Published in June 2025, the comprehensive study titled “The Anti-Autocracy Handbook: A Scholars’ Guide to Navigating Democratic Backsliding” systematically analyzes the effects of democratic regression on academia. This text should be considered and kept on the agenda: https://zenodo.org/records/15696097
Although the handbook is written directly from the perspective of developments in the US, the conceptual framework it presents is extremely familiar and instructive for countries exhibiting authoritarian characteristics, such as Turkey. The most striking finding of the report is that democracy is not merely about elections; the real breakdown begins in unwritten norms before the written articles of the constitution. When democratic customs erode, the principle of mutual legitimacy weakens, and those in power begin to view their rivals as outside the system, accelerating the process of regression. In this process, populism, polarization, and post-truth politics work together. Governments that claim to speak in the name of the “people” divide society, muddy the information landscape, and weaken accountability. Academia, because it represents critical thinking and evidence-based truth, also becomes a target.
The handbook clearly reveals why science is one of the first targets in the process of authoritarianism. Ideological labeling of research areas, funding cuts, obstruction of international collaborations, expectations of “loyalty,” legal investigations, and smear campaigns are all parts of this process. The similarities are more easily understood when considering the expulsions, passport cancellations, disciplinary processes, and erosion of university autonomy experienced in Turkey over the last decade.
Another concept highlighted in the report is “punishment as a process.” The aim is often not conviction, but the investigation itself. Damage to reputation, public targeting, prolonged uncertainty, and legal pressure create a deterrent mechanism in themselves. The most dangerous consequence in this atmosphere is self-censorship. The text defines self-censorship as a cornerstone of authoritarianism’s behavioral architecture. As people choose not to speak, not to write, to change their research areas, or to remain silent, repression becomes more invisible but more persistent.
The “Serengeti strategy” metaphor used in the handbook is particularly striking. Authoritarian repression is often directed not at the entire herd, but at individual academics who appear to have broken away from it. The aim here is to isolate, intimidate others, and break the reflex of solidarity. Academic freedom thus shrinks step by step. The fact that certain disciplines in Turkey, particularly human rights, gender studies, migration, and minority studies, are subjected to more intense repression can be read as a reflection of this strategy.
One of the text’s important contributions is that it offers guidance on how academics can act based on the level of risk they face. The fundamental idea underlying these suggestions is: no one is completely alone, and solidarity is possible regardless of the level of risk. Sometimes media statements, sometimes archiving data, sometimes developing small but conscious objections, and sometimes telling the story anonymously can be a form of resistance. Resistance is not always a loud challenge; Sometimes, even remaining true to the truth is a political act in itself.
The report also reminds us that authoritarianism is not permanent. Citing studies examining mass movements between 1900 and 2006, it notes that most movements in which 3.5% of the population participated were successful. This information transforms hope from romantic consolation into a strategic possibility. Solidarity is also about quantity; visibility and collective courage create threshold values.
From the perspective of academic solidarity, this handbook should be seen not only as an analysis but also as a call to action. Defending academia is not an institutional reflex but an ethical imperative. The experiences of academics in exile, under pressure, or forced into self-censorship are not merely individual stories; they are early warning signs of democratic regression. When the space for truth shrinks, universities are the first to fall silent. When universities fall silent, the rest of society speaks much later.
Defending academia is not simply about protecting a professional group. It is about protecting public reason, critical thinking, and the democratic possibility of the future. Silence is contagious, but so is solidarity. Since authoritarianism progresses step by step, resistance must be built accordingly.
