There’s a paradox that’s been gnawing at political scientists for decades: Why do autocratic regimes, when given the chance to open up their economies, often double down on repression instead of loosening their grip? The answer, according to Arizona State University’s José Kaire, isn’t just about ideology or power—it’s about survival. And if you think this is a niche academic debate, think again. The implications are staggering, touching everything from Cuba’s latest crackdowns to China’s AI strategy. Let me break it down for you.
The world is watching democracy retreat, but not in the way we expected. The V-Dem Institute’s 2026 report paints a bleak picture: 41% of the global population now lives in countries where authoritarianism is on the rise. This isn’t just a regression—it’s a calculated response to economic change. The old theory was that globalization would weaken dictators by making them dependent on markets, not governments. But Kaire’s research shows the opposite: economic liberalization often empowers the very elites who benefit from repression. Why? Because when a regime opens its economy, it creates new power players—businesses, entrepreneurs, opposition groups—who could challenge the status quo. To survive, autocrats must appease their inner circle by cracking down harder on outsiders. It’s a brutal calculus, but one that’s playing out in real time.
Take Cuba, for example. Raúl Castro’s reforms in the 2010s gave the Communist Party and military more autonomy, creating a new class of elites who now demand protection from the state. When the U.S. pressures Havana to liberalize, the regime doesn’t back down—it doubles down. The recent crackdowns on dissidents aren’t just about fear; they’re about signaling loyalty to the party’s entrenched power brokers. What’s fascinating here is how the same logic applies to Venezuela. After Maduro’s ouster in 2026, the regime’s elites might seize the moment to consolidate their own influence, using economic reforms as a smokescreen for deeper repression. This isn’t about ideology—it’s about self-preservation.
And then there’s China, where the stakes are even higher. Xi Jinping’s push to control AI isn’t just about technology; it’s about reshaping the balance of power within the regime. By centralizing oversight of the AI sector through the Central Science and Technology Commission, Xi is creating a new class of technocrats who depend on him for their survival. This could be a game-changer: if these new elites align with the leader, they might become a counterweight to the old guard. But what happens if they don’t? The dynamics Kaire describes could play out in real time, with AI firms either becoming tools of control or potential challengers to the party’s authority. It’s a scenario that’s both thrilling and terrifying.
What makes this all so dangerous is the illusion of progress. When Western powers push for economic reforms in autocracies, they’re often told it’s a path to democracy. But Kaire’s work shows it’s a path to more repression. The Washington Consensus, once hailed as a blueprint for development, has become a trap. Leaders like Maduro or Cuba’s rulers are forced to comply with international demands, but they do so by tightening their grip on power. This isn’t just a failure of policy—it’s a systemic flaw in the way we approach global governance. We assume that economic openness will lead to political freedom, but history is screaming otherwise.
The real question isn’t whether liberalization works—it’s whether we can afford to ignore the human cost. Every time a regime opens its economy, it’s not just about trade deals or investment. It’s about who gets to keep power. And if you think the future of AI, climate policy, or global trade will be decided by free markets alone, you’re missing the point. Autocrats are adapting, and they’re doing it with ruthless efficiency. The next time you hear a politician talk about economic reform as a solution to authoritarianism, remember: the real battle is happening behind closed doors, where elites decide who gets to live—and who gets to die.
