Despite hopeful predictions that a liberal world order would triumph in the 21st century, the opposite has occurred—we have instead witnessed the rapid rise of global authoritarianism. Freedom House recently reported that global freedom declined for the 19th consecutive year in 2024, and that today only one in five people live in a free society globally. Populist authoritarians, such as Jair Bolsonaro, Viktor Orbán, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, all rode waves of right-wing, nationalist fervor into office. These populist authoritarians were elected on the promise of doing things differently, capitalizing on widespread frustration with public institutions. Once in power, their impact is undeniable: they centralize authority, undermine systems of checks and balances, and gradually erode democratic foundations from within, while also fostering a perception among the general population that democratic governance fails to solve real problems. As Luís Roberto Barroso, President of the Brazilian Supreme Court, describes, they are “personalistic and charismatic leaders that manipulate the fears, the needs, and the desires of the population, often promising simple and mistaken solutions for complex problems.” Their legacy of dismantling government institutions cripples governing bodies’ ability to provide services to the public, and their systematic undermining of the rule of law often sets dangerous legal precedents. Even after they step down, these leaders leave scars on their countries.
Analyses have shown that authoritarian leaders focus particularly on rolling back protections in health and education, human rights, racial and gender equality, and the environment. In an era of increased environmental concern and worries about the global climate crisis, what does this authoritarian turn mean for the future of environmental protection?
Examining the history of democratic and authoritarian environmental performance provides some insights into this question. Overall, the majority of scholars assert that liberal democracies have traditionally performed better than illiberal regimes, especially on air pollution and climate change (for discussion of this theme, see Arwin & Lew (2011), Fiorino (2018), Lindvall & Karlsson (2022), and Winslow (2005). This enhanced performance is largely attributed to greater public participation and increased checks on governmental power. While the environmental track record of past authoritarian regimes does feature some conservation efforts and policies to limit pollution, average citizens had few avenues to express their preferences or influence policy.
While the historical record helps us begin to answer this question, there is an urgent need for a more comprehensive examination of how modern authoritarian leaders are impacting the environment. We further the discussion by highlighting four key tactics these leaders leverage to undermine environmental protection. Using Brazil as a case study, particularly the policies implemented during the Bolsonaro Administration (2019-2022) toward the Amazon region, we show that authoritarian governments threaten environmental protections by limiting public participation, suppressing civil society, centralizing power in the executive branch, and allowing for state capture by traditional, extractive economic interests that are at odds with conservation efforts.
Limiting Public Participation
A key hallmark of authoritarian governments is limiting anti-regime activity. The ultimate goal of authoritarian leaders is to concentrate power within themselves and their supporters, promoting a small political plurality. Accordingly, they often shut down public debates questioning the regime’s actions and restrict or monitor public consultation spaces. Some authoritarian regimes allow members of the public to communicate with each other and may provide reduced avenues for public participation, but always in service of the leader’s objectives. Levels of mass participation, such as protests, are significantly lower in authoritarian states and carry a higher risk for those who protest the regime. Public protests and other anti-regime activism, when it does occur, may be motivated by strong emotions such as anger in the face of government repression. These regimes also generally control access to information, censoring media outlets and curating the news consumed by the general public.
The Bolsonaro administration in Brazil exemplified these authoritarian traits in its approach to environmental governance. Public engagement mechanisms, long considered essential to Brazil’s environmental policy framework, were systematically dismantled. One of the most emblematic actions was the weakening of the National Environment Council (CONAMA), a historically inclusive body that brought together civil society, government, and industry stakeholders to deliberate on environmental regulations. In 2019, Bolsonaro’s government restructured CONAMA through Decree No. 9,806, drastically reducing the number of seats for civil society and environmental experts, while increasing government control. Environmental licensing processes were also streamlined without proper consultation, ignoring the concerns of local communities, especially Indigenous peoples and traditional populations directly affected by development projects. This curtailment of participatory governance not only eroded democratic norms but also facilitated a surge in deforestation and environmental degradation, as regulatory oversight weakened and dissenting voices were excluded from policy-making spaces.
By suppressing both public input and independent oversight, Bolsonaro’s administration not only compromised Brazil’s environmental governance but also posed a direct threat to global climate efforts.
At the same time, the Bolsonaro government undermined transparency and access to information by attacking scientific institutions, censoring environmental data, and spreading misinformation. The National Institute for Space Research (INPE), which monitors deforestation via satellite, became a target after it published data showing a sharp increase in Amazon deforestation. In 2019, Bolsonaro publicly criticized INPE’s findings and dismissed its director, physicist Ricardo Galvão, in what many saw as retaliation for revealing inconvenient truths. These actions significantly hindered public awareness and obstructed coordinated climate action. By suppressing both public input and independent oversight, Bolsonaro’s administration not only compromised Brazil’s environmental governance but also posed a direct threat to global climate efforts.
