Work to Counter Global Rise in Authoritarianism
Liberal Democrat · what the evidence says
An independent, source-checked look at Liberal Democrat’s policy “Work to Counter Global Rise in Authoritarianism” — what it would actually do across the things that affect your life. Every claim below quotes the source behind it. How this works.
Crime, justice & national security — Helps
minor · low confidence
This policy aims to strengthen the UK's national security by supporting NATO, international law, and countering hostile state activity — all of which can improve the country's security posture. However, the policy is largely aspirational with soft verbs and no specific committed instruments, so the real-world effect is uncertain and likely modest.
The evidence
- The policy commits to championing the liberal, rules-based international order and supporting institutions including the UN, Commonwealth, NATO and the ICC. — libdems.org.uk (manifesto) — “championing the liberal, rules-based international order and supporting international institutions such as the United Nations, the Commonwealth, NATO and the International Criminal Court”
- The UK government views autocratic states as threats to its interests, partners, allies and the values underpinning the international system. — committees.parliament.uk (government) — “The UK government views autocratic states as threats to its interests, partners, allies, and the values underpinning the international system.”
- The UK is hardening its defences against hostile state activity including disinformation, malicious cyber activity and economic coercion. — defense.info (media) — “The UK is hardening its defenses against all forms of hostile state activity, including propaganda, disinformation, malicious cyber activity, and economic coercion.”
- Existing measures include the National Security and Investment Act 2021 and a Defending Democracy Taskforce. — assets.publishing.service.gov.uk (government) — “the National Security and Investment Act 2021, which provides powers to intervene in deals threatening national security, and the establishment of a Defending Democracy Taskforce”
- Authoritarian states are actively undermining the rules-based system and exploiting multilateral institutions, which limits the effectiveness of this approach. — ned.org (media) — “Authoritarian states are also actively chipping away at the rules-based system and exploiting multilateral institutions.”
- The multilateral global system has not unified nations as positively as before, reducing the impact of multilateral strategies. — defense.info (media) — “the multilateral global system has not unified nations as positively as it once did, and the pandemic accelerated the "atomisation of international society."”
- Some analysts warn against conflating all autocracies into a single threat, arguing it can hinder prudent foreign policy. — committees.parliament.uk (government) — “Some argue against conflating all autocracies into a single threat, warning that such an approach can hinder the development of prudent foreign policy and lead to interventionism.”
Biggest unknown: Whether the policy translates into concrete, funded mechanisms (defence spending, sanctions, counter-disinformation) that materially deter authoritarian threats, or remains a statement of intent with little additional effect beyond the status quo.
Our reading: The policy's stated goal — championing the rules-based international order and supporting NATO, the UN, the Commonwealth and the ICC — directly targets national security and resilience to external threats, which are core O5 indicators. Existing UK action such as hardening defences against hostile state activity, the National Security and Investment Act, and the Defending Democracy Taskforce show that the direction of travel aligns with the policy goal. In that sense, the policy points toward improvement in the UK's security posture. However, the policy text itself is entirely soft-verb ('work to', 'championing', 'supporting') with no committed instrument, budget, statutory duty or quantified target beyond what already exists. The genuine incremental effect of this specific policy — over and above the current baseline — is therefore hard to establish. Two credible countervailing considerations reduce confidence further: authoritarian states are actively exploiting the multilateral institutions this policy relies on, and analysts note the multilateral system is less effective than it once was. There is also a risk, flagged by parliamentary committees, that conflating all autocracies into one threat leads to poor foreign policy choices. On balance, the direction is a marginal improvement to national security posture — the policy reinforces existing mechanisms (NATO, counter-hostile-state activity) that have real security value — but the magnitude is minor at best, concentrated in the long term, and highly contingent on whether concrete instruments are deployed.
Equal treatment & democratic rights — Little effect
minor · low confidence
This policy commits the UK to championing international institutions and countering authoritarianism abroad, but uses only aspirational language with no committed domestic instrument that would directly improve equal treatment or democratic rights for people in the UK. Any benefit to O9 — which covers equal treatment, due process, and democratic rights — is indirect and speculative.
The evidence
- The policy commits to championing the liberal, rules-based international order and supporting institutions such as the UN, Commonwealth, NATO and the ICC. — libdems.org.uk (manifesto) — “Work to counter the global rise in authoritarianism by championing the liberal, rules-based international order and supporting international institutions such as the United Nations, the Commonwealth, NATO and the Interna…”
- Democratic backsliding and the proliferation of authoritarianism are increasing globally. — fpc.org.uk (media) — “a global landscape where democratic backsliding and the proliferation of authoritarianism are increasing”
- Authoritarian states are actively undermining the rules-based system and exploiting multilateral institutions. — ned.org (media) — “Authoritarian states are also actively chipping away at the rules-based system and exploiting multilateral institutions.”
- The effectiveness of multilateralism is contested, with some experts noting the multilateral system has not unified nations as positively as before. — defense.info (media) — “the multilateral global system has not unified nations as positively as it once did, and the pandemic accelerated the "atomisation of international society."”
- Analysts highlight unresolved tensions between promoting human rights and dealing with authoritarian regimes. — instituteforgovernment.org.uk (institutional) — “Analysts highlight the government's challenge in resolving tensions between promoting human rights, building trade links, and dealing with authoritarian regimes like China.”
Biggest unknown: Whether supporting international institutions like the UN and ICC produces any measurable improvement in equal treatment or democratic rights at the domestic level, or even in partner countries, given evidence that multilateral systems are increasingly strained.
Our reading: O9 is specifically about equal treatment, anti-discrimination, voting and democratic rights, due process, and minority protections — primarily for people subject to UK jurisdiction. This policy is entirely foreign-policy facing: it uses soft verbs ('work to counter', 'championing', 'supporting') with no committed domestic instrument, statutory duty, quantified target, or budget attached to any O9-relevant mechanism. The soft-verb rule therefore applies: aspirational foreign-policy commitments without delivered mechanisms default to negligible on domestic O9 indicators. There is a theoretical indirect pathway — strengthening international institutions like the ICC could reinforce rule-of-law norms that eventually benefit minority protections or due process globally — but the evidence provided shows this pathway is contested. Authoritarian states are actively undermining the very institutions the policy champions, and analysts note the multilateral system is increasingly fragmented. The tensions between values and interests in dealing with authoritarian trading partners remain unresolved. No cited evidence demonstrates that this type of commitment, at the level of a stated foreign-policy posture, has previously moved O9 indicators at population scale domestically or in partner countries. The direction is therefore negligible rather than improves, despite the policy pointing in a broadly rights-compatible direction. Magnitude is set to minor rather than n/a because there are real — if thin and long-term — institutional mechanisms (ICC support, democracy promotion via WFD) that could have marginal positive effects, but confidence is low given the soft commitments and contested evidence on multilateral effectiveness.