Autumn of Authoritarian Leaders in Post-Communist Countries with ‘Learning’ Tactics / Electoral Victory is the First Step, Difficulties Only Just Begin
Thought Group: Samira Dardashti has published a report on the ‘Thought’ page of Iran Newspaper, briefly focusing on ‘The Autumn of Autocrats’ and the secret of electoral democratization. Dardashti’s report introduces the book ‘Defeating Authoritarian Leaders in Postcommunist Countries’ by Valerie Bunce and Sharon Wolchik, which provides an analytical examination of a specific phenomenon in Eastern Europe and Eurasia between 1998 and 2005: Why did seemingly controlled elections in some post-communist ‘hybrid regimes’ suddenly become a tool for removing authoritarian leaders and initiating democratization, while such an event did not occur in other similar countries?
But what is the main point of ‘The Autumn of Autocrats’ book? It focuses on processes and institutions. In this approach, the authors, through 8 case studies (4 successful and 4 unsuccessful in change), move away from grand theories and emphasize the interconnectedness of mid-level factors. From their perspective, election outcomes are the product of the simultaneous occurrence of factors such as the cohesion of rival forces, the growth of civil society, economic conditions, and elite divisions. Furthermore, according to these two authors, changes in countries like Slovakia and Serbia spread not through external pressure, but through inspiration, learning, and the transfer of experiences including tactics, civil organization, and voluntary oversight to neighboring countries like Georgia and Ukraine, creating a ‘wave’ of electoral changes.
These two authors point to the difficulties of post-election periods as a crucial axis. The book warns that electoral victory is the beginning of a more difficult stage. New governments face serious challenges due to coalition instability, high expectations, and the legacy of previous administration and corruption. Victory in elections does not mean the consolidation of democracy; rather, it requires institution-building and civic education. This topic can lead to understanding another very important point, which is nothing but the nature of hybrid regimes. In these systems, contrary to their democratic appearance, the tendency towards authoritarianism is strong; they turn elections into an arena for testing, and the results are completely variable in different contexts. This book report is presented below for your consideration:
Change in the political arena has not always depended on violent conflicts, wars, and revolutions. Instead, in the experience of various countries around the world, there have been moments when calm and formal processes, such as holding elections, have led to significant changes. In many countries, elections are not merely the arena for usual political competitions as portrayed in the media. Amidst seemingly ordinary events, we witness the emergence of divisions, capacities, aspirations, and limitations within the power structure, which provide opportunities for various groups to act. The book ‘Defeating Authoritarian Leaders in Postcommunist Countries’ speaks about such situations. The book addresses countries that, at the turn of the 21st century, moved in a space between past authoritarianism and nascent political institutions, leaving behind different experiences.
This book was authored by two prominent comparative politics researchers, Valerie Bunce and Sharon Wolchik, and has been made available to Persian-speaking readers through Negah-e-Moaser Publications, with translation by Mehdi Moghadari and editing by Behrad Beheshti. The aim of ‘The Autumn of Autocrats’ is to analyze a significant wave of democratizing elections in post-communist Eastern Europe and Eurasia. The authors endeavor to answer the question of why, in a set of post-communist countries, elections, which were seemingly intended as a mechanism for controlled competition, suddenly became the starting point for widespread political changes, yet such a transformation did not occur in other similar countries?
The book is built upon eight case studies: four cases where elections led to change and movement towards greater democracy, and four cases where such an outcome did not occur. This categorization allows them to evaluate similarities and differences across two distinct paths and understand which variables played a more prominent role. The authors’ method combines historical-institutional analysis, field interviews with political and civil activists, detailed examination of electoral processes, and comparative analysis among countries. Valerie Bunce and Sharon Wolchik examine the developments in these countries between 1998 and 2005.
During this period, a series of unexpected electoral developments occurred in post-communist Eastern European and Eurasian countries, leading to the removal of several authoritarian leaders. This trend began in Slovakia, and overall, during this time, we witnessed the most consecutive electoral turnovers in the post-communist region. These events resulted from a combination of public discontent, electoral irregularities, and the emergence of new political forces. In this book, the authors have strived not to discuss the legitimacy of political systems nor to offer recommendations for structural changes, but rather to simply answer the research question: why have elections led to government change in some post-communist countries, while in others they have resulted in the consolidation of the status quo? The book’s strength lies precisely in its analytical and mid-level approach; an approach that, instead of relying on grand theories or moral interpretations, relies on data, interviews, and field studies, and seeks to understand political processes within the specific time and place of those countries.
Different Electoral Outcomes for Hybrid Regimes
Bunce and Wolchik demonstrate in ‘The Autumn of Autocrats’ that even in countries with shared characteristics, elections do not necessarily have similar outcomes. All the countries they studied had roughly similar structures, similar electoral mechanisms, and even a somewhat common experience of transitioning from communism, yet their election results did not follow a uniform path. At first glance, it might be imagined that elections in these countries were merely a technical process and part of the administrative and institutional procedures of new governments, but field data and narratives from actors show that elections in post-communist countries were far beyond a simple administrative process and, in many cases, carried symbolic, psychological, social, and even identity-related weight.
The authors explain that classic theories of democratic transition either focus on economic and social structures or on elite bargaining, but none of these theories alone can explain why, for example, change occurred in Serbia but not in Azerbaijan? Why did Ukraine enter a cycle of transformation, but Belarus did not? Bunce and Wolchik explain in their book that in post-communist societies, elections became a kind of testing ground for the new order; an order that was still in the consolidation phase, with many of its components, from political parties to media and civil society, still forming. This transitional situation turned elections into an occasion that was important both for political actors and for citizens who, after decades of one-party rule, were experiencing formal participation in their political destiny.
