Advertisement

What Autocratization Is

  • Andrea CassaniEmail author
  • Luca Tomini
Chapter
Part of the Challenges to Democracy in the 21st Century book series (CDC)

Abstract

What is autocratization and how many forms can it take? In this chapter, the authors elaborate a conceptual framework for the analysis of post-Cold War processes of autocratization. They define autocratization as a process of regime change towards autocracy that makes the exercise of political power more arbitrary and repressive and that restricts the space for public contestation and political participation in the process of government selection. The authors identify six possible forms of autocratization, corresponding to as many regime transitions that share a direction towards autocracy but differ in the points of departure and arrival. To account for the differences between the forms that a process of autocratization can take, a typology is sketched. The chapter concludes by dealing with a few ambiguous political transformations that should not be considered as evidence of autocratization.

Keywords

Autocratization Conceptualization Typology Regime transitions 

References

  1. Adcock, R., & Collier, D. (2001). Measurement validity: A shared standard for qualitative and quantitative research. American Political Science Review, 95(3), 529–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adebanwi, W., & Obadare, E. (2011). The abrogation of the electorate: An emergent African phenomenon. Democratization, 18(2), 311–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Agh, A. (2015). De-Europeanization and de-democratization trends in ECE: From the Potemkin democracy to the elected autocracy in Hungary. Journal of Comparative Politics, 8(2), 4–26.Google Scholar
  4. Agh, A. (2016). The decline of democracy in East-Central Europe. Problems of Post-Communism, 63(5–6), 277–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ambrosio, T. (2010). Constructing a framework of authoritarian diffusion: Concepts, dynamics, and future research. International Studies Perspectives, 11, 375–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bates, R. (2008). State failure. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berg-Schlosser, D. (2008). Determinants of democratic successes and failures in Africa. European Journal of Political Research, 47(3), 269–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bermeo, N. (2016). On democratic backsliding. Journal of Democracy, 27(1), 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bogaards, M. (2009). How to classify hybrid regimes? Defective democracy and electoral authoritarianism. Democratization, 16(2), 399–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bogaards, M. (2018). De-democratization in Hungary: Diffusely defective democracy. Democratization, 1(19), 1481–1499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brooker, P. (2014). Non-democratic regimes. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brownlee, J. (2009). Portents of pluralism: How hybrid regimes affect democratic transitions. American Journal of Political Science, 53(3), 515–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carothers, T. (2002). The end of the transition paradigm. Journal of Democracy, 13(1), 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cassani, A., & Tomini, L. (2018). Reversing regimes and concepts: From democratization to autocratization. European Political Science, (online first). http://doi.org/10.1057/s41304-018-0168-5.
  15. Collier, D., & Adcock, R. (1999). Democracies and dichotomies: A pragmatic approach to choices about concepts. Annual Review of Political Science, 2, 537–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Collier, D., LaPorte, J., & Seawright, J. (2010). Typologies: Forming concepts and creating categorical variables. In J. Box-Steffensmeier, H. Brady, & D. Collier (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Cooley, A. (2015). Countering democratic norms. Journal of Democracy, 26(3), 49–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Coppedge, M., Gerring, J., Altman, D., Bernhard, M., Fish, S., Hicken, A., et al. (2011). Conceptualizing and measuring democracy: A new approach. Perspectives on Politics, 9(2), 247–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Crouch, C. (2004). Post-democracy. Malden: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  20. Cunha, I. F. (2015). About the “de-democratization” of Europe: Democracy, media and political corruption. Intercom: Revista Brasileira de Ciências da Comunicação, 38(1), 37–62.Google Scholar
  21. Dahl, R. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  22. de la Torre, C., & Ortiz Lemos, A. (2016). Populist polarization and the slow death of democracy in Ecuador. Democratization, 23(2), 221–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Diamond, L. (1999). Developing democracy: Toward consolidation. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Diamond, L. (2000). Is Pakistan the (reverse) wave of the future? Journal of Democracy, 11(3), 91–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Diamond, L. (2002). Thinking about hybrid regimes. Journal of Democracy, 13(2), 21–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Diamond, L. (2008). The democratic rollback-the resurgence of the predatory state. Foreign Affairs, 87, 36.Google Scholar
  27. Diamond, L. (2015). Facing up to the democratic recession. Journal of Democracy, 26(1), 141–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Diskin, A., Diskin, H., & Hazan, R. (2005). Why democracies collapse: The reasons for democratic failure and success. International Political Science Review, 26(3), 291–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Dresden, J., & Howard, M. (2016). Authoritarian backsliding and the concentration of political power. Democratization, 23(7), 1122–1143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Eckstein, H., & Gurr, T. R. (1975). Patterns of authority: A structural basis for political inquiry. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  31. Erdmann, G. (2011). Decline of democracy: Loss of quality, hybridization and breakdown of democracy. In G. Erdmann, & M. Kneuer, (Eds.), Regression of democracy? (pp. 21–58). The Netherlands: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fish, S. (2001). The dynamics of democratic erosion. In D. Anderson, et al. (Eds.), Postcommunism and the theory of democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Foa, R., & Mounk, Y. (2016). The democratic disconnect. Journal of Democracy, 27(3), 5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Fukuyama, F. (2015). Why is democracy performing so poorly? Journal of Democracy, 26(1), 11–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Geddes, B., Wright, J., & Frantz, E. (2014). Autocratic breakdown and regime transitions: A new data set. Perspectives on Politics, 12(2), 313–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Goertz, G. (2003). Social science concepts: A user’s guide. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Heydemann, S., & Leenders, R. (2011). Authoritarian learning and authoritarian resilience: Regime responses to the Arab awakening. Globalization, 8(5), 647–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Huntington, S. (1991). The third wave: Democratization in the late twentieth century. Oklahoma City: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
