Abstract
While electoral revolutions in the Philippines and the post-Communist world have ousted dictators, autocrats from Mexico to Zimbabwe have cemented their rule through regular multi-party elections. Why do elections sometimes undermine authoritarian regimes while at other times they help sustain them? I argue that a dictator’s control over the economy conditions the effect of authoritarian elections. Where rulers command the heights of the economy, elections are more easily manipulated to sustain their rule. But where such control is lacking, elections may spur regime change. In a cross-national study of autocracies from 1970 to 2006, I find that as incumbent control over the economy increases, elections are less likely to lead to regime breakdown. Where economic control is at its lowest, elections increase the risk of regime collapse. Thus, research on authoritarianism needs to supplement the study of authoritarian regime types and institutional characteristics with a focus on the rulers’ control over the state and the economy.
Keywords
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
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.
