There's a tendency in IR discourse that I've noticed where the fact that many so-called “authoritarian regimes” curtail what is often labelled as the “freedom of speech” of individuals is framed as evidence of some innate illegitimacy, often presented as a desperate gambit to maintain the power of those in control. I think this is a fundamental mistake. So-called “democratic” countries can afford free speech because they exist within a normative hierarchy stabilised by international institutions, the primacy of their economic systems, and, of course, an as yet unchallenged position within the world order. This makes them more resilient to ideological destabilisation, not because of any innate moral superiority of their systems or ideologies, but because they occupy a materially and normatively privileged position within a particular historical context. As the material power of this world order declines, its normative power follows suit, and this is already evident as states long self-styled as bastions of free speech become less willing to tolerate dissent, from the US to Germany, while at the same time states considered repressive begin experimenting with gradually opening space for discourse.
Reminds me of the point Syzmanski made at the conclusion of Human Rights In The Soviet Union.
