How do the successors to authoritarian ruling parties influence subsequent democratic party competition? The existing literature does not distinguish among these parties, nor does it differentiate among the distinct strategies of their adaptation to the collapse of authoritarian rule. As a result, the impact of these parties on democracy has been unclear and difficult to discern. Yet, using a novel data set with observations from postcommunist Europe, Africa, Asia, and Latin America, I find that the exit of authoritarian ruling parties from power and their subsequent reinvention as committed democratic competitors are powerfully associated with robust democratic party competition. Mixed effects regressions and estimates of treatment effects show that authoritarian exit and reinvention promote the success of democratic party competition.
AlbertusM.MenaldoV. (2014). Gaming democracy: Elite dominance during transition and the prospects for redistribution. British Journal of Political Science, 44(3), 575–603.
3.
AlbertusM.MenaldoV. (2018). Authoritarianism and the elite origins of democracy. Cambridge University Press.
4.
AndrewsD. W.StockJ. H. (2007). Testing with many weak instruments. Journal of Econometrics, 138(1), 24–46.
BenoitK.HaydenJ. (2004). Institutional change and persistence: The evolution of Poland’s Electoral System, 1989-2001. Journal of Politics, 66, 2396–2427.
7.
BernhardM. (2000). Institutional choice after communism: A critique of theory-building in an empirical wasteland. East European Politics and Societies, 14(2), 316–347.
8.
BirchS. (2003). Electoral systems and political transformation in post-communist Europe. Palgrave Macmillan.
9.
BoixC.StokesS. (2003). Endogenous democratization. World Politics, 55, 517–549.
10.
BozókiA.IshiyamaJ. (Eds.) (2002). The communist successor parties of Central and Eastern Europe. M. E. Sharpe.
11.
BormannN. C.GolderM. (2013). Democratic electoral systems around the world, 1946–2011. Electoral Studies, 32(2), 360–369.
12.
ChengT. J. (2008). Embracing Defeat: The KMT and the PRI after 2000. In WongJ.FriedmanE. (Eds.), Political transitions in dominant party systems (pp. 143–163). Routledge.
13.
ClarkW. R.GolderM. (2006). Rehabilitating Duverger’s theory: Testing the mechanical and strategic modifying effects of electoral laws. Comparative Political Studies, 39(6), 679–708.
14.
CyrJ. (2017). The fates of political parties. Cambridge University Press.
15.
DardenK.Grzymala-BusseA. (2006). The great divide: Literacy, nationalism, and the communist collapse. World Politics, 59(1), 83–115.
16.
DruckmanJ.RobertsA. (2007). Communist successor parties and coalition formation in Eastern Europe. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 32(1), 5–31.
17.
EpperlyB. (2011). Institutions and legacies: Electoral volatility in the postcommunist world. Comparative Political Studies, 44(7), 829–853.
18.
EstevezF.Diaz-CayerosA.MagaloniB. (2008). A house divided against itself: The PRI’s survival strategy after hegemony. In FriedmanE.WongJ. (Eds.), Learning to lose (pp. 42–56). Routledge.
19.
EvansG.WhitefieldS. (1993). Identifying the bases of party competition in Eastern Europe. British Journal of Political Science, 23(4), 521–548.
Flores-MacíasG. A. (2018). Mexico’s PRI. In LoxtonJ.MainwaringS. (Eds.), Life after dictatorship: Authoritarian successor parties worldwide (pp. 257–283). Cambridge University Press.
22.
GeddesB. (1999). What do we know about democratization after twenty years?Annual Review of Political Science, 2(1), 115–144.
23.
GeddesB.WrightJ.FrantzE. (2014). Autocratic breakdown and regime transitions?Perspectives on Politics, 12(2), 313–331.
24.
Grzymala-BusseA. (2002). Redeeming the communist past: The regeneration of communist successor parties in east Central Europe. Cambridge University Press.
25.
Grzymala-BusseA. (2007). Rebuilding Leviathan: Party competition and post-communist state development. Cambridge University Press.
26.
