Thus, the way the progression works is that you have a spell of regulation (with the creation enforcement and administration bodies) and then a reaction, which leads to a partial deregulation. This, however, simply acts as a step towards a new bout of regulation, giving the march towards authoritarianism a jagged, "staircase" profile.
Ah, the genome of authoritarianism. But you have a dissenter here who says tolerance and fairness is in the "national DNA"
. The two views are incompatible. Only one of you is right.
So what you are saying is the reaction actually necessary for making the regulation stronger. Regulation building is like muscle building. You work out, you lose muscle mass. Body rebuilds more in its place. State uses regulation, loses some in process of enforcement, builds more in its place to better do what it intended, and more. What allows this process is that information can be saved, in capital and acquired knowledge. The rule book is never erased clean, so you get an evolutionary process, which may be slightly different in different places.