"The backdrop for Hayek's thinking is Vienna in the early 20th century. He saw the fall of an empire, a failed attempt to build democracy, and finally a totalitarian society. This became the frame of reference for everything he later wrote," says Hans Chr. Garmann Johnsen.

He is a professor at the University of Agder and recently published the book Friedrich Hayek: Betingelsene for et liberalt samfunn (Friedrich Hayek: The conditions for a liberal society) with Cappelen.

Hayek (1899-1992) was born in Vienna but emigrated to the United Kingdom, where he became a professor at the London School of Economics in 1931. He obtained British citizenship in 1938 and later moved to the United States, where he worked at the University of Chicago until 1962.

Authoritarian democracy

"Hayek was focused on the idea that democracy and liberalism are two different things. A majority can abuse power and limit freedom, something he had seen in interwar Europe," says Garmann Johnsen.

Garmann Johnsen points to several warning signs in Hayek's analyses that can help us identify when democracy slides towards authoritarianism.

"The first sign is when the majority begins to perceive democracy as 'all power in this chamber', meaning there are no limits to what a majority can decide. This was precisely what Hayek observed in interwar Austria."

Another warning sign is the emergence of friend-enemy thinking in politics.

"Walter Lippmann, who influenced Hayek, made a big deal out how totalitarian movements create such friend-enemy dichotomies, which is something we can observe in today’s polarized societal debates."

Hayek was also concerned about how the rule of law could collapse when challenged by totalitarian forces. He believed that democracy must be constrained by constitutional rules.

"He saw how democracy not protected by a well-functioning rule of law can become a tool for restricting freedom rather than protecting it," says Garmann Johnsen.

Hayek gained worldwide fame with The Road to Serfdom (1944). In the book, he warned that market interventions could gradually undermine the principles of the rule of law and individual freedom. He was particularly concerned about selective interventions that favoured specific groups or sectors.

"Hayek's main point was that no central authority can gather all the dispersed knowledge needed to govern a society. He argued against the idea that society can be designed, believing that spontaneously developed institutions and rules work better than planned solutions," says Garmann Johnsen.

Examples of such "spontaneously developed institutions" include the markets, language, common law and many social norms.

Garmann Johnsen believes we don't always understand just how radical Hayek truly was.

"If you take his principles to their full extent, they are more radical than many think. He believed that the principles of freedom were universal and should apply to all people, regardless of culture or background – not just to the Western world."