Research framework and broader academic knowledge base
Serbia: documented application of the same framework
Why do old party networks, policing habits, and unwritten rules remain after a change of government?
The change of government changes the top faster than the day-to-day work of the state. The same officers, police commanders, business intermediaries and local networks retain knowledge, contacts, documents and control over resources. Unwritten rules to whom it occurs, what is being denied and how loyalty is rewarded can continue to operate even when the new laws are democratic.
The new government sometimes uses the old networks because they are effective, because it has no substitute or because the same concentration of power suits it. That is why the electoral shift is not enough for institutional change. Nevertheless, the dismissal of all old personnel can destroy the knowledge needed by the state and become a new political purge. Reform must distinguish professional service from people and practices involved in abuse, with clear criteria and the right to appeal.
Not all retention of old experts and procedures is bad. Reform must preserve the knowledge required by the state, and remove the networks and rules that allow abuse.
Works supporting this answer, with their evidence type and an explanation of how they relate to the claim.
comparing several countries or cases
Loxton, J. i Mainwaring, S. (ur.) (2018), Life after Dictatorship: Authoritarian Successor Parties Worldwide, Cambridge University Press.
- Contribution to this answer
- Loxton and Mainwaring show how little democratization looks like a “new beginning”: the parties that emerged from the authoritarian regime very often continue to exist after the transition, and in more than half of the democracies of the third wave such parties have returned to power with elections. Old political actors, organizations and heritage can therefore become part of the new democratic game instead of disappearing with the old regime.
comparing several countries or cases
González, Y. M. (2020), Authoritarian Police in Democracy: Contested Security in Latin America, Cambridge University Press.
- Contribution to this answer
- González shows the same problem within the police: democratization does not automatically erase the way the coercion apparatus worked before. Police organizations retain their own power and relations with politicians, and social inequality and political interests can prevent reform, so authoritarian police practices persist for decades after democratic elections.
comparing several countries or cases
Haggard, S. i Kaufman, R. R. (2016), Dictators and Democrats: Masses, Elites, and Regime Change, Princeton University Press.
- Contribution to this answer
- Haggard and Kaufman show why the initial conditions of the transition leave a long mark: a new democracy inherits existing institutions, organized elites and different social groups’ abilities to organize politically. That is why the way the old regime ended also affects the vulnerabilities of the new system but the book is not primarily a study of concrete authoritarian “habits”.
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 show that the transition is mostly not led by completely new actors on empty ground: it involves people and institutions from the old regime, the opposition and various groups negotiating under great uncertainty. This explains why changing the political regime is not the same as the immediate removal of all old relationships, although the book is not a direct study of long-term institutional heritage.
review more research
Dahlström, C. i Lapuente, V. (2022), „Comparative Bureaucratic Politics“, Annual Review of Political Science 25: 43–63.
- Contribution to this answer
- Dahlstrm and Lapuente show how much the behavior of bureaucracy depends on the way in which employment, career, political control and professional autonomy are arranged. This helps us understand why changing people at the top in itself does not have to change the way the institution works but the work does not study the specific legacy of authoritarian bureaucracy after democratization.
Is a relevant source missing? Send it to us.
Suggest a source or report an error in this answer →