Development and verification of measurement methods

Geddes, B., Wright, J. i Frantz, E. (2014), „Autocratic Breakdown and Regime Transitions: A New Data Set“, Perspectives on Politics 12(2): 313–331.

Contribution to this answer

This is almost a literal question of Geddes, Wright and Frantz: when a dictator leaves, three completely different things can follow the same authoritarian regime gets a new leader, another authoritarian group takes power or democracy emerges. Almost half of the changes in authoritarian regimes lead to a new autocracy, so the departure of one man is by no means the same as democratization.

Development and verification of measurement methods

Cheibub, J. A., Gandhi, J. i Vreeland, J. R. (2010), „Democracy and Dictatorship Revisited“, Public Choice 143: 67–101.

Cheibub, J. A., Gandhi, J. i Vreeland, J. R. (2010), "Democracy and Dictatorship Revisited", Public Choice 143: 67–101.

Contribution to this answer

Cheibub, Gandhi and Vreeland show why the regime should not be determined by the identity of the leader but by the rules of the political game especially if there is a real possibility that those who rule lose power through competitive elections. The new man at the top therefore does not change the type of system in itself.

Development and verification of measurement methods

Teorell, J. i Lindberg, S. I. (2019), „Beyond Democracy–Dictatorship Measures: A New Framework Capturing Executive Bases of Power, 1789–2016“, Perspectives on Politics 17(1): 66–84.

Contribution to this answer

Teorell and Lindberg further complicate the picture: the executive power can rest on the party, the army, the inheritance, the direct elections or the confidence of the parliament, and these sources of power can be combined. The change of leaders can therefore leave the structures on which the previous power rested almost intact.

comparing several countries or cases

O’Donnell, G. i Schmitter, P. C. (1986), Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Tentative Conclusions about Uncertain Democracies, Johns Hopkins University Press.

Contribution to this answer

O’Donnell and Schmitter proceed precisely from the fact that the exit from authoritarianism is an uncertain process, not a predetermined path to democracy. The opening of the system can trigger negotiations and conflicts whose outcome depends on the relationship between political actors; democracy is one possibility, not an automatic consequence of the weakening of the old government.

review more research

Riedl, R. B., Slater, D., Wong, J. i Ziblatt, D. (2020), „Authoritarian-Led Democratization“, Annual Review of Political Science 23: 315–332.

Contribution to this answer

Riedl, Slater, Wong and Ziblatt show even the reverse paradox: sometimes authoritarian rulers themselves drive democratization because they believe the risk to them is small especially when they have a strong enough party to expect it to go well in a freer election. Democratization does not even have to immediately throw the old political elite out of power.