Angwin warns three quarters of humanity now face creeping authoritarian rule

Modern political erosion does not begin with tanks rolling into capital cities. It starts quietly, deep within the bureaucratic machinery of state institutions. Nearly three out of four people on Earth now live under some form of autocratic governance. This represents the most severe democratic contraction since the 1970s.

On Courage, a new book by investigative journalist Julia Angwin and former White House adviser Ami Fields-Meyer, argues that our collective understanding of political resistance is outdated. The romantic image of the lone dissident standing before a column of military armor belongs to a bygone century. Today, autocratic transitions happen through the slow, incremental hollowing out of courts, the media, and legislative bodies. When elections continue to occur and courts ostensibly remain open, detecting the exact moment of systemic failure becomes exceedingly difficult for the average citizen. This lack of an obvious catalyst often paralyzes public action.

The Dual Nature of the Digital Commons

For decades, early digital theorists championed the internet as an unalloyed force for global democratization. The early promise of social media centered on its ability to bypass state-run broadcast monopolies, giving voice to marginalized movements. However, this decentralized architecture quickly became a highly effective tool for state surveillance and targeted propaganda.

This technology provides modern autocrats with unprecedented capabilities to track and influence public behavior. Rather than relying solely on brute physical force, contemporary regimes use algorithmic curation to flood the information ecosystem with noise, falsehoods, and manufactured outrage. This strategy makes objective truth appear unattainable, leading to public exhaustion and cynicism. Activism often shifts from tangible, real-world organizing to low-stakes digital outrage. This online noise yields empty calories, giving citizens the false impression of political participation while keeping them safely isolated on their couches.

Reclaiming the Real Definition of a Dissident

Popular culture often treats dissidents as extraordinary historical figures who possess rare, superhuman bravery. This perception is incorrect. Most individuals who engage in successful political resistance do not view themselves as courageous, nor do they seek the label of dissident.

True resistance relies on ordinary citizens finding small ways to refuse compliance within the specific institutions where they work and live. In Hungary, independent journalists continued writing under intense financial and legal pressure. In Venezuela, working-class mothers abandoned political movements once aligned with the regime. In the United States, civil servants quietly refused to carry out unlawful executive directives. These actions constitute a form of micro-resistance that slows down authoritarian initiatives. The state relies heavily on mass cooperation to function. When individuals throw sand in the gears of daily administrative tasks, they disrupt the state's capacity to enforce control.

Overcoming the Psychological Barriers of Political Risk

Taking a public stand against systemic injustice carries real economic, social, and professional dangers. These risks can feel incredibly intimidating even in societies that are not actively violent. Understanding the psychology of risk explains why some people choose to act while others remain silent.

Every dissident navigates two competing forms of fear:

• The Fear of Immediate Loss: The tangible concern of losing one's career, social standing, financial stability, or personal physical safety.
• The Fear of Historical Judgment: The existential worry of living a life inconsistent with one's core values, or being judged harshly by future generations and their own children.

Individuals who choose to resist do not lack fear. Instead, they choose to prioritize the second fear over the first. Furthermore, successful dissent is almost never a solitary endeavor. It thrives in small, tightly-knit communities of eight to twelve individuals who meet regularly. These groups provide the psychological and emotional support required to validate their shared reality, ensuring members that they are not losing their minds in an environment dominated by state-sponsored falsehoods.

The Power of the Low-Stakes Invitation

Most people do not join a political movement because of a grand ideological epiphany. They join because someone they know asked them to participate in a very simple task. Research indicates that the single greatest predictor of whether someone will take a political risk is not their level of education, political affiliation, or gender—it is simply whether they were directly asked to help.

This reality underscores the importance of building accessible, low-risk entry points for civic engagement. In Hong Kong, students began their activist journeys not by facing riot police, but by passing out water bottles to protesters. In Serbia, citizens joined anti-corruption demonstrations simply by bringing blankets to students occupying university halls. These small, low-stakes actions serve as vital stepping stones. Once individuals participate in a communal effort and experience a sense of shared belonging, they become far more willing to accept higher levels of responsibility and risk over time.

Confronting Orthodoxy Across the Political Spectrum

Creeping autocratic behavior is not the exclusive domain of any single political ideology. While modern attention often focuses on far-right populist movements, authoritarian impulses can manifest just as easily within progressive circles. This dynamic often shows up as rigid political orthodoxy and ideological purity tests.

When political groups treat any deviation from established dogma as an unpardonable offense, they mimic the exact behaviors of the regimes they oppose. This focus on purity destroys the broad coalitions needed to protect democratic norms. To defeat a consolidating authoritarian force, societies must build large, diverse coalitions of unlikely allies. During successful democratic recoveries in Poland and Brazil, far-left student activists routinely joined forces with conservative rural voters. These groups put aside deep ideological disagreements to focus on a single, shared goal: repairing the basic democratic machinery. Insisting on total ideological alignment during a structural crisis is a luxury that democratic preservation cannot afford.

The Debate Over Online Anonymity

As societies try to protect democratic discourse, the structure of the digital public square remains a major battleground. The long-standing debate over online anonymity highlights a difficult policy challenge in modern communications.

On one hand, digital anonymity has been heavily weaponized by bad actors. State-sponsored troll farms, automated bots, and bad-faith accounts use masked identities to spread disinformation, harass critics, and deepen social divisions. However, removing anonymity entirely by requiring official identification to post online is a favorite tactic of authoritarian regimes. This approach gives governments a direct list of every dissenting voice. While some argue that technology platforms should aggressively filter out accounts designed solely to cause disruption, others point out that centralized corporate control over speech is its own threat. Handing a small group of massive technology firms the power to decide who can speak online creates a dangerous single point of failure that autocrats can easily exploit.

Building Local Solidarity in an Age of Fractured Trust

To reverse the global slide toward authoritarianism, citizens must shift their focus away from national political spectacles and return to local, face-to-face organizing. Real political power and resilience are built in communities, not in digital comment sections.

We must actively work to find a physical political home. This means joining local organizations, meeting in person, and building tangible networks of mutual support. Simple efforts, such as organizing a neighborhood block group or hosting small gatherings, create the social cohesion needed to withstand political pressure. When citizens know their neighbors and trust their local community, they become far less vulnerable to the dividing tactics of autocratic propaganda. Democracy is not preserved through passive observation; it is maintained through the daily, deliberate practice of local solidarity.