The Hidden Language of Power: How Authoritarian Leaders Use Communication to Erode Democracy

It doesn’t start with tanks or coups—it starts with words. Subtle signals, coded phrases, a touch of carefully crafted outrage. Authoritarian leaders have long known that to reshape a democracy, you don’t need to tear it down in one blow - the system is too big to 'fail' like that. Instead, you guide people there, bit by bit, through language that divides, token gestures that mislead, and rhetoric that stirs fear and loyalty. In the hands of even the most innocuous of people, even the smallest phrase can set the stage for seismic change. So, how do they do it?

Dog Whistles and Symbolic Tokenism: Codes for Influence and Control

Dog whistles are subtle messages designed to signal to specific groups without alarming the general public. For example, coded language can affirm extremist views without overtly endorsing them, allowing leaders to mobilize support among radicalized groups while maintaining plausible deniability. Trump’s statements, such as telling the far-right Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by” during a 2020 debate, were criticized as encouragement for a specific audience, using ambiguity to evade direct accountability.

Similarly, symbolic tokenism—such as appearing at traditionally marginalized communities’ events or making minor gestures of “support”—can mask underlying policies that work against these groups. Bolsonaro in Brazil used token environmental initiatives to deflect criticism, even as deforestation rates soared. In T&T, local leaders weigh in on crime by appearing with victims of crime, or by attempting to highlight other causes of crime beyond their control to deflect from their own inability (or unwillingness) to tackle the multi-headed hydra in a myriad of ways that can actually benefit citizens.

These tactics foster a sense of inclusivity while avoiding substantial policy commitments, creating an illusion of support and action that can appease critics without altering the leader’s actual agenda.

Inflammatory Rhetoric: The Power of Polarisation

One of the most effective yet destructive tactics in an authoritarian’s toolkit is inflammatory rhetoric. Leaders with authoritarian tendencies often rely on divisive language to pit different groups against each other, framing themselves as protectors against a perceived “other.” Erdogan in Turkey, for instance, has frequently used nationalist language to rally support, positioning opposition as threats to national security or identity. This not only distracts from policy failures but also consolidates loyalty among supporters by amplifying a shared sense of threat.

Historically, this technique was effective in Nazi Germany, where Hitler framed certain groups as existential threats, using fear to justify authoritarian controls. Today’s leaders may not use the same language, but the underlying strategy remains similar: appeal to fears and insecurities to rally loyalty while discrediting critics as enemies of the state (eg 'enemies within').

As communications professionals, we recognise this as a form of “dirty” messaging—effective in inciting emotion but corrosive to the highest form of humanity.

Gradual Undermining of Institutions Through Rhetoric

To an authoritarian leader, language isn’t merely a tool of persuasion; it’s a weapon to erode trust in institutions. By repeatedly questioning the integrity of elections, the independence of the judiciary, or the objectivity of the press, leaders gradually build skepticism around these pillars of democracy. In the US, Trump’s continuous claims of “fake news” and his refusal to accept the 2020 election results are prime examples of this. His words served to discredit these institutions in the eyes of his followers, fostering an environment where loyalty to the leader supersedes allegiance to democratic norms. In T&T, Manning and Panday, then Prime Ministers often criticised as a means of smoking the mirrors that were being held to them and what we now know was being held to government misappropriation of funds.

According to the Pew Research Center, public trust in American institutions like the media and government has reached historic lows. Only about 22% of Americans trust the federal government to do the right thing “just about always” or “most of the time,” and trust in the media is increasingly split along partisan lines, with Republicans showing notably lower trust in national news (or mainstream media) than Democrats. This polarization has widened, leaving the door open for misinformation and making it harder for people to recognize or agree on shared facts. And they are in some ways, not wrong to question US-based MSM, as many of these organisations have their own hidden agendas. Just this week, it appears that Jeff Bezos, the owner of the Washington Post (and Amazon), the latter once a venerated bedrock of journalism, intervened to halt a potential endorsement of the Harris-Walz campaign.

Similarly, a Gallup and Knight Foundation study highlights that 68% of Americans see media bias as a significant problem, believing that news often promotes particular agendas rather than presenting facts objectively. The low trust in media has paved the way for leaders to exploit this distrust, aligning themselves with "alternative" news sources that reinforce their narratives while painting mainstream outlets as biased.

Where Do you Get your Most News?

• Social - TikTok, Instagram, Youtube, Facebook, WhatsApp
• Traditional - Newspapers, Radio, TV
• Comedy - Daily Show, Colbert, etc
• From Other People

See All Options

The erosion is often subtle and incremental. Freedom House reported that between 2006 and 2020, democracy and freedom worldwide saw gradual declines, with more countries moving toward authoritarianism than embracing democratic improvements. This trend, dubbed a “reverse wave” by the Ash Center at Harvard, reflects how global leaders have successfully used communications tactics to normalize authoritarianism under the guise of populism.

Dog whistles, divisive language, and institutional attacks don’t immediately dismantle democracies, but they lay the groundwork for authoritarian control over time.

In a world increasingly vulnerable to authoritarian influence, our role as communicators is clear: we must not only avoid these divisive techniques but actively work to promote honest, open dialogue. Media professionals are being called to reject hidden agendas. As consumers of media, it means taking just the few seconds needed to verify a story before sharing it and amplifying it on our channels.

Or don't. Be a pawn in a proxy war of misinformation.

History remembers those who spoke up for what was right and true just as much as those who didn't.

-

Stay tuned for the next article, where we’ll dive into why people remain so susceptible to them.

---

Kieran Andrew Khan is an independent journalist, published in several national newspapers, trade publications & journals and is a graduate of The Institute of International Relations at The University of the West Indies.