POL WEEK 7 Lecture 3 Notes: Democratisation and Autocratisation
Democratic terms and themes
Democratisation: transition from an authoritarian regime to a democratic regime.
Autocratisation: transition from a democratic regime to an authoritarian regime.
Other terms mentioned: reverse wave; democratic backsliding.
Themes in this lecture: trends and patterns; explanations for those trends.
Explanations: Democratisation (overview of causes)
Democratisation has been attributed to various causes:
Levels of economic development.
Bargains between commercial and aristocratic elites.
Labour activism and civil society mobilisation leading to political incorporation.
International processes (war, collapse of empire, decolonisation, imposition, trade).
Key debate concerns the “modernisation” thesis associated with Lipset:
More economically developed countries are more likely to be democracies; poorer countries are more likely to be autocracies.
Relationships between income/output and democracy are clearer over the longer term.
GDP per capita vs liberal democracy (conceptual)
GDP per capita is adjusted for cost of living differences and for inflation.
Liberal democracy index is based on the expert assessments by V-Dem, ranging from 0 to 1 (0 = least democratic, 1 = most democratic).
Data source: Our World in Data (OWID); based on V-Dem (v12).
Example visuals describe a spectrum of countries with dots sized by population; high GDP per capita includes: Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Singapore, Hong Kong, Bahrain, Oman, etc.; whereas lower-income examples include many from Africa and parts of Asia.
Notable data notes:
Some countries have data gaps ("No data").
The visualization includes a global mix of regions: Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, South America, Oceania.
Source and licensing: Bolt et al. (2020), OWID based on V-Dem (v12); OurWorldInData.org/democracy; CC BY.
Development and democracy: endogenous vs exogenous theories (Przeworski & Limongi, 1997)
Two broad explanations for why wealth and democracy are related:
Endogenous account (from within the society)
General causal processes that drive democratisation (Lipset’s framework):
Differentiation of class structure (growth of a middle class).
Industrialisation and the rise of organised workers.
Urbanisation.
Education and literacy.
Development of communications systems.
Civil associations and societal networks.
Indices of development (as used by Lipset) include:
Per capita income.
Telephone penetration.
Percentage of agricultural workforce.
Urbanisation.
Literacy.
Exogenous account (outside development, but development aids survival)
Democracy can be established for reasons independent of development, but it is more likely to survive in a country with higher economic development.
Demands and drivers for democratisation can include:
Loss in war and war-induced economic collapse.
Death of dictators.
Collapse of state coercive capacity.
Foreign pressure to democratise.
Learning and experience with other regimes.
Transition approaches and strategies.
Empirical finding (P&L, 135 countries, 1950–1990):
“The level of economic development does not affect the probability of transitions to democracy, but affluence does make democratic regimes more stable.”
Interpretation: Democracy does not emerge solely because a country has developed; but it is more likely to endure in a developed country.
Ongoing debate: researchers use broader data sources to understand causes and types of democratisation and autocratisation; new classifications of regimes help illuminate key issues and processes.
Democratic backsliding? (Erosion and reclassification of regimes)
Elections may continue, but incumbents win most often, signaling backsliding or hollowed democratic features.
New definitions (e.g., via V-Dem) to capture changes in regime and function:
Closed autocracy: citizens do not have the right to choose either the chief executive or the legislature through multi-party elections.
Electoral autocracy: citizens can vote for chief executive and legislature via multi-party elections, but freedoms (e.g., association or expression) are restricted, making elections not fully free or fair.
Electoral democracy: citizens have the right to participate in meaningful, free, and fair multi-party elections.
Liberal democracy: electoral democracy plus stronger individual/minority rights; executive constrained by legislature and courts.
Political regimes: 1789–2021 (classification framework)
Resource: Our World in Data; fourfold classification from Lührmann et al. (2018) based on expert estimates via V-Dem.
Tasks for students: Go to charts and read explanatory notes for detailed mappings and time-series.
Key takeaway: regime classifications are dynamic and multi-dimensional, not a single binary state.
