The benefits of difficult transitions

Abstract

This article considers the experiences of 24 countries that began a transition toward democracy between 1973 and 1993. To understand why some of these transitions succeeded while others failed, it compares the explanatory power of three factors: the path a country followed through the transition process, the type of authoritarian regime that was in place, and the protracted nature of the transition. It shows that in countries where actors hold diverging preferences, one-party regimes refuse to exit, or transitions are protracted, the result can as easily be a continuation of authoritarianism as of democracy. However, if they successfully install democracy, then these cases are the most likely to continue towards consolidation. Thus, difficult transitions, while risky, offer the highest payoff for democratization.

Justice in Times of Transition: Lessons from the Iberian Experience1

“…Yet despite the vigorous reformist zeal of the revolutionary leaders (or perhaps because of it), the prospects for the rise of a viable democracy in Portugal remained compromised for years to come. Under the rule of the MFA and its commitment to the three d's, ''democracy, development, and decolonization'' (Bruneau 1974:277), Portugal endured a period of severe political uncertainty, which saw the creation of no fewer than six interim governments of varying degrees of radicalism, but all of them heavily staffed by military leaders and greatly influenced by the Communist party, which accounts for Portugal's reputation as a case of ''difficult transition'' (Casper 2000). In the midst of political upheaval and increasing popular mobilization, a successful counter-coup took place on November 25, 1975, encouraged by the United States and the major European powers, which were worried by the consolidation of a radical left-wing regime in a NATO country at the height of the Cold War (Texeira 1998).…”

The Legacy of the Authoritarian Past in Portugal's Democratisation, 1974–6

“…However, some of its characteristics, particularly the role of the military, the crisis of the state and the dynamics of the social movements, constitute elements that are difficult to integrate into the comparative analysis of democratisation. 16 As Linz and Stepan have noted: 'we all too often tend to see [Portugal] in the framework set by later transitions processes', 17 forgetting the greater degree of uncertainty and the 'extreme conflict path' 18 of a regime change that, according to some authors, 'was not a conscious transition to democracy'. 19 In fact, one of the limitations of some analyses of Portugal's transition is their assumption of finality, based on the subsequent consolidation.…”