There are plenty of governments out there that aren't authoritarian. What do you mean when you say "the government is threatened by a plurality of citizens?" What is the nature of the threat in question? A democratically-elected government that puts down an armed rebellion from part of its populace doesn't magically become authoritarian simply because it used forced to maintain its existence in response to a domestic threat.

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

I mean that there is a realistic existential threat placed on the system of government, by a large part of the population. By plurality, I mean that the largest segment of a population (even if it's not a majority).

You're telling me that govt's that put down a large rebellion don't then start introducing authoritan laws like monitoring communication, restricting free speech, and targeting non-violent sympathizers?