By PhD Alberto Flores Hernández * –
1. Summary
This article presents a global critical review of presidential leaderships that have had a negative impact on institutional development. Through seven case studies, patterns of authoritarianism, corruption, weakening of democratic checks and balances and erosion of civil rights are analyzed. An analytical framework is proposed to understand how certain styles of presidential leadership can undermine democratic governance globally.
2. Introduction
Presidential leadership, when exercised without institutional limits, can become a threat to democracy. In contexts where the executive branch concentrates powers without checks and balances, institutions are weakened, corruption intensifies and citizens’ rights are compromised. This article examines emblematic cases on different continents to identify common patterns and propose structural solutions.
3. Theoretical framework
– Illiberal democracy (Zakaria, 1997): regimes with elections but without institutional guarantees.
– Authoritarian populism (Mudde & Rovira Kaltwasser, 2017): leaders who appeal to the people to justify the concentration of power.
– State capture (Hellman et al., 2000): use of the state apparatus to benefit private or partisan interests.
– Democratic erosion (Levitsky & Ziblatt, 2018): gradual weakening of democratic norms.
4. Methodology
– Systematic review of academic literature, reports of international organizations (UN, HRW, Freedom House, Transparency International).
– Selection of seven case studies with criteria of negative impact on governance, human rights and corruption.
– Comparative analysis of institutional indicators (WGI, CPI, Democracy Index).
5. Results
Five common patterns are identified:
– Concentration of executive power
– Constitutional and electoral manipulation
– Repression of dissent and media
– Structural corruption
– Disinformation and social polarization
6. Discussion
The presidential leaderships analyzed share a logic of institutional erosion. Although they vary in ideology and context, they have all weakened the mechanisms of democratic control. Electoral legitimacy does not guarantee democratic governance if civil liberties, judicial independence and transparency are undermined.
7. Case Studies
7.1 Zimbabwe: Robert Mugabe
– 37 years in power, violent repression, economic collapse.
– Record hyperinflation and land expropriation.
– Governance index: -2.5 in corruption control (WB, 2019).
7.2 Russia: Vladimir Putin
– Constitutional reforms to perpetuate themselves in power.
– Repression of opponents (Navalny), media control.
– Military interventions and global disinformation.
7.3 Venezuela: Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro
– Institutional dismantling, humanitarian crisis.
– Mass migration, hyperinflation, systematic repression.
– CPI: 14/100 (TI, 2020).
7.4 Philippines: Rodrigo Duterte
– “War on drugs” with extrajudicial executions.
– Attacks on the press and prosecution of opponents.
– HRW documents more than 12,000 deaths without due process.
7.5 United States: Donald Trump
– Electoral disinformation, an attempt at institutional subversion (Capitol, 2021).
– Extreme polarization, attacks on the press and justice.
– Democracy Index fell from “full democracy” to “flawed democracy” (EIU, 2020).
7.6 Turkey: Recep Tayyip Erdoğan
– Mass purge after coup attempt (2016), judicial control.
– Closure of universities, media and NGOs.
– CPI: 36/100 (TI, 2020).
7.7 Hungary: Viktor Orbán
– Constitutional reforms to consolidate power.
– Restrictions on the press, academia and migration.
– Considered a model of “illiberal democracy”.
8. Comparative analysis
| Country | Corruption | Authoritarianism | Repression | Institutional manipulation |
|————-|————|—————|———–|—————————–|
| Zimbabwe | Registration | Registration | Registration | Registration |
| Russia | Registration | Registration | Registration | Registration |
| Venezuela | Registration | Registration | Registration | Registration |
| Philippines | Media | Registration | Registration | Media |
| USA. | Media | Media | Baja | Media |
| Turkey | Registration | Registration | Registration | Registration |
| Hungary | Media | Registration | Media | Registration |
9. Implications for democratic governance
– Strengthening of institutional counterweights.
– Reforms that limit indefinite reelection.
– Protection of a free press and civil society.
– Civic education and media literacy.
– International cooperation to sanction democratic erosion.
10. Conclusions
Presidential leadership, when exercised without limits, can become a global threat to democracy. The cases analyzed demonstrate that electoral legitimacy is not enough: robust institutions, transparency, and respect for human rights are required. The international community must act in the face of democratic erosion with mechanisms of pressure, cooperation and defence of universal values.
11. References:
1. Zakaria F. The Rise of Illiberal Democracy. Foreign Affairs. 1997; 76(6):22–43.
2. Mudde C, Rovira Kaltwasser C. Populism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press; 2017.
3. Hellman JS, Jones G, Kaufmann D. Seize the State, Seize the Day. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper. 2000;244.
4. Levitsky S, Ziblatt D. How Democracies Die. New York: Crown Publishing; 2018.
5. Transparency International. Corruption Perceptions Index 2020. Berlin: TI; 2020.
6. Human Rights Watch. World Report 2021. New York: HRW; 2021.
7. Freedom House. Freedom in the World 2020. Washington DC: FH; 2020.
8. Economist Intelligence Unit. Democracy Index 2020. London: EIU; 2021.
9. World Bank. Worldwide Governance Indicators. Washington DC: WB; 2020.
10. United Nations Human Rights Council. Annual Report 2020. Geneva: UNHRC; 2021
* Global Advisory Council Member of WLC Permanent Vice-president; Permanent President of the VWF Council Overseas Vietnam. Affiliation: Harvard University ; Cambridge International University.