Suppressing Civil Society
To further consolidate their power, authoritarian governments suppress civil society action. In democracies, civil society organizations play a key role in holding the government accountable for illegal actions or abuses. They advocate for groups who might otherwise be left out of decision-making processes. Authoritarian regimes silence dissenting environmental civil society organizations by targeting the leaders of these groups, revoking favored legal or financial statuses (such as 501(c)(3) charity status in the US), or designating them as terrorist organizations.
Under Bolsonaro, environmental civil society organizations in Brazil were subjected to an orchestrated campaign of criminalization and intimidation.
Under Bolsonaro, environmental civil society organizations in Brazil were subjected to an orchestrated campaign of criminalization and intimidation. From the outset of his presidency, Bolsonaro made unfounded accusations against NGOs, blaming them for environmental damage and even criminal acts. In August 2019, during a peak in Amazon fires, Bolsonaro claimed, without evidence, that NGOs could be setting the fires to undermine his administration. These rhetorical attacks were paired with concrete actions: the government suspended disbursements from the Amazon Fund, which had supported over 100 conservation and sustainable development projects led by NGOs and state agencies.
More troubling still was the use of state police and legal apparatus to intimidate environmental defenders. In November 2019, police in Pará arrested four volunteer firefighters from the NGO Brigada de Alter do Chão under accusations of setting forest fires to attract foreign funding. Although no credible evidence was ever presented, and the arrests were widely condemned as political, the event had a chilling effect on environmental activism. Simultaneously, the federal government began increasing surveillance of NGOs through the Justice Ministry, often portraying their activities as threats to national sovereignty. These strategies effectively dismantled civic spaces, discouraged community mobilization, and weakened environmental accountability mechanisms, all of which enabled further degradation of the Amazon and endangered its defenders.
Centralizing Power
Authoritarian regimes, by definition, seek to centralize power in the ruling executive, undermining the separation of powers, civil liberties, and the rule of law. This may be done in one fell swoop, but more often than not, the erosion of democratic institutions occurs gradually over time, in small increments that may even be legitimized by courts or the legislature. The next step for authoritarian leaders to further their agenda once they have centralized power is engaging in a protracted game of constitutional hardball: one by one, laws meant to restrain their power are bent to deliver authoritarians’ interests, ultimately leading them to bypass the other branches of government designed to implement checks and balances. This is especially true where environmental protection is concerned. The centralization of power in the executive, combined with eroding democratic norms, makes it much easier for the leader to exploit environmental resources.
Constitutional hardball was a defining feature of Bolsonaro’s approach to centralizing power and facilitating the exploitation of the Amazon. Early in his presidency, he attempted to shift the responsibility for demarcating Indigenous lands from the National Indian Foundation (FUNAI) to the Ministry of Agriculture—an agency with deep ties to agribusiness. Though Congress later reversed the move, the effort exemplified a calculated use of legal and institutional mechanisms to reshape Brazil’s environmental governance architecture. Bolsonaro also moved to weaken key environmental institutions, such as the Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) and the Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation (ICMBio), by slashing their budgets, removing experienced personnel, and installing loyalists—often from the military or police forces that lack environmental expertise. These actions, though technically within the executive’s power, chipped away at institutional independence and brought regulatory agencies firmly under presidential influence, paving the way for increased deforestation and environmental deregulation.
Constitutional hardball was a defining feature of Bolsonaro’s approach to centralizing power and facilitating the exploitation of the Amazon.
Constitutional hardball also played out in Bolsonaro’s use of executive power to bypass traditional oversight mechanisms and legislative norms in environmental governance. Through a series of decrees and provisional measures, his administration sought to weaken environmental licensing requirements and push forward extractive activities in sensitive and protected areas. Though later withdrawn, one of the most controversial initiatives was Bill 191/2020, proposed by the executive branch, which would have legalized mining and large-scale infrastructure projects on Indigenous lands, an idea long considered unconstitutional and strongly opposed by Indigenous leaders and legal scholars. These maneuvers, while often portrayed as administrative streamlining, systematically hollowed out democratic oversight and concentrated environmental authority within the executive, making it easier to dismantle protections and accelerate Amazon exploitation.
State Capture
In democracies, elected officials are responsible for the needs of a broad group of constituents. To be reelected, they must satisfy both business elites and average people. Authoritarian leaders, on the contrary, more commonly stay in power by maintaining military control and keeping the favor of a small cadre of economic and political elites. Authoritarians may respond to the desires of the public or lower-level officials to maintain power, but mostly are concerned with the workings of their inner circle. This explains why authoritarians may participate actively in institutions, such as Xi Jinping’s nominally time-limited terms as the leader of the Communist Party of China. This participation indicates a willingness to share power with a circle of elites, allowing the leader to retain legitimacy. These elites will tolerate authoritarian rule if the economy and business interests flourish, and seek to control the government regulatory agencies that oversee economic activities. This results in business and political elites exerting an undue influence on regulation, a form of corruption known as state capture.
