Authoritarian legacies affect democratic party development through two channels: authoritarian successor parties and the degree of party institutionalization of both ruling and opposition parties from the autocratic era. We argue that when highly institutionalized ruling parties survive democratization they then use their organizational advantage to stymie the development of other parties. Alternatively, when authoritarian elites form well-organized parties in proximity to democratization, democratic-era party institutionalization of all parties increases. Second, post-transition party institutionalization is positively related to the degree of institutionalization of parties under autocracy. Using a unique dataset of party institutionalization, we find support for our arguments, concluding that democratic party institutionalization increases where the party institutionalization under autocracy was high and where reactive authoritarian successor parties survive democratization. We also find evidence for our mechanisms in an analysis of the quality of post-transition elections – ruling parties which survive democratization use their power to undermine clean elections.
AldrichJ. H. (1995). Why parties? The origin and transformation of party politics in America (Vol. 15). Cambridge University Press.
4.
BeckN.KatzJ. N. (1995). What to do (and not to do) with time-series cross-section data. American Political Science Review, 89(3), 634–647. https://doi.org/10.2307/2082979
5.
BeckN.KatzJ. N. (1996). Nuisance vs. substance: Specifying and estimating time- series-cross-section models. Political Analysis, 6(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/6.1.1
BizzarroF.GerringJ.KnutsenC. H.HickenA.BernhardM.SkaaningS.-E.CoppedgeM.LindbergS. I. (2018). Party strength and economic growth. World Politics, 70(2), 275–320. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0043887117000375
8.
BizzarroF.HickenA.SelfD. (2017). The v-dem party institutionalization index: A new global indicator (1900–2015). V-Dem Working Paper Series, 48. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2968265
Bozo´kiA.IshiyamaJ. T. (2020). The communist successor parties of central and eastern Europe. Routledge.
11.
BrattonM.Van de WalleN. (1997). Democratic experiments in Africa: Regime transi- tions in comparative perspective. Cambridge University Press.
12.
BrattonM.Van de WalleN. (1994). Neopatrimonial regimes and political transitions in Africa. World Politics, 46(4), 453–489. https://doi.org/10.2307/2950715
13.
BunceV. J.WolchikS. L. (2011). Defeating authoritarian leaders in postcommunist countries. Cambridge University Press.
DiMaggioP. J.PowellW. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
18.
FrantzE.GeddesB. (2016). The legacy of dictatorship for democratic parties in Latin America. Journal of Politics in Latin America, 8(1), 3–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/1866802x1600800101
19.
GandhiJ. (2008). Political institutions under dictatorship. Cambridge University Press.
20.
GandhiJ.ReuterO. J. (2013). The incentives for pre-electoral coalitions in non- democratic elections. Democratization (London), 20(1), 137–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2013.738865
GeddesB.WrightJ.FrantzE. (2014). Autocratic breakdown and regime transitions: A new data set. Perspectives on Politics, 12(2), 313–331. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1537592714000851
23.
GreeneK. F.Sa´nchez-TalanquerM. (2018). Authoritarian legacies and party system stability in Mexico. In Party systems in Latin America: Institutionalization, decay and collapse (pp. 201–226). Cambridge University Press.
24.
Grzymala-BusseA. (2002). Redeeming the communist past: The regeneration of communist parties in east central Europe. Cambridge University Press.
25.
Grzymala-BusseA. (2007). Rebuilding leviathan: Party competition and state exploitation in post-communist democracies. Cambridge University Press.
26.
Grzymala-BusseA. (2019). Hoist on their own petards? The reinvention and collapse of authoritarian successor parties. Party Politics, 25(4), 569–582. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068817740336
27.
Grzymala-BusseA. (2020a). Consequences of authoritarian party exit and reinvention for democratic competition. Comparative Political Studies, 53(10-11), 1704–1737. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414019897683
28.
Grzymala-BusseA. (2020b). The effects of communist party transformation on the insti- tutionalization of party systems. In The communist successor parties of central and eastern Europe. Routledge.
HickenA.KuhontaE. M. (2011). Shadows from the past: Party system institutional- ization in Asia. Comparative Political Studies, 44(5), 572–597. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414010396460
31.
HuntingtonS. P. (1968). Political order in changing societies. Yale University Press.
32.
IshiyamaJ.ChengT.-J. (2006). Strategizing party adaptation: The case of the kuom- intang. Party Politics, 12(3), 367–394. https://doi.org/10.1177/13540688060630
33.
IshiyamaJ. T. (1995). Communist parties in transition: Structures, leaders, and processes of democratization in eastern Europe. Comparative Politics, 27(2), 147–166. https://doi.org/10.2307/422162
34.
IshiyamaJ. T. (1999). Sickles into roses: The successor parties and democratic consolidation in post-communist politics. Democratization (London), 6(4), 52–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510349908403632
35.
IshiyamaJ. T. (2008). Learning to lose (and sometimes win): The neocommunist parties in post-soviet politics. In Political transitions in dominant party systems. Routledge.
36.
KimW.BernhardM.HickenA. (2024). Electoral volatility and regime survival in competitive authoritarian regimes. European Journal of Political Research.
LeBasA. (2011). From protest to parties: Party-building and democratization in Africa. Oxford University Press.
39.
