Illiberal Diffusion in Rhetoric: How Autocratic Leaders Use Democratic Deficiency Narratives

This paper investigates how contemporary autocratic leaders speak about one another and, in particular, how they mobilize narratives of democratic deficiency in inter-regime communication. Although autocracies often appear aligned, their interactions vary markedly with shifting geopolitical incentives, nationalist projects, and the depth of bilateral cooperation. We argue that public rhetoric is a key arena in which these dynamics become visible. Drawing on a corpus of speeches and official statements by executives in twenty autocracies, the paper examines when and how leaders invoke one another’s democratic shortcomings. Two patterns emerge. In cooperative phases, democratic deficiencies are downplayed, reframed, or justified to make partnerships publicly palatable, thereby facilitating the diffusion of illiberal norms. In phases of tension or rivalry, by contrast, the same deficiencies are selectively foregrounded to signal distance, contest influence, or erode a counterpart’s legitimacy. Using computational text-analysis techniques to trace shifts in tone, framing, and evaluative language, the study shows that narratives of “democratic failure” are not peripheral rhetorical flourishes but also central mechanisms through which autocracies manage alignment and competition. The findings suggest that illiberal diffusion operates through institutional mimicry, shared governance practices, but also through the strategic deployment of normative language within elite communication.