Regime types (2024) and classification notes (V-Dem 2025)
Regime types (2024) vs V-Dem 2025 Democracy, 2024, and Lührmann et al. (2018) classification (2018 framework):
Closed autocracy: no multi-party elections for chief executive or legislature.
Electoral autocracy: elections exist for chief executive and legislature, but accompanying rights and freedoms are restricted.
Electoral democracy: free and fair multi-party elections with meaningful participation.
Liberal democracy: electoral democracy plus enhanced individual/minority rights and strong checks on the executive by the legislature and courts.
Data sources and notes:
Data source: V-Dem (2025).
The chart integrates Our World in Data’s democracy data.
Explanatory notes included to understand measurement and classification.
Additional guidance: Learn more about how researchers measure democracy and the Regimes of the World dataset.
Trends (V-Dem 2022) – key takeaways for later reading
Global democracy level in 2021 is down to 1989 levels for the average citizen.
Dictatorships are on the rise and harbor about 70% of the world population (≈ 5.4 billion people).
Liberal democracies peaked in 2012 with 42 countries; now down to the lowest levels in over 25 years – 34 nations, representing about 13% of the world population.
Democratic decline is most evident in:
Asia-Pacific, Eastern Europe and Central Asia, and parts of Latin America and the Caribbean.
The number of closed autocracies rose—from 25 to 30 countries—harboring 26% of the world population, contributing to the changing nature of autocratization.
Electoral autocracy remains the most common regime type and contains about 44% of the world population (≈ 3.4 billion people).
A record of 35 countries suffered significant deteriorations in freedom of expression due to government action, rising from 5 countries a decade ago.
Source: Vanessa A. Boese et al. (2022), Autocratization Changing Nature? Democracy Report 2022, Varieties of Democracy Institute (V-Dem).
Connections and practical implications
Measurement and classification are central to understanding global trends; different datasets (V-Dem, OWID) offer complementary perspectives.
The debate between endogenous and exogenous theories highlights how economic conditions, political institutions, and international dynamics interact to shape transitions and their durability.
Policy relevance: efforts to safeguard democracy may need to focus on protecting civil liberties and the rule of law (beyond merely holding elections), addressing elites’ incentives, and strengthening civil society and independent institutions.
Ethical and philosophical implications: how we define and measure democracy affects legitimacy, policy responses, and the perceived legitimacy of regimes under pressure.
Practical considerations: recognizing early warning signs of backsliding (e.g., restrictions on freedoms, weakening checks and balances) can inform timely interventions.
0 \leq \text{LD Index} \leq 1
Democratic terms and themes
Democratisation: The complex process of transition from an authoritarian political system, where power is concentrated in the hands of a single leader or a small elite, to a democratic regime, characterized by competitive elections, protection of civil liberties, and the rule of law. This often involves significant societal, economic, and political reforms.
Autocratisation: The reverse process, denoting a transition from a democratic or semi-democratic regime towards an authoritarian one. This can manifest through various mechanisms, including executive aggrandizement, manipulation of elections, suppression of opposition, and erosion of civil liberties.
Other terms mentioned:
Reverse wave: Refers to periods in history where there is a noticeable global decline in the number of democratic states, often following a period of democratic expansion.
Democratic backsliding: A more gradual process where a democratic state experiences a significant weakening of its democratic institutions, norms, and practices, without necessarily becoming a full authoritarian regime immediately.
Themes in this lecture: Explores global trends and patterns in democratisation and autocratisation over time, and attempts to provide comprehensive explanations for these observed trends, looking at various causal factors.
Explanations: Democratisation (overview of causes)
Democratisation has been attributed to various causes, often acting in combination:
Levels of economic development: Higher levels of economic prosperity are often correlated with greater demands for political participation, literacy, and the rise of a middle class, which can act as a force for democratisation.
Bargains between commercial and aristocratic elites: Historical transitions in some countries involved agreements between rising commercial classes and established landowning elites, leading to power-sharing arrangements and limited government.
Labour activism and civil society mobilisation leading to political incorporation: The organized efforts of workers and various social groups demanding inclusion and rights can compel authoritarian regimes to open up politically.