Many businesses, especially those aligned with traditional extractive industries, such as mining, industrial-scale agriculture, and oil and gas production, rely on a continuous stream of abundant natural resources to drive growth. After successfully capturing the state’s environmental regulators, elites who have a stake in these industries can push to relax environmental protections. To justify these actions, authoritarian governments often reframe “nature” as “national” capital, to be exploited for their country’s benefit without regard for the long-term impacts.
In Bolsonaro’s Brazil, the alliance between the executive branch and powerful agribusiness and mining elites was pivotal to shaping environmental policy.
In Bolsonaro’s Brazil, the alliance between the executive branch and powerful agribusiness and mining elites was pivotal to shaping environmental policy. Agribusiness interests—central to Bolsonaro’s electoral base—were granted extraordinary political access, often through the ruralist bloc (bancada ruralista) in Congress, which pushed legislation to weaken environmental licensing, reduce protections for Indigenous lands, and grant amnesty for land grabbers. These economic elites provided substantial campaign support and political leverage in exchange for favorable policy, facilitating what experts have described as state capture by the agribusiness sector. By dismantling environmental oversight and legitimizing illegal land occupations through measures like the “land grabbing bill,” Bolsonaro’s administration created the legal and political conditions for unprecedented levels of deforestation, particularly in the Amazon.
Mining elites, especially those aligned with illegal gold extraction (garimpo), also found a powerful ally in Bolsonaro. His government vocally supported artisanal mining—even when it occurred in Indigenous territories—and proposed legislation to open these lands to commercial mining without meaningful consultation or consent. These positions emboldened criminal networks that finance illegal deforestation and land invasion, with gold production linked to human rights abuses, mercury pollution, and violence against Indigenous peoples. This deep entanglement between economic elites and the state not only exacerbated environmental degradation but also undermined Brazil’s legal commitments to climate and Indigenous rights protections.
Conclusion
While the world is currently witnessing democratic backsliding and a rising tide of authoritarianism, not enough attention is being paid to how these governments are undermining environmental protections. The Bolsonaro administration in Brazil provides a clear illustration of the playbook authoritarians use to systematically dismantle environmental protections and allow environmentally harmful interests to run rampant.
The Bolsonaro administration’s tenure saw a rapid increase in the rate of deforestation, tied to its aim of satisfying the desires of major business interests. Most of the deforested land has been converted to pastureland for livestock, industrial soybean farming for export, or opened to harmful mining operations, devastating the fragile Amazon ecosystem. The government also failed to effectively respond to environmental disasters, going so far as to deny the existence of massive fires in the Amazon region. Brazil failed to progress towards the objectives outlined in the Paris Climate Accord, effectively experiencing four years of “non-existent” climate action. While the current president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, has reversed course and is working to decarbonize the country’s energy grid, Bolsonaro represented a major setback for the country and global climate goals. Relaxing environmental protections and allowing increased extractive activity in the Amazon region also had a steep human cost. The Pastoral Commission for the Land (Comissão Pastoral da Terra), a Brazilian non-government organization that tracks agrarian conflicts, noted a sharp increase in the number of disputes during the Bolsonaro administration, and the country was one of the most dangerous in the world for environmental and land defenders.
Avoiding a repetition of the environmental harms perpetrated under authoritarian regimes like the Bolsonaro administration will require guaranteeing wide and open public participation, ample civil society engagement, placing limits on the power of the executive, and empowering other branches of government.
Avoiding a repetition of the environmental harms perpetrated under authoritarian regimes like the Bolsonaro administration will require guaranteeing wide and open public participation, ample civil society engagement, placing limits on the power of the executive, and empowering other branches of government to act quickly when they observe state capture and other abuses of executive power. Strongman leaders cannot be allowed to engage in environmentally harmful behavior, effectively stealing the future of their countries’ most vulnerable citizens, at the behest of a few economic and political elites.
Renata Avelar Giannini is an Associate Professor of the Practice of International Affairs at the Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University. For over 16 years, she has worked with leading think tanks in Argentina, Brazil, and the United States, shaping public policy on democratic transformation, gender equality, public safety and sustainable development. She has consulted for the UN Women, UNDP, and the World Bank. A 2023–2024 Wilson Center Fellow, she spent over a decade at a think and do tank in Brazil – Igarapé Institute – and received a prestigious Fulbright fellowship to complete her PhD in the United States (2009-2013).
Caitlin Wiley is a researcher focused on Latin American politics, energy and water policy, and conflict and cooperation around natural resources. Caitlin holds a master’s degree in environmental policy from American University in Washington, DC. She previously worked at the Wilson Center for International Scholars, the United States Agency for International Development, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, and the White House Council on Environmental Quality.
Image: “Espigão do Oeste, Rondônia (48431096492)” by Ibama licensed under CC Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic.
.jpg){kind=link}