Pathways to Democracy

Mass uprisings in authoritarian regimes raise hopes of a democratic transition, but often end in another autocracy. Why is that? And can pro-democracy forces affect the outcome? WZB researcher Sebastian Hellmeier and Jean Lachapelle of the Université de Montréal have developed a method to select comparative cases to examine these questions, which they applied to the ongoing transition in Sudan. Their study shows that preexisting structural factors do not predetermine the success or failure of democratization, suggesting space for political actors to shape the outcome.

The researchers identify 28 structural factors that existing scholarship has linked to transition outcomes, such as economic development or regime characteristics. Their study then uses machine-learning algorithms to match and compare cases of authoritarian breakdown caused by mass uprisings since 1945 with similar structural preconditions.

What they find is that the outcomes in these cases nevertheless differ. Preexisting structural factors do not appear to determine whether a country successfully transitions to democracy or not. Jean Lachapelle and Sebastian Hellmeier therefore suggest a significant role for political actors in shaping transition outcomes.

Applying this method to the ongoing transition in Sudan after the 2019 ouster of Omar al-Bashir, the study shows the Philippines in 1986 and Burma/Myanmar in 1988 as comparative cases with similar preconditions. The Philippines became a democracy, whereas Burma/Myanmar did not. Neither the success nor the failure of democracy in Sudan is thus predetermined and the agency of political actors may prove decisive. 

After an authoritarian regime falls, pro-democracy forces face numerous policy decisions concerning the transition. Jean Lachapelle’s and Sebastian Hellmeier’s research provides empirical data that may help to guide these decisions and suggests how significant this exercise of agency may be.

31/1/2023 MSt