Grzymala-BusseA. (2018). Hoist on their own petards? The reinvention and collapse of authoritarian successor parties. Party Politics, 25(4), 569–582.
27.
HaughtonT. (2004). Explaining the limited success of the communist-successor left in Slovakia: The case of the party of the democratic left (SDL’). Party Politics, 10(2), 177–191.
28.
HickenA.KuhontaE. (2011). Shadows from the past: Party system institutionalization in Asia. Comparative Political Studies, 44(5), 572–597.
29.
HoxJ. (2010). Multilevel analysis. Routledge.
30.
IshiyamaJ. (1995). Communist parties in transition: Structures, leaders, and process of democratization in Eastern Europe. Comparative Politics, 27, 147–166.
31.
IshiyamaJ. (2001). Sickles into roses: The successor parties and democratic consolidation in post-communist politics. In LewisP. (Ed.), Party development and democratic change in post-communist Europe (pp. 32–54). Frank Cass.
32.
IshiyamaJ. (2008). Learning to lose (and sometimes win): The neocommunist parties in post-Soviet politics. In WongJ.FriedmanE. (Eds.), Political transitions in dominant party systems (pp. 164–184). Routledge.
33.
JonesB.SteenbergenM. (2002). Modeling multilevel data structures. American Journal of Political Science, 46(1), 218–237.
34.
JourdeC. (2008). The master is gone, but does the house still stand? The fate of single-party systems after the defeat of single parties in West Africa. In FriedmanE.WongJ. (Eds.), Learning to lose (pp. 75–90). Routledge.
35.
KitscheltH. (1992). The formation of party systems in East Central Europe. Politics and Society, 20(1), 7–50.
36.
KitscheltH. (2003). Accounting for postcommunist regime diversity: What counts as a good cause? In EkiertG.HansonS. (Eds.), Capitalism and democracy in central and eastern Europe (pp. 49–86). Cambridge University Press.
37.
KitscheltH. (2015). Analyzing the dynamics of post-communist party systems: Some “final thoughts” on the EEPS special section. East European Politics and Societies, 29(1), 81–91.
38.
KitscheltH.MarkowskiR.MansfeldovaZ.TokaG. (1999). Post-communist party systems: Competition, representation, and inter-party cooperation. Cambridge University Press.
39.
LangstonJ. (2017). Democratization and authoritarian party survival. Oxford University Press.
40.
LevitskyS.LoxtonJ.Van DyckB.DomínguezJ. (Eds.) (2016). Challenges of party-building in Latin America. Cambridge University Press.
41.
LoxtonJ. (2015). Authoritarian successor parties. Journal of Democracy, 26(3), 57–170.
42.
LoxtonJ. (2018). Introduction. In LoxtonJ.MainwaringS. (Eds.), Life after dictatorship: Authoritarian successor parties worldwide (pp. 1–50). Cambridge University Press.
43.
LupuN.StokesS. (2010). Democracy, interrupted: Regime change and partisanship in twentieth-century Argentina. Electoral Studies, 29(1), 91–104.
44.
MagaloniB.KricheliR. (2010). Political order and one-party rule. Annual Review of Political Science, 13, 123–143.
45.
MahrA.NagleJ. (1995). Resurrection of the successor parties and democratization in east-central Europe. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 4, 393–409.
46.
MainwaringS. (1993). Presidentialism, multipartism, and democracy: The difficult combination. Comparative Political Studies, 26(2), 198–228.
47.
MainwaringS.TorcalM. (2006). Party system institutionalization and party system theory after the Third Wave of Democratization. In KatzR.CrottyW. (Eds.), Handbook of political parties (pp. 204–227). Sage.
48.
MarchL. (2005). The Moldovan communists: From Leninism to democracy?University of Strathclyde.
49.
MikushevaA.PoiB. (2006). Tests and confidence sets with correct size in the simultaneous equation model with potentially weak instruments. Stata Journal, 6(3), 335–347.
50.
MillerM. K. (2017). The strategic origins of electoral authoritarianism. British Journal of Political Science, 1–28.
51.
