Typology of Political System Transformations: Analysis of Transition, Persistence, and Reversal Phenomena

1. Transformation Phenomena

 

1.1 Authoritarianism to Democracy

Various scholars have identified economic and social changes, civil society activation, and external pressures as key drivers of democratization.

(1) Theoretical Arguments:

Dahl (1972) explains through his concept of 'polyarchy' that democratization can occur when institutions guaranteeing citizen participation and opposition are gradually expanded.

Przeworski & Limongi (1997) and Boix & Stokes (2003) argue that economic development, changes in social structure, and international environment can facilitate the transition from authoritarian regimes to democracy.

(2) Specific Cases:

Spain represents a notable case of peaceful democratic transition in the late 1970s following Franco's dictatorship, characterized by the guarantee of civil rights and the establishment of a multi-party system.

Taiwan successfully democratized in the late 1980s despite beginning with an authoritarian regime in the mid-20th century and facing the unique geopolitical environment of cross-strait relations.

 

1.2 Democracy to Authoritarianism

Recent research has focused on democratic backsliding or the resurgence of authoritarian tendencies within autonomous regimes.

(1) Theoretical Arguments:

Levitsky & Way (2010) introduced the concept of 'competitive authoritarianism' to explain phenomena where democratic institutions are maintained superficially while authoritarian control is strengthened in practice.

Some studies suggest that economic crises, social divisions, and power redistribution among elites can trigger authoritarian regression within democratic systems.

(2) Specific Cases:

Turkey showed democratic progress in the early 2000s but is frequently cited as a case of democratic backsliding in recent years through the strengthening of the presidential system and expanded control over media and judiciary.

Once regarded as one of East Asia's steady democracies, South Korea has experienced a crisis of short-term democratic regression. The humiliating evaluation of "transitioning from democracy to dictatorship" was given to South Korea in the 2024 V-DEM report. In addition, after events such as the imposition of martial law on December 3, 2024, The Economist named South Korea a "flawed democracy" (Democracy Index 2024).

 

2. Persistence Phenomena

 

2.1 Authoritarianism to Authoritarianism

(1) Theoretical Arguments:

Acemoglu & Robinson (2006) view economic and social inequality and power concentration as major factors explaining the persistence of authoritarian regimes.

Levitsky & Way (2010) also argue that even if some electoral systems or ceremonial democratic devices are introduced, authoritarianism can persist for long periods if core power structures remain unchanged.

(2) Specific Cases:

China represents a prominent example of continued political authoritarianism despite the introduction of partial market economy following economic reforms.

2.2 Democracy to Democracy

(1) Theoretical Arguments:

Dahl (1972) and Lijphart (1999) explain that solid institutional foundations, the rule of law, and citizens' political participation ensure the persistence of democratic systems.

(2) Specific Cases:

The United States and most European countries can be considered examples of relatively stable democratic systems maintained over extended periods.

 

3. Reversal Phenomena

 

3.1 Authoritarianism to Democracy to Authoritarianism

(1) Theoretical Arguments:

Tilly (1978) suggests that even if regime transitions occur through revolution and social mobilization processes, initial democratization may revert due to external shocks or internal structural limitations.

Achen & Bartels (2017) also discuss how democracy's inherent vulnerabilities may lead to re-authoritarianization during economic and social instability.

(2) Specific Cases:

Some Latin American countries (e.g., Venezuela) experienced democratization processes in the latter half of the 20th century but subsequently reverted to authoritarian control.

 

4. Additional Types for Consideration

 

4-1. Hybrid Regimes (Competitive Authoritarian Regimes)

It refers to a system that, although having some democratic characteristics, is actually quite controlled and does not fully satisfy the requirements of consolidated democracy. 

(1) Theoretical Arguments:

According to Levitsky & Way (2010), some countries form 'hybrid regimes' that maintain democratic institutions outwardly while simultaneously employing authoritarian control mechanisms in practice.

(2) Specific Cases:

Singapore was not explicitly covered in the typology provided. Yet, its case is often discussed in comparative politics, as it features elements of both formal democratic processes and substantive authoritarian control. Singapore conducts regular elections and maintains many institutional features common to democracies. However, the People's Action Party (PAP) has dominated the political landscape since independence, and political competition is severely limited by legal and informal mechanisms. Most scholars characterize Singapore as a "hybrid regime" or as an example of "soft authoritarianism."

 

5. Conclusion

 

The changes in political systems are too complex to be explained merely by the dichotomous perspective of 'transition' or 'maintenance.' Political systems are dynamic entities that may exist at the boundaries of the spectrum depending on the criteria applied, and there may be temporary movements of incomplete system transformation. The theories discussed above explain that various factors—economic development, changes in social structure, political mobilization, international environment—interact to manifest through different pathways (authoritarianism → democracy, democracy → authoritarianism, persistence, and reversal). These theoretical claims are empirically supported through specific national cases—for example, Spain's peaceful democratization, China's persistent authoritarianism, Venezuela's democratic regression, and South Korea's sudden shift toward authoritarianism. However, models analyzing such political system transitions must examine political systems from multiple angles, recognizing that democracy and authoritarianism are not static constructs but rather living, evolving organisms—democracies of a century ago differ fundamentally from those of today, Western democracies diverge from Third Wave democratic states, and Cold War authoritarian regimes bear limited resemblance to their contemporary counterparts. These typological distinctions and analytical frameworks ultimately help us comprehend the dynamic nature of political transformations in a manner that transcends the simplistic democracy-authoritarianism spectrum, offering a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of regime change.

 

 

<References>

Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2006). Economic origins of dictatorship and democracy. Cambridge University Press.

Achen, C. H., & Bartels, L. M. (2017). Democracy for realists: Why elections do not produce responsive government. Princeton University Press.

Boix, C., & Stokes, S. C. (2003). Endogenous democratization. World Politics, 55(4), 517–549.

Cheng, T.-J. (1989). Democratizing the quasi-Leninist regime in Taiwan. World Politics, 41(4), 471–499.

Dahl, R. A. (1972). Polyarchy: Participation and opposition. Yale University Press.

Lijphart, A. (1999). Patterns of democracy: Government forms and performance in thirty-six countries. Yale University Press.

Levitsky, S., & Way, L. A. (2010). Competitive authoritarianism: Hybrid regimes after the Cold War. Cambridge University Press.

Przeworski, A., & Limongi, F. (1997). Modernization: Theories and facts. World Politics, 49(2), 155–183.

Tilly, C. (1978). From mobilization to revolution. Addison-Wesley.