LevitskyS. (1998). Institutionalization and Peronism: The concept, the case and the case for unpacking the concept. Party Politics, 4(1), 77–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068898004001004
40.
LevitskyS.LoxtonJ.Van DyckB.Dom´ınguezJ. I. (2016). Challenges of party-building in Latin America. Cambridge University Press.
LoxtonJ. (2015b). Authoritarian successor parties: A framework for analysis. In Life after dictatorship: Authoritarian successor parties worldwide. Kellogg Institute for Inter- national Studies. https://kellogg.nd.edu/documents/8706
46.
LoxtonJ.MainwaringS. (2018). Life after dictatorship: Authoritarian successor parties worldwide. Cambridge University Press.
47.
LührmannA.DüpontN.HigashijimaM.Berker KavasogluY.MarquardtK. L.Bern- hardM.D¨oringH.HickenA.LaebensM.LindbergS. I.MedzihorskyJ.NeundorfA.ReuterO. J.Ruth-LovellS.WeghorstK. R.WiesehomeierN.WrightJ.AlizadaN.BederkeP.SeimB. (2020). “Codebook Varieties of Party Identity and Organization (V–Party) V1”. Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Project. https://doi.org/10.23696/vpartydsv2
LupuN. (2016). Party brands in crisis: Partisanship, brand dilution, and the breakdown of political parties in Latin America. Cambridge University Press.
50.
MagaloniB. (2006). Voting for autocracy: Hegemonic party survival and its demise in mex- ico. Cambridge University Press.
MahrA.NagleJ. (1995). Resurrection of the successor parties and democratization in east-central Europe. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 28(4), 393–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/0967-067x(95)00025-p
53.
MainwaringS. (2015). Party system institutionalization: Reflections based on the Asian cases. In Party system institutionalization in Asia: Democracies autocracies and the shadows of the past (pp. 204–227). Cambridge University Press.
54.
MainwaringS.ScullyT. R. (1995). Building democratic institutions: Party systems in Latin America. Cambridge Univ Press.
55.
MengA. (2020). Constraining dictatorship. Cambridge University Press.
56.
MillerM. K. (2019). Don’t call it a comeback: Autocratic ruling parties after democratiza-tion. British Journal of Political Science, 51(2), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123419000012
57.
NeundorfA.Pop-ElechesG. (2020). Dictators and their subjects: Authoritarian atti- tudinal effects and legacies. Comparative Political Studies, 53(12), 1839–1860. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414020926203
58.
OngE. (2022). Opposing power: Building opposition alliances in electoral autocracies. University of Michigan Press.
59.
PanebiancoA. (1988). Political parties: Organization and power. Cambridge University Press.
RasmussenM. B.KnutsenC. H. (2021). Party institutionalization and welfare state development. British Journal of Political Science, 51(3), 1203–1229. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123419000498
62.
RiedlR. B. (2014). Authoritarian origins of democratic party systems in Africa. Cambridge University Press.
SchattschneiderE. E. (1942). Party government. Transaction Publishers.
65.
SelfD. S. (2023). Bounded democratization: How military-party relations shape military-led democratization. Comparative Political Studies, 56(6), 862–896.
66.
SelfD. S.HickenA. (2024). Replication data for: Reacting to democratization: How authoritarian legacies shape democratic party development. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/A9KK0V
67.
SelwayJ.SelfD. (2016). Datasets, definitions, and coding decisions: Assessing the effect of electoral rules. In Presented at 2016 Midwest political science association annual meeting. Midwest Political Science Association. https://dsself.github.io/publication/mpsa2016
68.
SlaterD.WongJ. (2013). The strength to concede: Ruling parties and democratization in developmental Asia. Perspectives on Politics, 11(3), 717–733. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1537592713002090
69.
SlaterD.WongJ. (2022). From development to democracy: The transformations of modern Asia. Princeton University Press.
70.
TavitsM. (2012). Organizing for success: Party organizational strength and electoral per- formance in postcommunist Europe. The Journal of Politics, 74(1), 83–97. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022381611001198
71.
TavitsM. (2013). Post-communist democracies and party organization. Cambridge University Press.
72.
TeorellJ.CoppedgeM.LindbergS.SkaaningS.-E. (2019). Measuring polyarchy across the globe, 1900–2017. Studies in Comparative International Development, 54(1), 71–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12116-018-9268-z
73.
ValenzuelaJ. S. (1990). Democratic consolidation in post-transitional settings: Notion, pro- cess, and facilitating conditions (Vol. 150). University of Notre Dame.
74.
WahmanM.TeorellJ.HadeniusA. (2013). Authoritarian regime types revisited: Up- dated data in comparative perspective. Contemporary Politics, 19(1), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569775.2013.773200
75.
WeissM. (2020). The roots of resilience: Authoritarian acculturation in se Asia. Cornell University Press.
76.
WooldridgeJ. (2016). Introductory econometrics: A modern approach (6th ed., pp. 61–62). Michigan State University.
77.
ZiblattD. (1998). Putting humpty-dumpty back together again: Communism’s collapse and the reconstruction of the east German ex-communist party. German Politics and Society, 16(146), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.3167/104503098782487167
78.
ZiblattD. (2017). Conservative political parties and the birth of modern democracy in Europe. Cambridge University Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