MoreiraM. (2003). A conditional likelihood ratio test for structural models. Econometrica, 71(4), 1027–1048.
52.
OrensteinM. (1998). A genealogy of communist successor parties in east-central Europe and the determinants of their success. East European Politics and Societies, 12, 472–499.
53.
Pop-ElechesG. (1999). Separated at birth or separated by birth? Communist successor parties in Romania and Hungary. East European Politics and Societies, 13, 117–147.
54.
PrzeworskiA. (1991). Democracy and the market. Cambridge University Press.
55.
PrzeworskiA.AlvarezM.CheibubJ.LimongiF. (2000). Democracy and development. Cambridge University Press.
56.
PrzeworskiA.LimongiF. (1997). Modernization: Theories and facts. World Politics, 49, 155–183.
57.
RaudenbushS.BrykA. (2001). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Sage.
58.
ReuterO. J.GandhiJ. (2010). Economic performance and elite defection from hegemonic parties. British Journal of Political Science, 41, 83–110.
59.
RiedlR. B. (2014). Authoritarian origins of democratic party systems in Africa. Cambridge University Press.
60.
RobertsK.WibbelsE. (1999). Party volatility and electoral systems in Latin America. American Political Science Review, 93, 575–590.
61.
RovnyJ. (2014). Communism, federalism, and ethnic minorities: Explaining party competition patterns in Eastern Europe. World Politics, 66(4), 669–708.
62.
ShugartM. S.CareyJ. M. (1992). Presidents and assemblies: Constitutional design and electoral dynamics. Cambridge University Press.
63.
SlaterD.WongJ. (2013). The strength to concede: Ruling parties and democratization in developmental Asia. Perspectives on Politics, 11(3), 717–733.
64.
SlaterD.WongJ. (2018). Game for democracy: Authoritarian successor parties in developmental Asia. In LoxtonJ.MainwaringS. (Eds.), Life after dictatorship: Authoritarian successor parties worldwide (pp. 284–313). Cambridge University Press.
65.
SmithB. (2005). Life of the party: The origins of regime breakdown and persistence under single-party rule. World Politics, 57(3), 421–451.
StockJ.YogoM. (2005). Testing for weak instruments in linear IV regression. In AndrewsD.StockJ. (Eds.), Identification and inference for econometric models: Essays in Honor of Thomas Rothenberg (pp. 80–108). Cambridge University Press.
68.
SvolíkM. W. (2012). The politics of authoritarian rule. Cambridge University Press.
69.
TavitsM. (2005). The development of stable party support: Electoral dynamics in post-communist Europe. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 183–198.
70.
TavitsM. (2008). Presidents with Prime Ministers. Oxford University Press.
71.
TavitsM. (2012). Organizing for success: Party organizational strength and electoral performance in postcommunist Europe. The Journal of Politics, 74, 183–197.
72.
TavitsM. (2013). Post-communist democracies and party organization. Cambridge University Press.
73.
TuckerJ.PowellE. (2014). Revisiting electoral volatility in post-communist countries. British Journal of Political Science, 44(1), 123–147.
74.
VachudovaM.SnyderT. (1996). Are transitions transitory? Two types of political change in Eastern Europe since 1989. East European Politics and Societies, 11(1), 1–35.
75.
WallerM. (1995). Adaptation of the former communist parties of east central Europe. Party Politics, 1(1), 473–490.
76.
WongJ. (2008). Maintaining KMT dominance: Party adaptation in authoritarian and democratic Taiwan. In WongJ.FriedmanE. (Eds.), Political transitions in dominant party systems (pp. 73–90). Routledge.
WrightJ.Escriba-FolchA. (2011). Authoritarian institutions and regime survival: Transitions to democracy and subsequent autocracy. British Journal of Political Science, 42, 283–309.
79.
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, 1–29.
80.
ZiblattD. (2018). Reluctant democrats: Old regime conservative parties in democracy’s first wave in Europe. In LoxtonJ.MainwaringS. (Eds.), Life after dictatorship: Authoritarian successor parties worldwide (pp. 314–335). 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.