International processes (war, collapse of empire, decolonisation, imposition, trade): External factors such as losing a major war, the disintegration of colonial empires, external pressures from international organizations or powerful states, and involvement in global trade can all either facilitate or hinder democratic transitions.
Key debate concerns the “modernisation” thesis associated with Seymour Martin Lipset, which posits:
More economically developed countries are empirically more likely to be democracies; conversely, poorer countries tend to be autocracies. This suggests a strong correlation, if not a direct causal link, between socioeconomic development and democratic governance.
Relationships between income/output and democracy are clearer over the longer term, indicating that economic development is a slow-burning fuse for democratic change, rather than an immediate catalyst.
GDP per capita vs liberal democracy (conceptual)
GDP per capita is adjusted for cost of living differences (purchasing power parity, PPP) and for inflation, allowing for a more accurate comparison of living standards across countries and over time.
Liberal democracy index is based on the expert assessments by V-Dem (Varieties of Democracy Institute). This index measures not just elections, but also the extent of individual freedom, protection of minority rights, and checks on executive power, ranging from 0 to 1 (where 0 indicates the least democratic system, and 1 represents a fully liberal democratic system).
Data source: Our World in Data (OWID); based on V-Dem (v12), a leading dataset for measuring democracy worldwide through a comprehensive set of indicators evaluated by country experts.
Example visuals describe a spectrum of countries, with data points (dots) sized proportionally to their population, illustrating how economic development relates to democratic scores across the globe. High GDP per capita examples often include nations like Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Singapore, Hong Kong, Bahrain, Oman, which may not always score high on liberal democracy, highlighting that wealth alone does not guarantee liberal democracy. Lower-income examples include many from Africa and parts of Asia, which frequently exhibit lower democracy scores.
Notable data notes:
Some countries have data gaps ("No data") due to conflicts, lack of reliable information, or recent state formation.
The visualization includes a global mix of regions: Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, South America, Oceania, providing a comprehensive geographical scope.
Source and licensing: Bolt et al. (2020), OWID based on V-Dem (v12); OurWorldInData.org/democracy; licensed under Creative Commons BY (CC BY), allowing for reuse with attribution.
Development and democracy: endogenous vs exogenous theories (Przeworski & Limongi, 1997)
Two broad explanations for why wealth and democracy are related, according to Przeworski and Limongi (1997):
Endogenous account (from within the society)
This theory suggests that economic development generates internal societal changes that inherently drive democratisation. General causal processes that drive democratisation, as articulated by Lipset’s framework, include:
Differentiation of class structure (growth of a middle class): Economic development leads to a more complex social stratification, with a growing, educated middle class that often demands greater political voice and rights.
Industrialisation and the rise of organised workers: Urbanization and industrial growth lead to the formation of large working-class groups and labor unions, which push for political representation and improved conditions.
Urbanisation: Migration to cities creates diverse populations that are more exposed to new ideas and less amenable to traditional hierarchical controls, fostering civic engagement and political awareness.
Education and literacy: Increased access to education and higher literacy rates empower citizens with critical thinking skills, enabling them to question authority and engage in informed political discourse.
Development of communications systems: The spread of media (newspapers, radio, internet) facilitates the dissemination of information and ideas, enabling greater public awareness and coordination of political action.
Civil associations and societal networks: The emergence of various non-governmental organizations, interest groups, and social movements provides platforms for collective action and advocacy, strengthening civil society.
Indices of development (as used by Lipset) are quantitative measures to proxy these societal changes, including:
Per capita income: A direct measure of economic prosperity.
Telephone penetration: An indicator of communication infrastructure and connectivity.
Percentage of agricultural workforce: Reflects the shift from agrarian to industrial/service-based economies.
Urbanisation: The proportion of the population living in urban areas.
Literacy: The percentage of the population capable of reading and writing.
Exogenous account (outside development, but development aids survival)
This theory posits that democracy can be established for reasons independent of a country's level of economic development (i.e., it can emerge even in poor countries), but it is significantly more likely to survive and consolidate in a country with higher economic development.
