Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Competitive authoritarianism, informational authoritarianism, and the development of dictatorship: a case study of Belarus

  • Published:
Public Choice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article explores the dynamics of modern authoritarian regimes, using Belarus under Alexander Lukashenko as a case study. By examining Belarus’s transition from a “competitive authoritarian” regime to a “hegemonic authoritarian” one from 1994 to 1996 and its further shift from a spin dictatorship to a fear dictatorship in 2020, the study offers insights into the multifaceted nature of dictatorships. The main findings are that using elections as a means to classify regimes does not fully explain their effect on authoritarian vulnerability and that different classifications of dictatorship, such as spin versus fear, are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Source: Diamond (2002)

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Huskey (2016, p. 74) underscores the similarities between Putin and Lukashenko but dismisses Belarus as an “imperial periphery”.

  2. Wilson (2011) also reports that Lukashenko had an approval rating of 73% among those over 60 years of age but less than 30% for late teens, reflecting the demographic split in support.

  3. The Political Rights score comprises 10 separate indicators, which receive between 0 and 4 points each. The total score is then transposed into a rating between 1 and 7, with 7 referring to the lowest level of freedom. For the raw data, see https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world.

  4. “Not free” is a composite designation that derives from an equally weighted combination of the Political Rights score and an additional Civil Liberties score. For a full explanation of the Freedom House methodology, see https://freedomhouse.org/reports/freedom-world/freedom-world-research-methodology.

  5. While we do not show evidence of intent on the part of Lukashenko, we do not need to claim that this strategy was a deliberate one. We also do not claim that Lukashenko was the first example of a democratically elected leader to build an authoritarian regime or of a dictator who utilised instruments of democracy.

  6. This study treats dictatorship and autocracy as the same thing. Both are also considered authoritarian regimes.

  7. For examples of this approach, see Hadenius and Teorell (2007), Cheibub et al. (2010), Svolik (2012), Huskey (2016), and Mahdavi (2023).

  8. According to Levitsky and Way (2010), since all democracies have some form of incumbent advantage, “pure” democracies do not exist in the real world.

  9. The sixth category of mixed regimes is a residual and therefore represented below the continuum in the diagram shown.

  10. We will treat the distinction between “overt dictatorships” and “informational autocracies” (Guriev & Treisman, 2019) as the same as “fear” and “spin” dictatorships (Guriev & Treisman, 2022).

  11. Holzer and Hlaváček (2009) grapple with the categorization of Lukashenko’s regime but they do not place their work within the context of hybrid regimes. Silitski (2005) calls the regime “pre-emptive” authoritarianism, while Hall (2023) prefers “adaptive authoritarianism”.

  12. Levitsky and Way (2010) view Belarus as fully authoritarian since at least 2010.

  13. Howard and Roessler (2006) exclude “founding elections” in their study, which means that they neglect Belarus’s period of competitive authoritarianism.

  14. In the figures Ioffe (2008) cites, Lukashenko won 84% of the official vote and 65% of the actual vote.

  15. There were multiple independent exit poll claims. These figures come from Charter 97. See https://charter97.org/en/news/2020/8/9/388815/.

  16. He does find that if a regime falls then the degree of contestation affects the likelihood of an electoral democracy to emerge (Brownlee, 2009).

  17. To show the lack of clarity provided by these terms, Howard and Roessler (2006) draw a distinction between two types of hybrid regime: electoral authoritarianism and hegemonic autocracy. The use of the term “hegemonic” to denote the more extreme form of authoritarian regime is inconsistent with the other studies mentioned in this article. Similarly, Mahdavi (2023) implies that electoral authoritarianism and competitive authoritarianism are the same, but they are not.

  18. According to Guriev and Treisman’s (2017) data set, Belarus had four state killings and 2,000 political prisoners as of 2015. The authors do not provide a source for this data but indicate they are using the “peak year”. This might be 2006, and if so Belarus does not exceed 1,000 political prisoners in other years before 2020. Thus, we have used the Viasna data reported previously.

  19. Remarks made by Ewa Synowiec at EBRD-Emerging Europe: Outlook on Belarus, October 2016.

  20. This probably reflects the conditions of his emergence. While Mikhail Gorbachev (the original spin dictator) sought to introduce democratic features to an authoritarian system, Lukashenko began with popular support.

  21. Indeed, the 2020 election was the first time that it seems likely that Lukashenko would have lost a fair count of the votes.

