Suchergebnisse

Contemporary processes of autocratization attract growing attention, but their trajectories and modes remain relatively understudied. To contribute filling this gap, we offer one of the first case-oriented comparative analyses of twenty-first century autocratization. First, we examine a global set of cases. Hence, we focus on four typical cases from different regions - namely, Ecuador, Moldova, Thailand and Rwanda - representing different forms of contemporary autocratization. The analysis confirms that autocratization is an empirically relevant phenomenon in this historical phase. Moreover, an evolution is occurring in how this political syndrome unfolds, in the regimes it tends to hit, and in its outcomes. More specifically, the main threat that liberal democracies currently face is a process of sequential autocratization, perpetrated by elected rulers wishing to expand and prolong their power through the loosening of the mechanisms of horizontal accountability and the manipulation of the electoral process. However, we also highlight that an ongoing process of autocratization could be interrupted or reversed.

Liberal democracy is in crisis and an increasing number of countries are at risk of sliding back to authoritarianism, according to several scholars. This paper aims to analyse the possible risks that contemporary democratic regimes face. Most importantly, is the crisis of liberal democracy a temporary malaise, or does it represent the first stage of an outright process of regime change towards autocracy? To address this question, we re-examine the ongoing illiberal trend in light of the processes of autocratization that have occurred in several world regions since the beginning of the 21st century. The research highlights a "goodµ and a "badµ news. On one hand, the backsliding of liberal democracy towards defective forms of democracy does represent a worrisome sign, given that defective democracies are fragile regimes and thus likely candidates to suffer democratic breakdown and to be replaced by some form of autocracy. On the other hand, several cases show that, similarly to democratization, autocratization can fail, or be reversed.

The so-called third wave of democratization is over and scholars are increasingly alert to the apparently growing number of regime changes in the opposite direction. However, there is little agreement concerning how many distinct forms these processes can take, and even less systematic cross-regional analysis of the phenomenon, which diminishes our ability to seize its actual import. Accordingly, this article pursues a twofold goal. First, we present a framework for the analysis of the processes opposite to democratization. Specifically, we build on the notion of 'autocratization', identify similarities and differences between the various forms it can take, and catalogue how it can happen. Second, we provide new data on post-Cold War cases across the world and use these data to map the prevailing trends. The analysis confirms the increasing empirical relevance of the phenomenon, and reveals the existence of a few geographical and historical patterns in the forms and modes of contemporary autocratization.

This introductory note to the Special Issue 'Autocracy Strikes Back: Authoritarian Resurgence in the Early 21st Century' situates this collection of articles in the burgeoning literature on authoritarian resurgence, and illustrates the conceptual terrain on which these articles make their contribution. In this regard, we discuss autocratization, authoritarian resilience, democratic transition failure, and autocracy-to-autocracy transition as processes of regime change representing different ways in which authoritarian resurgence may advance. Relatedly, we clarify how these processes of regime change differ from each other and provide a few basic coordinates to frame their comparative analysis.