Demands and drivers for democratisation that are exogenous to economic development can include:
Loss in war and war-induced economic collapse: Defeat in war can discredit authoritarian regimes and create opportunities for new, more democratic political orders to emerge from the ruins.
Death of dictators: The demise of a long-standing authoritarian leader often creates a power vacuum and an opportunity for regime change.
Collapse of state coercive capacity: When the state's ability to repress dissent weakens (e.g., military defections, economic hardship leading to inability to pay security forces), transitions can occur.
Foreign pressure to democratise: External actors (e.g., international organizations, powerful democratic states) can exert diplomatic, economic, or even military pressure to encourage democratic reforms.
Learning and experience with other regimes: Exposure to successful democratic models or disillusionment with the failures of authoritarianism can inspire movements for change.
Transition approaches and strategies: The specific choices made by political elites and opposition forces during a transition (e.g., pacts, referendums) can influence its outcome.
Empirical finding (Przeworski & Limongi, studying 135 countries from 1950–1990):
“The level of economic development does not affect the probability of transitions to democracy, but affluence does make democratic regimes more stable.” This groundbreaking finding suggests that while economic prosperity may not cause democracy to emerge, it significantly increases its resilience and longevity once established.
Interpretation: Democracy does not emerge solely because a country has developed economically; rather, it is more likely to endure and avoid reversion to authoritarianism in a developed country, perhaps owing to a broader base of societal support, stronger institutions, and greater capacity to absorb shocks.
Ongoing debate: Contemporary researchers continue to use broader data sources and advanced methodologies to further understand the complex, multi-faceted causes and types of democratisation and autocratisation. New classifications of regimes help illuminate key issues and processes, moving beyond simplistic binary categorizations.
Democratic backsliding? (Erosion and reclassification of regimes)
Even when elections may continue to be held, their integrity can be hollowed out; incumbents may consistently win through questionable means, signaling democratic backsliding rather than genuine democratic features. This phenomenon describes a subtle degradation of democratic quality.
New definitions (e.g., via V-Dem) have been developed to capture more nuanced changes in regime types and their functional characteristics:
Closed autocracy: A regime where citizens fundamentally do not have the right to choose either the chief executive (e.g., president, prime minister) or the legislature through genuine, competitive multi-party elections. Power is typically held by a single individual or a small, self-appointed group.
Electoral autocracy: Citizens can vote for the chief executive and legislature via multi-party elections, creating a facade of democracy. However, fundamental freedoms (e.g., association, expression, press freedom) are severely restricted, rendering the elections not fully free, fair, or meaningful due to an uneven playing field.
Electoral democracy: A regime where citizens have the right to participate in meaningful, free, and fair multi-party elections, indicating a basic level of democratic accountability through the ballot box.
Liberal democracy: This is the highest standard, encompassing an electoral democracy plus stronger protection for individual and minority rights, robust checks on executive power by an independent legislature and courts, and a strong rule of law. It represents a more comprehensive form of democracy.
Political regimes: 1789–2021 (classification framework)
Resource: Our World in Data provides comprehensive visualisations and analyses of political regimes globally, utilizing detailed data.
The fourfold classification from Lührmann et al. (2018), based on expert estimates via V-Dem, allows for a more granular understanding of regime types over a long historical period, from the French Revolution to the present day.
Tasks for students: Students are encouraged to explore the interactive charts on the OWID platform and read the accompanying explanatory notes for detailed mappings of regime changes and time-series data, enabling a deeper understanding of historical trends.
Key takeaway: Regime classifications are not static or simply binary (democratic/authoritarian). They are dynamic, multi-dimensional, and can shift along a spectrum, requiring nuanced categorization to capture their evolving nature.
Regime types (2024) and classification notes (V-Dem 2025)
The V-Dem 2025 Democracy Report (and the Lührmann et al. 2018 framework) provides updated categorizations to reflect ongoing global political changes:
Closed autocracy: Defined by the absence of multi-party elections for either the chief executive (e.g., president) or the legislature. Power is concentrated and not subject to electoral contestation.
