Fear, Anger, and Authoritarianism: Emotional Pathways in Democratic and Hybrid Regimes

Abstract

This paper synthesizes research across political psychology, communication, and comparative politics to explore how fear-based messaging can influence support for authoritarian policies among democracies and hybrid regimes. It investigates the relationship between the two variables through the theoretical lenses of authoritarian predispositions and affective intelligence, distinguishing fear from anger, and showing how threat appraisals, identity relevance, salience, and elite framing can condition outcomes. By analyzing case studies from the post-9/11 United States, European terror episodes, the COVID-19 Era, the Central-Eastern European radical-right discourse, and the politics of Azerbaijan, the paper argues that fear cues can increase people’s willingness to trade civil liberties for protection when they believe threats are real and proximate, and when authorities frame issues through a lens of national security. However, the paper also distinguishes how different types of fear can produce different outcomes: a fear of external “others” sways public opinion towards authoritarian outcomes, while those with a fear of the government tend to resist authority and champion civil liberties. The study concludes by pinpointing gaps in cross-cultural, causal, and long-term research, and by recommending safeguards such as transparent risk communication, limited emergency powers, and literacy against fear-mongering and disinformation to strengthen democratic norms and resilience.