  39. Joseph, R. (1998). Africa, 1990–1997: From abertura to closure. Journal of Democracy, 9(2), 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kagan, R. (2015). The weight of geopolitics. Journal of Democracy, 26(1), 21–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kapstein, E., & Converse, N. (2008). Why democracies fail. Journal of Democracy, 19(4), 57–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kneuer, M. (2011). Deficits in democratic quality? The effects of party-system institutionalisation on the quality of democracy in Central Eastern Europe. In G. Erdmann & M. Kneuer (Eds.), Regression of democracy? (pp. 133-171). The Netherlands: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kornai, J. (2015). Hungary’s U-turn: Retreat from democracy. Journal of Democracy, 26(3), 34–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Levitsky, S., & Way, L. (2010). Competitive authoritarianism: Hybrid regimes after the Cold War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Levitsky, S., & Way, L. (2015). The myth of democratic recession. Journal of Democracy, 26(1), 48–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How democracies die. New York: Crown.Google Scholar
  47. Lindberg, S. (Ed.). (2009). Democratization by elections: A new mode of transition. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Linz, J., & Stepan, A. (1996). Problems of democratic transition and consolidation: Southern Europe, South America and post-communist Europe. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Lueders, H., & Lust, E. (2018). Multiple measurements, elusive agreement, and unstable outcomes in the study of regime change. Journal of Politics, 80(2), 736–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Luehrmann, A., Tannenberg, M., & Lindberg, S. (2018). Regimes of the world: Opening new avenues for the comparative study of political regimes. Politics and Governance, 6(1), 60–77. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Merkel, W. (2004). Embedded and defective democracies. Democratization, 11(5), 33–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Merkel, W. (2010). Are dictatorships returning? Revisiting the “democratic rollback” hypothesis. Contemporary Politics, 16(1), 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mechkova, V., Luehrmann, A., & Lindberg, S. (2017). How much democratic backsliding? Journal of Democracy, 28(4), 162–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Nathan, A. (2003). Authoritarian resilience. Journal of Democracy, 14(1), 6–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. O’Donnell, G. (1992). Transitions, continuities, and paradoxes. In S. Mainwaring & G. O’Donnell (Eds.), Issues in democratic consolidation: The new South American democracies in comparative perspective (pp. 17–56). University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  56. O’Donnell, G. (1998). Horizontal accountability in new democracies. In A. Schedler, L. Diamond, & M. Plattner (Eds.), The self-restraining state: Power and accountability in new democracies. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Plattner, M. (2010). Populism, pluralism, and liberal democracy. Journal of Democracy, 21(1), 81–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Plattner, M. (2014). The end of the transitions era? Journal of Democracy, 25(3), 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sartori, G. (1987). The theory of democracy revisited. Chatham: Chatham House.Google Scholar
  60. Schedler, A. (1998). What is democratic consolidation? Journal of Democracy, 9(2), 91–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Schedler, A. (2006). Electoral authoritarianism: The dynamics of unfree competition. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
  62. Schmidt, V. (2006). Democracy in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Schmitter, P. (1994). Dangers and dilemmas of democracy. Journal of Democracy, 5(2), 57–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Schmitter, P. (2015). Crisis and transition, but not decline. Journal of Democracy, 26(1), 32–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Stefes, C., & Sehring, J. (2011). Wilted roses and tulips: The regression of democratic rule in Kyrgyzstan and Georgia. In G. Erdmann & M. Kneuer (Eds.), Regression of democracy? (pp. 221–246). The Netherlands: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Svolik, M. (2008). Authoritarian reversals and democratic consolidation. American Political Science Review, 102(2), 153–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Svolik, M. (2012). The politics of authoritarian rule. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Svolik, M. (2015). Which democracies will last? Coups, incumbent takeovers, and the dynamic of democratic consolidation. British Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 715–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tilly, C. (2003). Inequality, democratization and de-democratization. Sociological Theory, 21(1), 37–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. von Soest, C. (2015). Democracy prevention: The international collaboration of authoritarian regimes. European Journal of Political Research, 54(4), 623–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wahman, M., Teorell, J., & Hadenius, A. (2013). Authoritarian regime types revisited: Updated data in comparative perspective. Contemporary Politics, 19(1), 19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Waldner, D., & Lust, E. (2018). Unwelcome change: Coming to terms with democratic backsliding. Annual Review of Political Science, 21, 93–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Walker, C. (2016). The hijacking of soft power. Journal of Democracy, 27(1), 49–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Whitehead, L. (2002). Democratization: Theory and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Youngs, R. (2015). Exploring non-Western democracy. Journal of Democracy, 24(4), 140–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Social and Political SciencesUniversità degli Studi di MilanoMilanItaly
  2. 2.Department of Political SciencesUniversité Libre de Bruxelles (ULB)BrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations