We propose a distinction between inclusionary and exclusionary autocratic ruling strategies and develop novel theoretical propositions on the legacy that these strategies leave on citizens’ political attitudes once the autocratic regime broke down. Using data of 1.3 million survey respondents from 71 countries and hierarchical age–period–cohort models, we estimate between and within cohort differences in citizens’ democratic support. We find that inclusionary regimes—with wider redistribution of socioeconomic and political benefits—leave a stronger antidemocratic legacy than exclusionary regimes on the political attitudes of their citizens. Similarly, citizens who were part of the winning group in an autocracy are more critical with democracy compared with citizens who were part of discriminated groups. This article contributes to our understanding about how autocracies affect the hearts and minds of ordinary citizens.
AcemogluD.RobinsonR. R. (2006). Economic origins of dictatorship and democracy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
2.
AlmondG.VerbaS. (1963). The civic culture: Political attitudes and democracy in five nations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
3.
AndersonC. J.GuilloryC. A. (1997). Political institutions and satisfaction with democracy: A cross-national analysis of consensus and majoritarian systems. American Political Science Review, 91, 66-81.
4.
AnsellB. W.SamuelsD. J. (2014). Inequality and democratization: An elite-competition approach. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
5.
BartelsL.JackmanS. (2014). A generational model of political learning. Electoral Studies, 33, 7-18.
6.
BernhardM.KarakoçE. (2007). Civil society and the legacies of dictatorship. World Politics, 59, 539-567.
7.
BoixC. (2003). Democracy and redistribution. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
8.
Bueno de MesquitaB.SmithA.SiversonR. M.MorrowJ. D. (2003). The logic of political survival. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9.
CoppedgeM.GerringJ.LindbergS. I.SkaaningS. E.TeorellJ.AltmanD.. . . ZimmermanB. (2018). V-Dem Codebook v8. Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Project. Retrieved from https://www.v-dem.net/en/reference/version-8-apr-2018/
10.
DinasE.Northmore-BallK. (2020). The ideological shadow of authoritarianism. Comparative Political Studies, 53(12), 1957-1991.
11.
EastonD. (1965). A systems analysis of political life. New York, NY: John Wiley.
12.
FienbergS. E.MasonW. M. (1979). Identification and estimation of age-period-cohort models in the analysis of discrete archival data. Sociological Methodology, 10, 1-67.
13.
Fuchs-SchündelnN.SchündelnM. (2015). On the endogeneity of political preferences: Evidence from individual experience with democracy. Science, 347, 1145-1148.
14.
GandhiJ. (2008). Political institutions under dictatorship. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
15.
GeddesB. (1999). What do we know about democratization after twenty years. Annual Review of Political Science, 2, 115-144.
16.
GeddesB.WrightJ.FrantzE. (2014). Autocratic breakdown and regime transitions: A new data set. Perspectives on Politics, 12, 313-331.
17.
GeddesB.ZallerJ. (1989). Sources of popular support for authoritarian regimes. American Journal of Political Science, 33, 319-347.
18.
HaberS.MenaldoV. (2011). Do natural resources fuel authoritarianism? A reappraisal of the resource curse. American Political Science Review, 105, 1-26.
19.
HadeniusA.TeorellJ. (2007). Pathways from authoritarianism. Journal of Democracy, 18, 143-157.
20.
HaggardS.KaufmanR. R. (2016). Dictators and democrats: Masses, elites, and regime change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
21.
HainmuellerJ.KernH. L. (2009). Opium for the masses: How foreign media can stabilize authoritarian regimes. Political Analysis, 17, 377-399.
22.
JenningsM. K. (1989). The crystallization of orientations. In BarnesS. H.van DethJ. W.JenningsM. K. (Eds.), Continuities in political action (pp. 313-348). Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter.
23.
KarpJ.BanducciS.BowlerS. (2003). To know it is to love it? Satisfaction with democracy in the European Union. Comparative Political Studies, 36, 271-292.
24.
KimW.GandhiJ. (2010). Coopting workers under dictatorship. The Journal of Politics, 72, 646-658.
25.
KrieckhausJ.SonB.BellingerN. M.WellsJ. M. (2013). Economic inequality and democratic support. The Journal of Politics, 76, 139-151.
26.
KrosnickJ. A.AlwinD. F. (1989). Aging and susceptibility to attitude change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 416-425.
27.
KuranT. (1997). Private truths, public lies: The social consequences of preference falsification. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
28.
LindbergS. I. (2016). Ordinal versions of V-Dem’s indices: When interval measures are not useful for classification, description, and sequencing analysis purposes. Geopolitics, History, and International Relations, 8, 76-111.
29.
LindeJ.EkmanJ. (2003). Satisfaction with democracy: A note on a frequently used indicator in comparative politics. European Journal of Political Research, 42, 391-408.
30.
LipsetS. M. (1960). Political man. London, England: Heinemann.
MagaloniB. (2008). Credible power-sharing and the longevity of authoritarian rule. Comparative Political Studies, 41, 715-741.
34.
MannheimK. (1928). Das Problem der Generationen. Kölner Vierteljahreshefte für Soziologie, 7, 157-184, 309-330.
35.
MasonK. O.MasonW. M.WinsboroughH.PooleW. (1973). Some methodological issues in cohort analysis of archival data. American Sociological Review, 38, 242-258.
36.
MuellerT.NeundorfA. (2012). The role of the state in the repression and revival of religiosity in Central Eastern Europe. Social Forces, 91, 559-582.
37.
NeundorfA. (2010). Democracy in transition: A micro perspective on system change in post-Soviet societies. The Journal of Politics, 72, 1096-1108.
38.
NorrisP. (1999). Critical citizens: Global support for democratic government. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
39.
Pop-ElechesG.TuckerJ. (2017). Communism’s shadow: Historical legacies and contemporary political attitudes. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
40.
Pop-ElechesG.TuckerJ. (2020). Communist Legacies and Left-Authoritarianism. Comparative Political Studies, 53(12), 1861-1889.
41.
Rose-AckermanS. (1996). Democracy and “grand” corruption. International Social Science Journal, 48, 365-380.
42.
SchedlerA. (2013). The politics of uncertainty: Sustaining and subverting electoral authoritarianism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
43.
SearsD. O.FunkC. L. (1999). Evidence of the long-term persistence of adults’ political predispositions. The Journal of Politics, 61, 1-28.
44.
SearsD. O.ValentinoN. A. (1997). Politics matters: Political events as catalysts for preadult socialization. American Political Science Review, 91, 45-65.
45.
SvolikM. W. (2012). The politics of authoritarian rule. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
46.
VogtM.BormannN. C.RüeggerS.CedermanL. E.HunzikerP.GirardinL. (2015). Integrating data on ethnicity, geography, and conflict: The ethnic power relations data set family. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 59, 1327-1342.
47.
WagnerA. F.SchneiderF.HallaM. (2009). The quality of institutions and satisfaction with democracy in Western Europe—A panel analysis. European Journal of Political Economy, 25, 30-41.
48.
WangC.-C. (2017). Political socialization and democratic beliefs change: A panel study of Chinese students studying in Taiwan. Democratization, 24, 138-156.
49.
WellsJ. M.KrieckhausJ. (2006). Does national context influence democratic satisfaction? A multi-level analysis. Political Research Quarterly, 59, 569-578.
50.
YangY.LandK. C. (2006). A mixed models approach to the age-period-cohort analysis of repeated cross-section surveys, with an application to data on trends in verbal test scores. Sociological Methodology, 36, 75-97.
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.
