When we think of democratic backsliding or the rise of “competitive authoritarianism,” our minds often drift to far-off lands, perhaps Eastern Europe, Latin America, or parts of Asia. We picture strongmen, manipulated elections, and overt repression. But what if the erosion of democratic substance is happening in a nation long lauded for its stable, liberal democracy – a place like Aotearoa New Zealand? My research over the past year, most recently detailed in “Democratic Whimper: Aotearoa New Zealand’s Curriculum Reform and Competitive Authoritarianism,” suggests we need to look closer.

What is Competitive Authoritarianism?

Political scientists Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way introduced us to a crucial concept: regimes that maintain the forms of democracy (elections, legislatures, courts) but where the substance is systematically undermined by incumbents. In these systems, democratic institutions are often hollowed out, manipulated, or used as tools to legitimize predetermined outcomes. In their recent piece “The New Competitive Authoritarianism” (2020), Levitsky and Way show that this does not happen through a sudden coup, but a gradual, often legalistic, chipping away at the democratic rulebook. Worryingly, they argue this phenomenon, once thought to be confined to “hybrid” regimes, might be subtly creeping into established democracies.

The New Zealand Case: Curriculum Reform as a “Democratic Whimper”

My investigation has been focused on a specific, seemingly innocuous policy area: New Zealand’s recent curriculum reform. My latest report delves deeper into the mechanisms through which it was achieved. Far from being a dry administrative process, the evidence, including unearthed Official Information Act (OIA) documents and parliamentary transcripts, paints a disturbing picture. It reveals what appears to be a systematic effort to bypass established democratic processes and manipulate outcomes.

Specifically, I uncover:

• Institutional Capture: A Ministerial Advisory Group (MAG) overstepping its mandate, actively writing curriculum documents rather than merely advising, and continuing to do so when warned on 13 February 2024 by a Ministry official what they were doing was “the work of government”.
• Pre-determined Outcomes: Education Reports and OIA documents show a coordinated effort between MAG advisors and Ministry decision-makers before formal advice was submitted, effectively pre-determining policy directions outside of transparent, democratic scrutiny.
• A “Confession” of Corruption: Perhaps most startling, the acting Secretary of Education admitted to collaboration so they could “start getting ahead of the work”, which, in essence, represents a corruption of the democratic process.

This isn’t the dramatic repression of a police state, but a “democratic whimper” – a slow, steady weakening of the very institutions designed to ensure accountability and public participation. It suggests that a key front in the creep of authoritarianism is the quieter, bureaucratic one/

Echoes of Democratic Backsliding and Incumbent Repression

The New Zealand example resonates with broader themes in democratic studies:

• Misunderstanding Democratic Backsliding: As argued by the likes of Carothers and Hartnett (2024), democratic backsliding isn’t always about a democracy failing to deliver, but rather a failure to constrain predatory leaders or, in this case, entrenched ideological networks that seek to impose their will. The NZ case highlights how the “predation” can occur subtly within the apparatus of the state.
• Patterns of Incumbents’ Repression: While not involving overt violence, the documented tactics within the curriculum reform process — such as exceeding legal mandates and internal coordination to bypass formal procedures — align with “legal engineering” and undermining accountability, which are key patterns of repression identified in the literature on autocratization by the likes of Ordanoski & Fabio Angiolillo (2025). Most alarmingly, these curriculum reforms are set to be embedded through changes to the Education and Training Act which appear to have been planned since April 2024.

Conclusion

The case of New Zealand’s curriculum reform forces us to reconsider the subtle ways competitive authoritarianism can manifest, even in seemingly robust democracies. It reminds us that safeguarding democracy isn’t just about protecting elections, but also about vigilance over bureaucratic processes, advisory bodies, and the integrity of public institutions. When established procedures are circumvented, and accountability mechanisms are weakened, even the most democratic nations can experience a “whimper” that, if left unaddressed, could lead to a far louder roar of democratic erosion.

References

Carothers, T., & Hartnett, B. (2024). Misunderstanding Democratic Backsliding. Journal of Democracy 35(3), 24-37.  https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/jod.2024.a930425 

Ordanoski, G., & Angiolillo, F. (2025). Patterns of incumbents’ repression during autocratization. Democratization, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2025.2507356

Levitsky, S., & Way, L. (2020). The New Competitive Authoritarianism. Journal of Democracy 31(1), 51-65. https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/jod.2020.0004.

Read the full ‘Democratic Whimper’ report here.