While there are indisputably major differences among this group of countries, the analysis in Undermining Democracy reveals important common traits. Each of the five is ruled by a relatively small in-group—usually with a limited degree of internal rivalry—that uses the power and wealth of the state primarily to serve its own interests, and secondarily to ensure either the explicit or passive support of the masses. In keeping with this oligarchic power structure, each is also promoting or enabling antidemocratic standards and values, both at home and abroad. An absence of institutional accountability leads to repressive and arbitrary governance, and to entrenched, rampant corruption. Finally, the lack of built-in corrective mechanisms like genuinely competitive elections, free media, independent civil society organizations, and the rule of law make these systems inherently unstable, as basic problems and irresponsible policies are allowed to fester and grow into major crises.

China, for example, is ruled by the CCP hierarchy, which has both enriched itself and maintained the necessary degree of public support by opening up new fields of economic and commercial activity. Paradoxically, the party has won praises as the guarantor of national prosperity simply by removing its own long-standing restrictions, allowing the Chinese people to climb out of the crushing poverty and social devastation that had resulted from decades of CCP rule. China’s rise has been so dramatic precisely because its starting point was so low. The government has nevertheless burnished its image by means of a sophisticated communications strategy and the studious repression of critical voices. As noted in this study’s report on China, the CCP’s “efforts have come to include, in addition to censorship, the fashioning of textbooks, television documentaries, museums, and other media that spread seriously distorted versions of Chinese history.” Meanwhile, ongoing and growing problems—pollution, human rights abuses, galloping corruption, and social unrest stemming from basic injustice—are largely papered over through the same mechanisms of repression and media control. The latter notably includes both elaborate distractions like the Olympics or the space program and nationalist fear-mongering involving supposed separatist or foreign enemies.

Iran's clerical oligarchy and the massive security apparatus that supports it are portrayed as “genuine Islamic” democracy, in which the true interests of the underclass are supposedly protected by a leadership with insight of divine origin. The regime promotes these ideas through its control over all domestic broadcast media and most of the press, and suppresses any remaining criticism by jailing online dissidents and interfering with foreign media broadcasts. In a circumscribed political system in which candidates for elective office are heavily vetted and culled by unelected officials, the government has been free to engage in years of wasteful, graft-ridden, and reckless practices that have seriously undermined Iran’s welfare and security, despite the promise of its oil wealth and other advantages. These practices have also had serious consequences abroad, helping to destabilize much of the Middle East.

Russia’s leadership, a collection of clannish informal cliques, has defended the country’s largely decorative elected institutions by devising its own public narrative based on “sovereign democracy” and a vague brand of pugnacious, retrograde nationalism. The Kremlin has secured direct or indirect control over the most important news media, including all national television stations and many newspapers and internet platforms, and this—combined with a convenient boom in oil and gas revenues—has been enough to win at least the acquiescence of the bulk of the population. Unlike the totalitarian system of the past, some intrepid journalists have dared to investigate issues such as corruption and human rights abuses, but in the absence of the rule of law they face intimidation, physical violence, and even murder by the powerful interests they offend. Independent civil society groups have also been targeted by the authorities and pushed to the margins of the system. Official mismanagement therefore goes largely unchecked, and an unquestioned foreign policy promotes authoritarian rule abroad while stoking rivalries that bring few obvious benefits to Russia itself.

In Venezuela, a country with a tradition of media and political pluralism, President Hugo Chávez has devoted great energy and prodigious state spending to the removal of institutional checks and balances that had limited his own power and that of his cohorts, commonly known as Chavistas. Gradually adapting his techniques based on the strength of his opponents, he has succeeded in dominating all branches of government, acquiring unsupervised access to the country’s oil wealth, and drastically expanding the state’s—and thus his own— role in the economy. Military spending under Chávez has increased sevenfold, leading to a “militarization of government” and “politicization of the military.” The country’s formerly vibrant media landscape has been subjected to a relentless assault by the authorities, and opposition parties’ cluster of victories in the 2008 regional and municipal elections have been overshadowed by a 2009 referendum that removed term limits on Chávez and other officials. This study’s country report on Venezuela describes how the regime has battered its opponents and enforced loyalty in part through the “promotion of disorder,” which ranges from arbitrary government decisions to the neglect of rising crime rates. As in the other countries examined here, the only true security lies in good political connections. And like the other petrostates, the stability of the system is heavily dependent on volatile oil prices.

Pakistan differs from the other four countries in that the antidemocratic ideology promoted by its previous authoritarian rulers has effectively taken on a life of its own. The current, nominally democratic civilian government now faces an extremist insurgency, and it remains unclear whether the still-powerful military has completely abandoned its longstanding strategy of preserving the Taliban to influence events in Afghanistan. Even the civilian leadership could be described as an oligarchy, with major political parties still dominated by a feudal elite. The situation in Pakistan, and consequently in the region, is plainly unstable, and the deleterious effects of decades of military rule have left both the state and civil society ill-equipped to cope with the country’s rising tide of problems.