democratic institutions while maintaining a veneer of legitimacy. You'd need to convince enough people that democracy itself is the problem, that only you can fix it, and that anyone opposing you is an enemy of the state.

Sound familiar? It should. This isn't just a thought experiment - it's playing out in real time across the Atlantic.

As Britain watches America's democratic crisis unfold, we'd be wise to pay attention. Not because we face an immediate threat of authoritarianism (we probably have until 2029 before we hit our ‘moment of truth’), but because democracy's decline rarely happens through sudden coups. Instead, it dies by a thousand cuts - each one seemingly minor until you look up one day and realise everything has changed.

Let's examine how a modern autocrat would systematically dismantle democratic safeguards, and compare it with what's actually happening in America today.

Step One: Capture the Courts

Any aspiring autocrat knows that controlling the judiciary is crucial. You need judges who will interpret the law in your favour, protect you from prosecution, and legitimise your actions with a veneer of legality.

In Turkey, President Erdogan achieved this by purging thousands of judges and prosecutors, replacing them with loyalists. In Poland, the Law and Justice party passed laws allowing them to stack the Constitutional Tribunal and Supreme Court with sympathetic judges.

Now look at America. During his four-year term, Donald Trump appointed 234 federal judges, including three Supreme Court justices. These appointments weren't just routine governance - they represented a calculated transformation of the federal judiciary. Today, Trump appointees account for 28% of all active federal judges, including 30% of appeals court judges. Several appeals courts were "flipped" from Democratic-appointed majorities to Republican-appointed ones.

The impact is already evident. The Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority has delivered decisions that significantly expand executive power while limiting federal agencies' regulatory authority. Even more concerning, some justices have signalled openness to theories that would grant near-total immunity to presidents while in office - a autocrat's dream scenario.

But perhaps most telling is Trump's evolution in judicial appointments. While his early nominees were backed by traditional conservative legal establishments, his later picks increasingly favoured lawyers who embraced expansive - and sometimes legally dubious - views of executive power. If returned to office, there's every indication this trend would accelerate.

This methodical capture of the judiciary isn't just about advancing conservative ideology. It's about ensuring that when executive overreach occurs, when democratic norms are violated, when power is consolidated - there will be judges in place to say "yes, this is legal."

Step Two: Control the Information War

An aspiring autocrat in 2024 wouldn't shut down newspapers or arrest journalists - at least not immediately. Instead, they'd wage a sophisticated campaign to control the narrative, discredit opposition voices, and flood the information space with confusion and doubt.

The modern playbook has three key elements: delegitimise traditional media, exploit social media algorithms, and create alternative "truth."

First, you'd relentlessly attack mainstream media as "fake news" and "enemies of the people." The goal isn't necessarily to convince everyone that all journalism is false, but to create enough doubt that your supporters will reject any unfavourable coverage. You'd encourage your base to live in an alternative information ecosystem where your narrative dominates.

Sound familiar? Trump's constant attacks on the press have been so effective that a significant portion of Americans now dismiss factual reporting as partisan propaganda. But he didn't invent this strategy - he refined it for the social media age.

Second, you'd harness the power of social platforms. As a 2023 NYU Stern School of Business report concluded, social media algorithms naturally amplify divisive content because anger and outrage drive engagement. You wouldn't need to control these platforms directly - you'd simply need to understand how to exploit them. And if you are buddies with a guy who DOES own one of these platforms, someone who happens to be the richest man in the world and happy to spray his money around to buy you the election, all the better. That’s what friends are for, right?

The "Big Lie" about the 2020 election demonstrates this perfectly. Despite zero evidence of widespread fraud, the claim spread rapidly through social networks, reinforced by algorithmic echo chambers. Today, over one-third of Americans believe this false narrative. This isn't just misinformation - it's a deliberate strategy to undermine faith in democratic processes.

But perhaps most insidious is the third element: creating an environment where truth itself becomes subjective. When your supporters believe that all opposing views are "fake news," when social media amplifies the most extreme voices, when conspiracy theories spread faster than facts - you've created perfect conditions for authoritarian control. In this environment, you become the only trusted source of "truth."

U.S. intelligence officials warn that Russia, China, and Iran are actively working to influence the 2024 election through sophisticated disinformation campaigns. But the real threat isn't foreign interference - it's the domestic adoption of these same tactics by politicians who have learned that controlling information is the key to controlling power.

For those watching from Britain, this might seem like a uniquely American problem. But our own media landscape - with its concentrated ownership, growing polarisation, and vulnerability to online manipulation - isn't as resilient as we might like to think.

Step Three: Rig the Game

A sophisticated autocrat doesn't steal elections outright - they change the rules of the game so they can't lose. Then, if victory still proves elusive, they ensure they have enough loyalists in key positions to overturn unfavourable results.

Let's examine how this would work in practice, and then compare it to what's happening in America today.

First, you'd systematically restrict voter access, targeting demographics likely to oppose you. You'd justify these restrictions as "election integrity" measures, despite no evidence of significant fraud. Since 2020, nineteen U.S. states have passed laws doing exactly this - reducing ballot access and creating new opportunities for partisan interference in vote counting and certification.

Second, you'd work to install loyalists in key electoral positions. Think election administrators, state officials responsible for certification, and secretaries of state. Trump's team has been explicit about this strategy for 2024. They're identifying and promoting candidates who embrace election conspiracy theories and would be willing to overturn results they don't like.