Despite all this, the main question remains: why did elections lead to government change in some of these countries, and not in others? Bunce and Wolchik’s answer is by no means simple and linear. They show that the outcome of any election is the result of an intricate combination of factors. The degree of cohesion among rival forces, the stage of civil society development, the performance of executive institutions, economic and social conditions, and even internal elite divisions all influenced the election results to varying degrees. However, the book does not present these factors as a mechanical list, but rather analyzes them within the historical and social narrative of each country.
Especially in countries where government change occurred through elections, elections were, in the precise sense of the word, an opportunity resulting from the simultaneous convergence of several social, political, and institutional trends. It appears the authors, by referring to a wide range of countries, also believe in the unique aspects of each and the contexts arising from developments, but at the same time, this research significantly contributes to the scientific literature on ‘election-based transitions’ by presenting numerous experiences and their spread.
One of the central concepts in the authors’ analysis is the notion of ‘hybrid regimes,’ which encompasses almost all post-communist countries studied. These are systems that ostensibly possess democratic institutions but are not fully democratic in practice, and even exhibit a strong tendency towards authoritarianism. The authors explain that electoral changes in some post-communist countries were also due to the learning and dissemination of democracy from neighboring countries.
In other words, the successful experience of one country could inspire another and help create a ‘wave’ of electoral changes. For instance, when political change occurred through elections in a country like Serbia, civil groups, student activists, and parties in other countries, including Georgia, Ukraine, and Kyrgyzstan, quickly learned from the Serbs’ tactics and experiences. They adopted activities such as organizing electoral campaigns, voluntary election monitoring, civil mobilization, and using simple, widespread symbols, colors, and messages, thereby creating a regional pattern of change. The authors demonstrate that the spread of democracy occurred not through external pressure but mainly through inspiration, learning, and the transfer of experiences among neighboring countries.
Post-Election Difficulties
In the second part of the book, Bunce and Wolchik move from describing the election process to analyzing its consequences. These consequences led to change in some countries and to the consolidation of previous trends in others. However, they emphasize that more important than change or lack thereof is how society and political institutions deal with election results.
In countries where change occurred, the general expectation was usually that political and economic structures would rapidly transform. However, experience showed that government change is only the first step, and these countries subsequently faced complex challenges. Disagreements among victorious electoral forces, difficulties in coordinating political programs, a lack of managerial experience in new structures, and expectations that often exceeded actual capacities, all challenged the path of governments arising from elections.
The book precisely shows that in these countries, electoral victory marked the beginning of a new and more difficult phase. On the other hand, in countries where elections did not lead to change, politics generally moved towards consolidating and repairing the existing structure. In these countries, political institutions, through the experience of interacting with rivals and managing electoral processes, were able to define new frameworks for their operation. This process also formed a significant part of the historical experience of these societies and determined the path of political structure evolution.
Another important point in this section is the issue of ‘political learning.’ Bunce and Wolchik show that both political forces and executive institutions in various countries have learned from previous experiences. This learning has led to the formation of more cohesive institutions in some countries and has contributed to the gradual adaptation of political structures to the new needs of society in others. This idea that politics is a ‘learning process’ is considered one of the book’s most significant analytical achievements.
‘The Autumn of Autocrats’ also addresses the point that the international environment has had some effects in some of these countries, but the authors emphasize that these effects were mostly technical, educational, and supervisory, and did not play a decisive, strategic, or interventionist role in the process of changes. In fact, all studied examples ultimately show that change or continuity was the product of the internal conditions and dynamics of those very countries.
In conclusion, Bunce and Wolchik raise the point that the experience of post-communist countries is part of the history of comparative politics, demonstrating that political structures are formed through different paths influenced by political culture, institutions, civil society, and the times. In the final section of the book, the authors pose an important question: what happens after change through elections? Does electoral victory mean the consolidation of democracy? Their answer is negative.
Experience has shown that many governments arising from elections quickly face new challenges such as internal disputes, economic crises, and declining public trust. Accordingly, it is emphasized that the post-election process is far more difficult than the election itself. Since the new government faces instability of electoral coalitions, difficulty in translating electoral promises into executive policies, the legacy of the previous administrative and security apparatus, and high expectations coupled with objective limitations, advancing goals is usually not as simple as advertised before the change.
In Serbia and Georgia, after the fall of the previous government, new institutions faced a heavy legacy of corruption and dependence. In Ukraine, internal rivalries within the opposition led to a rapid decline in public hope. Bunce and Wolchik emphasize that victory marks the beginning of a more difficult stage. The new government must build institutions that transform democracy into a stable political culture. The authors warn that transition to democracy, if not accompanied by institution-building and civic education, may lead to disillusionment.
Possibility or Refusal of Pattern-Making
The book ‘Defeating Authoritarian Leaders in Postcommunist Countries’ is an analytical work on electoral processes in post-communist countries that strives to maintain scientific impartiality and distance itself from political objectives. While critiquing the authoritarianism present in leftist governments, the book also criticizes liberal optimism regarding democratization. Furthermore, unlike several studies that endorse the role of Western foreign governments in bringing about change towards democracy, it does not prescribe such a model and fundamentally does not consider intervention effective.
The book’s attention to the differences among countries, despite its comparative perspective, is noteworthy. The authors remind us how even seemingly similar mechanisms produce entirely different results in diverse contexts. However, overall, it seems the authors endeavor to present at least a regional pattern regarding democratic processes, but the question is whether this recommendation necessarily performs as well as the authors claim.
