A critical term for how pro‑Western political groups argue that an authoritarian or totalitarian
government can still be “democratic” if it was elected by a majority—especially when that
government aligns with Western interests. The logic holds that as long as the ruler came to power through a vote (even a sham election) and maintains Western support, it is not “real” authoritarianism. Critics point out that this standard is never applied to non‑Western regimes. The term exposes the selective outrage of
liberal interventionists who condemn illiberal governments only when they resist Western hegemony.
Example: “He praised the president’s landslide victory and ignored the jailing of opponents—consented authoritarianism, calling a rubber‑stamp election ‘democratic’ because the winner was pro‑West.”
Consented Totalitarianism
Similar to consented authoritarianism, but reserved for even more extreme cases where a regime controls every aspect of life, yet Western apologists defend it on the grounds that the
people “chose” it or that the totalitarian measures are necessary to combat an external enemy. The term highlights the contradiction of praising “
democracy” while justifying mass surveillance, secret
police, and party‑state fusion when the ruler is a Western ally. It is a powerful critique of double standards in international
politics.
Example: “She argued that the mass surveillance was ‘a democratic decision of the
people’—consented totalitarianism, dressing up dictatorship as the will of the majority.”
