Authoritarian orientations and the contestation of liberal self-determination: Cross-national evidence from 30 countries

Abstract In contrast to expectations of global liberal convergence, liberal values and institutions are increasingly contested. This study investigates whether core liberal conditions for self-determination are likewise subject to contestation and how this varies across societal contexts. Drawing from liberal theory, we identify five enabling conditions for self-determination: physical well-being, basic economic security, learning and personal growth, moral equality, and influence on political decision-making. These conditions differ in their degree of ‘liberal uniqueness’, with the latter two representing distinctly liberal ideals. Using original survey data from over 45,000 respondents across 30 countries, we examine how authoritarian orientations – conceptualised as preferences for authority, conformity, order, and security – relate to support for these conditions. Such orientations are consistently and negatively associated with uniquely liberal conditions, especially moral equality and political influence. In contrast, there is no meaningful relationship with basic economic security and a positive association with physical well-being. Preferences for learning and personal growth fall in between. These associations vary with levels of societal modernisation; in more modernised societies, the gap between respondents with stronger and weaker authoritarian orientations grows wider, with the strongest widening observed for the uniquely liberal conditions. Our findings suggest that authoritarian orientations are linked to different understandings of self-determination. These competing visions of what it means to live freely are more polarised in modern societies. Recognising this divergence helps to better understand the normative foundations of contemporary societal conflicts across diverse countries.