The Surprising Instability of Competitive Authoritarianism

Dados Bibliográficos

ID6286366
AutoresChristopher Carothers (0000-0003-1302-5808), Christopher D Carothers (autor correspondente)
Ano2018
Volume29
Fascículo4
Páginas129-135
Data de publicação2018-01-01
Peer ReviewedSim
Open AccessSim
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoJournal of democracy (JOURNAL)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 1045-5736 • E-ISSN: 1086-3214
EditoraProject MUSE (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.1353/jod.2018.0068
OpenAlexW2897008974
IdiomaEN
Citações recebidas19
Referências citadas12

After many countries that had embarked upon transitions in the 1980s and 1990s failed to become consolidated democracies, political scientists highlighted the widespread emergence of hybrid regimes, which combine authoritarian and democratic features. Scholars argued such regimes were stable, with some positing that quasi-democratic institutions actually strengthened authoritarianism. But an examination of competitive authoritarianism (CA)—the most prominent of these hybrid types—suggests instability is the norm. Of 35 regimes identified as having been CA between 1990 and 1995, most have either democratized or been replaced by new autocracies. Furthermore, quasi-democratic institutions often contributed to CA's breakdown. In short, hybrid regimes have not become a new form of stable nondemocratic rule

Authoritarianism · Autocracy · Democracy · Development economics · Economic system · Economics · Norm (philosophy · Political economy · Political instability · Political science · Political stability · Politics · Law · Political Conflict and Governance · Religion and Society Interactions · Social Policy and Reform Studies