Transition

The term transition is one of several used in research on the transformation of political regimes. Other competing terms include transformation, regime change, system change, and democratization. These terms not only are closely related to each other but also overlap in meaning; however, they are not identical in their meaning. Moreover, they all have specific connotations and are often linked to particular theoretical concepts or even reflect ideological biases.

The term transition was first used in political science by Dankwart Rustow in his 1970 article “Transitions to Democracy.” However, it was not until 1986 that the term was transformed into a more coherent theoretical concept by the seminal 1986 work of Guillermo O'Donnell, Philippe C. Schmitter, and Laurence Whitehead. They defined transition as “the interval between one political regime and another” (p. 6). Transitions are limited in time: on the one hand by the dissolution of an authoritarian regime and, on the other, “by the installation of some form of democracy, the return to some form of authoritarian rule, or the emergence of a revolutionary alternative” (p. 6). The two authors deliberately introduced contingency as an important variable with respect to the regime outcome. They do not deterministically speak about “transition to democracy,” but “transition from authoritarian rule” to an “uncertain something else” (italics added; p. 3). However, the study triggered and inspired an avalanche of empirical research in democratization, first on Southern Europe and Latin America and later on in the 1990s on Asia, Africa, and Eastern Europe.

Transitologists conceive the (not necessarily) successful transition from authoritarian to democratic rule typically in three subsequent phases: first liberalization, then democratization, and finally consolidation. Liberalization marks the beginning of transition. It is the process of granting some of those “liberal” rights to the citizen that are traditionally associated with habeas corpus, (partial) freedom of movement, free speech, freedom of association, the sanctity of the home, and so forth. Authoritarian rulers grant these rights typically in situations when the regime suffers from a crisis of legitimacy and the so-called softliners among the ruling elites prevail over the hardliners by arguing that a limited liberalization and controlled broadening of the ruling base can ultimately save the political power of the authoritarian regime. However, Adam Przeworski has shown that this often turns out to be a misperception. The changing power relations and the dynamics of regime change are barely controllable and often trigger a chain of events and decisions that finally lead to democratization by default. Gorbachev's glasnost and perestroika, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the beginning of democratization constitute only one of many examples.

Democratization by default occurs when the newly conditioned and nonguaranteed civil and political rights open a new space for an emerging civil society. The more civil society grows beyond the control and repression of the authoritarian regime, the more the risk of punishment decreases for protest movements and prodemocratic demonstrations. The increasing number of protesters lowers the costs for individual and collective actions against the authoritarian regime. The granting of some liberal rights by authoritarian rulers is often motivated by their calculation of avoiding protests and broadening the base of legitimacy of the old regime. However, the contrary has often been the case: Liberalization has triggered more protests, leading to the emergence of a stronger civil society, which then led to the beginning of democratization.

...