Modes of post-Cold War Autocratization

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


How does autocratization happen? In this chapter, the authors explore different modes of post-Cold War autocratization. Based on a new classification that distinguishes five different modes of regime change towards autocracy—namely, military intervention, electoral process manipulation, political rights violation, civil liberties restriction, and horizontal accountability loosening—the authors highlight the multi-modal nature of the majority of contemporary processes of autocratization. Accordingly, they conduct crisp-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) to identify the main paths of post-Cold War autocratization. The analysis demonstrates the complexity of contemporary processes of regime change towards autocracy, but also the systematic connection between specific modes and forms of autocratization.


Autocratization post-Cold War Modes of regime change QCA 


  1. Adebanwi, W., & Obadare, E. (2011). The abrogation of the electorate: An emergent African phenomenon. Democratization, 18(2), 311–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Almond, G., & Verba, S. (1963). The civic culture. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berg-Schlosser, D. (2008). Determinants of democratic successes and failures in Africa. European Journal of Political Research, 47(3), 269–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bermeo, N. (2016). On democratic backsliding. Journal of Democracy, 27(1), 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Coppedge, M. (2005). Explaining democratic deterioration in Venezuela through nested inference. In F. Hagopian (Ed.), The third wave of democratization in Latin America: Advances and setbacks (pp. 289–316). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Coppedge, M. (2012). Democratization and research methods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Denk, T., & Anckar, C. (2014). Length of independence and democratic failure. Contemporary Politics, 20(4), 385–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. Huntington, S. (1991). The third wave: Democratization in the late twentieth century. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
  12. Kapstein, E., & Converse, N. (2008). Why democracies fail. Journal of Democracy, 19(4), 57–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kneuer, M., & Demmelhuber, T. (2016). Gravity centres of authoritarian rule: A conceptual approach. Democratization, 23(5), 775–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kornai, J. (2015). Hungary’s U-turn: Retreat from democracy. Journal of Democracy, 26(3), 34–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Linz, J. (1978). The breakdown of democratic regimes. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Lipset, S. M. (1959). Some social requisites of democracy: Economic development and political legitimacy. The American Political Science Review, 53(1), 69–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Mainwaring, S., & Pérez-Liñán, A. (2014). Democracies and dictatorships in Latin America: Emergence, survival, and fall. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Moore, B. (1966). Social origins of dictatorship and democracy: Lord and peasant in the making of the modern world. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  21. O’Donnell, G. (1992). Transitions, continuities, and paradoxes. In S. Mainwaring, G. O’Donnell, & S. Valenzuela (Eds.), Issues in democratic consolidation: The new South American democracies in comparative perspective (pp. 17–56). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  22. O’Donnell, G., & Schmitter, P. (1986). Transition from authoritarian rule: Tentative conclusions about uncertain democracies. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Przeworski, A. (1991). Democracy and the market: Political and economic reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ragin, C. (1987). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative methods. Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
  25. Ragin, C., & Rihoux, B. (2009). Configurational comparative methods: Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and related techniques. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.Google Scholar
  26. Rihoux, B., & Marx, A. (2013). QCA, 25 years after “The comparative method” mapping, challenges, and innovations—Mini-Symposium. Political Research Quarterly, 66(1), 167–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schedler, A. (1998). What is democratic consolidation? Journal of Democracy, 9(2), 91–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schmitter, P. (1994). Dangers and dilemmas of democracy. Journal of Democracy, 5(2), 57–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schneider, C. Q. (2018). Realists and idealists in QCA. Political Analysis, 26(2), 246–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schneider, C. Q., & Wagemann, C. (2012). Set-theoretic methods for the social sciences: A guide to qualitative comparative analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. Svolik, M. (2008). Authoritarian reversals and democratic consolidation. American Political Science Review, 102(2), 153–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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
  34. Tomini, L. (2017). When democracies collapse: Assessing transitions to non-democratic regimes in the contemporary world. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tomini, L., & Wagemann, C. (2018). Varieties of contemporary democratic breakdown and regression: A comparative analysis. European Journal of Political Research, 57(3), 687–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Varol, O. (2017). The democratic Coup D’état. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Waldner, D., & Lust, E. (2018). Unwelcome change: Coming to terms with democratic backsliding. Annual Review of Political Science, 21, 93–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Way, L. (2015). The limits of autocracy promotion. European Journal of Political Research, 54(4), 691–706.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