Comment by epolanski

Authoritarianism by definition is about controlling all the forms of power, not about expanding one.

Nor it has anything to do with what countries do around the world. You can be democratically elected, law abiding, not overreach and bomb weddings abroad, those are not related.

US has the same constitutional weakness of the countries that went authoritarian in the last decades: a presidential republic.

There's one thing that Russia, Belarus, Philippines, Tunisia, Turkey, Nicaragua made constitutionally simpler to allow authoritarianism to happen, they gave the country a president elected by the government.

Thus enabling: - personality cult - hard to remove individuals - claiming popular mandate despite anything - deadlocks

All those situations are breeding grounds for chaos.

Say what you want about slow Europe, but it's hard, very hard to pull this stuff here where most countries don't have popular elections for presidents.

In parliamentary republics those shifts are very difficult and are generally centred on party-ism, so identification between state and party.

This is the Indian and Hungarian playbook, as the constitutions don't allow individuals to power grab with ease, it's a very tougher game to succeed.

You don't win an election and start firing executive orders and stretching their limits while courts get to decide what the limits are.