Third, you'd create a narrative of electoral fraud well in advance, setting the stage to challenge any loss. This isn't just about disputing results - it's about undermining the very concept of fair elections. When Trump declared in 2020, "The only way we're going to lose this election is if the election is rigged," he was following this playbook perfectly.

But perhaps most concerning is the focus on swing states. In 2020, Biden's victory margins in Georgia, Arizona, and Wisconsin totalled just 43,000 votes (0.03% of total votes cast nationwide), despite winning the popular vote by over 7 million. An autocrat doesn't need to control the whole system - just the key pressure points where power can be seized.

The plan for 2024 is even more brazen. Trump's allies are developing legal theories that would give state legislatures virtually unlimited power to override voter choices in presidential elections. They're recruiting election deniers to run for state offices. They're establishing networks of partisan poll watchers trained to challenge votes in Democratic-leaning areas.

This isn't speculation - it's happening in plain sight. Project 2025, a conservative initiative preparing for a potential second Trump term, has produced a 920-page manual detailing plans to reshape American democracy. The goal isn't just to win an election - it's to ensure they can never lose one again.

For British observers, this might seem like a uniquely American vulnerability, given our different electoral system. But the lesson isn't about specific tactics - it's about how democratic systems can be undermined from within by those who understand their pressure points. Our own first-past-the-post system, which can deliver massive parliamentary majorities on a minority of votes, might be more vulnerable than we think.

Step Four: Build Your Army of Loyalists

The final piece of the autocrat's puzzle is perhaps the most crucial: ensuring absolute loyalty throughout the machinery of government. You'd need dedicated supporters not just in high-profile positions, but throughout the bureaucracy - people who will follow orders without question, even when those orders strain democratic norms.

This is where Trump's 2024 strategy becomes truly chilling.

If returned to power, his team isn't planning to simply appoint loyal cabinet members - they're orchestrating what they call a "constitutional revolution." The scale is unprecedented: they're pre-screening an estimated 54,000 government employees for ideological loyalty. This isn't normal political appointment-making; it's a systematic plan to transform the federal government into a personal tool of power.

The operation is being run with military precision. The Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 has produced a 920-page blueprint authored by over 400 contributors - essentially creating a pre-established shadow government ready to take power. They're scrutinising social media backgrounds to ensure alignment with Trump's ideology. They're targeting key institutions like the Justice Department, FBI, and intelligence community - precisely the agencies that could serve as checks on executive overreach.

The goal is clear: to eliminate what Trump calls the "deep state" - in reality, the professional civil servants who maintain governmental stability and institutional knowledge across administrations. In their place would be a new bureaucracy built on personal loyalty rather than professional competence or constitutional duty.

This mirrors classic authoritarian tactics. Turkey's Erdogan purged tens of thousands of civil servants after a failed coup attempt. Hungary's Viktor Orbán systematically replaced career bureaucrats with party loyalists. But America's size and global influence make this plan particularly dangerous. A U.S. government staffed entirely by ideological loyalists wouldn't just threaten American democracy - it would destabilise democratic norms worldwide.

For Britain, with our tradition of an independent civil service, this might seem impossible. But our own recent politics has seen increasing attacks on civil service "orthodoxy" and calls for greater political control over the bureaucracy. The lesson from America is clear: institutional independence, once lost, is incredibly difficult to restore.

The Warning Britain Must Heed

As we watch America's democratic crisis unfold from across the Atlantic, it's tempting to feel a sense of British exceptionalism. After all, we have different institutions, different traditions, different safeguards. We tell ourselves that it couldn't happen here.

But that's exactly what Americans thought until a few years ago.

The truth is, while our specific vulnerabilities might differ, the fundamental threat to democracy remains the same: the gradual erosion of norms and institutions from within. We've seen how an aspiring autocrat can:

- Create a hostile environment for judges willing to defend democracy

- Weaponise media and disinformation

- Manipulate electoral systems

- Build networks of unquestioning loyalty

- Use ‘dark money’ to put rocket boosters under all of this

Now look at Britain today. Our unwritten constitution relies heavily on "good chaps" following unwritten rules. Our media landscape is dominated by a handful of powerful owners. Our first-past-the-post electoral system regularly delivers parliamentary majorities on a minority of votes. Unicorporated Associations routinely channel ‘dark money’ to political parties. Our democratic institutions are more fragile than we'd like to admit.

The 2024 general election delivered a stark reminder of this vulnerability. Labour secured 63% of parliamentary seats with just 34% of votes. Reform UK, despite winning 14% of votes, got less than 1% of seats. While this benefited the centre-left this time, it demonstrates how our system could be exploited by less democratic forces in future.

We still have time to act. We can strengthen our democratic safeguards while we have the chance. This means:

- Implementing proportional representation to ensure every vote truly counts

- Eliminating dark money from our politics

- Combatting disinformation (online AND in traditional media)

- Building stronger protections for media independence

- Creating binding rules for political conduct rather than relying on gentleman's agreements

The window for reform won't stay open forever. As America's experience shows, once anti-democratic forces gain power, they move quickly to cement their position. The time to protect democracy is before it's under direct threat, not after.

America's crisis isn't just a cautionary tale - it's a final warning. Democracy isn't something we can take for granted. It needs constant maintenance, vigilant protection, and periodic renewal to remain strong.

The question isn't whether Britain could face similar challenges to America - it's whether we'll learn from their experience and act while we still can.

The choice, and the responsibility, is ours.