The second definition of authoritarianism relates to the output side. This is quite compatible with majority rule. The majority in the American South imposed segregation. Indeed, even today the majority in the US imposes a death penalty that Europeans consider barbaric and a severe infringement of human rights. I make these latter two points only to make the general point that harsh authoritarian policies are in the eyes of the beholder.
Laws do limit freedom, and the question is which are needed to prevent chaos and secure justice.
Both friend and foe alike would agree that Yeltsin has not been authoritarian enough in this realm, not as authoritarian as any Western elected leader. He has not tried to enforce laws, he has not prosecuted corruption, he has been an extremely personalistic ruler who has systematically destroyed institutions rather than try to administer through them. The third definition of authoritarianism is a stylistic one. A dictatorial ruler may rule with a smile and a gracious style, and a democratic ruler can be quite authoritarian in the style he or she uses. Russia almost surely now needs an authoritarian ruler in the third sense.