The Language of Eroding Democracy: A Comparative CDA of Legitimisation Strategies in Geo-Political Populism of Trump, Orbán, and Saïed

Abstract

This paper examines the discursive mechanisms facilitating the process of autocratization in contemporary global politics, that is, the gradual concentration of executive power by elected leaders who dismantle institutional checks on their authority. Using Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) and Theo van Leeuwen’s (2007, 2008) framework of legitimisation, the study conducts a comparative analysis of the rhetoric employed by Donald Trump (United States), Viktor Orbán (Hungary), and Kaïs Saïed (Tunisia). By analyzing key speeches, legislative defenses, and administrative narratives from 2021 to 2026, the research identifies a recurring “Autocratic Pivot” in political discourse. The findings suggest that while these leaders operate in diverse geopolitical contexts, ranging from a long-established democracy, to an electoral autocracy embedded within the EU, to a nascent post-revolutionary state, they converge on a shared rhetorical strategy: the continuous deployment of legitimisation strategies, particularly Moral Evaluation and Mythopoesis, to accompany and justify autocratic legal measures. This populist rhetoric does not replace autocratic action; rather, it perpetually escorts it. The paper concludes that the erosion of democratic norms is preceded and sustained by a linguistic transformation in which Authorization (the rule of law) is increasingly subordinated to the personalistic narrative of the leader, providing a framework for identifying discursive “red flags” of autocratization, defined here as rhetorical patterns that precede or accompany concrete institutional dismantling