The post-d democratization era saw some autocratic ruling parties not only survive but also thrive. This piece examines 41 transitions since 1940, including cases from Mexico, Taiwan, Bulgaria, and Ghana, revealing how these parties maintained influence despite the shift to democracy.
Focusing on why certain former autocratic parties prospered under democratic systems, we find that their success hinges on three factors: broad programmatic experience gained during authoritarian rule, strong organizational networks built over time, and a history of effective policy implementation. These 'authoritarian legacies' provide advantages in the new competitive environment.
Furthermore, this analysis shows how specific democratic institutions can inadvertently benefit autocratic parties by disadvantaging newer political entities. The research uses original data and an instrumental variables design to predict outcomes for 84 such parties up through 2015.
Key Findings:
✓ Broad programmatic experience was crucial for survival
✓ Strong organization translated into democratic competitiveness
✓ Policy success during autocratic rule provided a competitive edge
Real-World Relevance:
This suggests that democratization may not always lead to weakened authoritarian parties, challenging conventional wisdom.
Mechanism of Survival:
The instrumental variables analysis demonstrates that these parties' advantages negatively impacted democratic stability and quality.
