Hello, I'm here for some advice, i have a science fiction world I have been working on and in an unfortunate circumstance someone (in good faith do not get me wrong) claims that I inadvertently justified/made excuses for authoritarianism in my setting. I was shocked by this critique but brought up some points Before however i'd like to specify the setting(excuse the barebone nature of it,it is very much a fresh idea)

In the 2500-2600s humanity has discovered tech to reach faster than light travel, this led to the age of discovery and by the 2700s humanity has reached multiple systems (65 systems in total). The systems were all under the control of the Union of Human Systems. Key notes of how this society was run.

It was not a centralized society, instead its systems and sectors (regions in space with multiple major systems) were independent with their own internal policy, representative administrations, and even militaries. Think of the union as more of a Nato than a federation, where each sector was autonomous but an attack on one is an attack on all. This was due to promote early expansion and limit bureaucratic administration in the union. Then the human-Ye’nar war happen (the Ye’nar are a xeno race of much more advance equipment) where the cracks in the system were showing, the system was too decentralized. Not enough logistical support, military response on time, standardization of command structure and military equipment combat readiness.

In short it was a disaster for mankind losing a sector entirely in the war. It ended in a stalemate but humanity was bruised and battered.this is when the field marshal of the Union armed forces and a new faction called “the protection and prosperity for humanity party” was voted in and with the support of the chairman of the union, enacted the “defense of humanity policy” where all militaries in the union were under the control of the central comand for the first time, gave the ability to enact emergency powers by the military in any sector, centralized planning and cohesion of the unions industries for military efforts, and finally the ability to enact a sector wide draft. This all supersedes the sectors autonomy and gave much control to the military, leading dissenters to believe the military is enacting a silent coup as a conspiracy.

Ok this was long but here's the main point. I told this to someone and they said i inadvertently Justified authoritarianism,even if it doesnt glorify it, because (by their words) - gave justification by creating a literal “them” enemy ”the Ye’nar empire” and other hostile Xeno races that are a external threat to mankind. - said that centralized power is a better form to deal with threats like this and not decentralized forms. - not giving the opposition any rational judgments but moral ones(sacrificing liberty and security) when there's a literal threat to humanity deemed by the state. - saying that centralization of miltiary comand is the most appropraite way to deal with this threat and not any non violent methods or even, again, ones that do not require a consolidation of power.

She said that this was nearing unironic pro militarism message, which I did not intend.

So I'm here to ask yall, is this a problem from what I explained? If so why and how do i fix this potential problem?