Electoral autocracy: A system where elections for the chief executive and legislature exist, but essential accompanying rights and freedoms (e.g., media independence, freedom of assembly, judicial autonomy) are significantly restricted, preventing genuine pluralism and fair competition.
Electoral democracy: Characterized by the presence of free and fair multi-party elections that provide meaningful opportunities for citizens to choose their leaders and hold them accountable. This is the foundational element of modern democracy.
Liberal democracy: Represents a further enhancement of electoral democracy, incorporating robust individual and minority rights, strong constitutional checks and balances, an independent judiciary, and a powerful legislature capable of constraining the executive. This type emphasizes both procedural and substantive aspects of democracy.
Data sources and notes:
Data source: V-Dem (2025), which is continually updated to reflect the latest global political developments.
The chart referenced integrates Our World in Data’s democracy data, which synthesizes V-Dem's extensive indicators into accessible visualizations.
Explanatory notes are consistently included to help users understand the measurement methodologies and the nuances of classification.
Additional guidance: Further learning is encouraged on how researchers measure democracy, delving into the specific indicators used by V-Dem, and exploring the comprehensive Regimes of the World dataset for in-depth analysis.
Trends (V-Dem 2022) – key takeaways for later reading
Global democracy level in 2021 had declined to levels not seen since 1989 for the average global citizen, indicating a significant regression in democratic progress over three decades.
Dictatorships are on the rise and now harbor approximately 70% of the world's population (roughly 5.4 billion people), reflecting a worrying global shift towards authoritarian rule.
Liberal democracies reached their peak in 2012 with 42 countries; they are now down to the lowest levels in over 25 years – with only 34 nations currently classified as liberal democracies, representing about 13% of the world population. This highlights a shrinking space for the most robust forms of democracy.
Democratic decline is most evident in specific regions, notably:
Asia-Pacific, Eastern Europe and Central Asia, and parts of Latin America and the Caribbean, suggesting regional patterns of backsliding.
The number of closed autocracies rose significantly—from 25 to 30 countries—harboring 26% of the world population, further contributing to the changing and often more oppressive nature of autocratization.
Electoral autocracy remains the most common regime type globally and contains about 44% of the world population (approximately 3.4 billion people), indicating that superficially electoral systems are often used to mask authoritarian tendencies.
A record of 35 countries suffered significant deteriorations in freedom of expression due to government action, a dramatic increase from only 5 countries a decade ago. This suppression of free speech is a critical indicator of democratic erosion.
Source: Vanessa A. Boese et al. (2022), Autocratization Changing Nature? Democracy Report 2022, Varieties of Democracy Institute (V-Dem). This report provides detailed empirical evidence for these trends.
Connections and practical implications
Measurement and classification are central to understanding global trends; different datasets (V-Dem, OWID) offer complementary perspectives by weighing various aspects of democracy, from electoral procedures to civil liberties and judicial independence. This allows for a more nuanced and accurate assessment of political systems.
The debate between endogenous and exogenous theories highlights how economic conditions, political institutions, and international dynamics interact in complex ways to shape both democratic transitions and their durability. Understanding these interactions is crucial for predicting and influencing political change.
Policy relevance: Efforts to safeguard democracy may need to focus on protecting and strengthening civil liberties and the rule of law (beyond merely holding elections). This includes addressing elites’ incentives (e.g., through anti-corruption measures), strengthening civil society, and supporting independent institutions like the judiciary and media. Effective policies require tailored approaches based on a deep understanding of local contexts.
Ethical and philosophical implications: How we define and measure democracy profoundly affects judgments about regime legitimacy, influences policy responses from international bodies, and shapes the perceived legitimacy of regimes under domestic and international pressure. These definitions carry significant moral and political weight.
Practical considerations: Recognizing early warning signs of backsliding (e.g., restrictions on media, weakening of checks and balances, politicization of the judiciary) can inform timely interventions by civil society, international organizations, and democratic states to prevent further erosion of democratic norms and institutions.
0 \leq \text{LD Index} \leq 1