  22. Mudrov (2021) argues that the protests revealed a schism between different parts of Belarusian society and cautions against underestimating the popularity of regime stability. For an analysis of what prompted mobilisation during the nationwide protests, see Onuch and Sasse (2022) and Mateo (2022).

  23. With that said, there is little doubt that members of the public are at greater risk of arbitrary imprisonment under this new, fear-based regime.

References

  • Aslund, A. (2019). Russia’s crony capitalism: The path from market economy to kleptocracy. Yale University Press.

  • Bazan, L. (2014). A history of Belarus. Glagoslav Publications.

  • Bedford, S. (2017). The election game: Authoritarian consolidation processes in Belarus. Democratizatsiya the Journal of Post-Soviet Democratization, 25(4), 381–405.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bedford, S. (2021). Osäkerhetens politik i praktiken: Presidentvalet 2020 som förändrade Belarus [The politics of uncertainty in practice: The 2020 Presidential Election that changed Belarus]. Nordisk Østforum, 55, 36–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernholz, P. (2001). Ideocracy and totalitarianism: A formal analysis incorporating ideology. Public Choice, 108(1), 33–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bieber, F. (2018). Patterns of competitive authoritarianism in the western Balkans. East European Politics, 34(3), 337–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bishara, A. (2019). Remarks on external factors in democratic transition. AlMuntaqa, 2(2), 40–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bogaards, M., & Elischer, S. (2016). Competitive authoritarianism in Africa revisited. In M. Bogaards & S. Elischer (Eds.), Democratization and competitive authoritarianism in Africa (pp. 5–18). Springer VS Wiesbaden.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Brownlee, J. (2007). Authoritarianism in the age of democratization. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brownlee, J. (2009). Portents of pluralism: How hybrid regimes affect democratic transitions. American Journal of Political Science, 53(3), 515–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carothers, C. (2002). The end of the transition paradigm. Journal of Democracy, 13(1), 5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carothers, C. (2018). The surprising instability of competitive authoritarianism. Journal of Democracy, 29(4), 129–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castaldo, A. (2018). Populism and competitive authoritarianism in Turkey. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 18(4), 467–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheibub, J. A., Gandhi, J., & Vreeland, J. R. (2010). Democracy and dictatorship revisited. Public Choice, 142(1/2), 67–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, L. J. (2002). Thinking about hybrid regimes. Journal of Democracy, 13(2), 21–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doherty, J., (2005, April 20) Rice: Russia’s future linked to democracy. CNN. https://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/04/20/rice.dougherty/index.html.

  • Schedler, A. (Ed.) (2006). Electoral authoritarianism: The dynamics of unfree competition. Lynne Rienner Publishers.

  • Esen, B., & Gumuscu, S. (2016). Rising competitive authoritarianism in Turkey. Third World Quarterly, 37(9), 1581–1606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fearon, J. D., & Laitin, D. D. (2003). Ethnicity, insurgency, and civil war. American Political Science Review, 97(1), 75–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fukuyama, F. (1992). The end of history and the last man. Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gershweski, J. (2013). The three pillars of stability: Legitimation, repression and co-optation in autocratic regimes. Democratization, 20(1), 13–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giersdorf, S., & Croissant, A. (2011). Civil society and competitive authoritarianism in Malaysia. Journal of Civil Society, 7(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunay, C. (2023). Turkey: The beginning of the next phase of autocratization or the revival of democracy? Trend Report 9, Austrian Institute for International Affairs. https://www.oiip.ac.at/en/publikation/turkey-the-beginning-of-the-next-phase-of-autocratization-or-the-revival-of-democracy/.

  • Guriev, S., & Treisman, D. (2015). How modern dictators survive: An informational theory of the new authoritarianism. NBER Working Paper, 22136. https://www.nber.org/papers/w21136.

  • Guriev, S., & Treisman, D. (2017). Authoritarian control techniques dataset (V.1.) [UCLA data set]. https://www.danieltreisman.org/s/Replication.zip.

  • Guriev, S., & Treisman, D. (2019). Informational autocrats. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 33(4), 100–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guriev, S., & Treisman, D. (2022). Spin dictators. Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hadenius, A., & Teorell, J. (2007). Pathways from authoritarianism. Journal of Democracy, 18, 143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, S. (2023). The end of adaptive authoritarianism in Belarus? Europe-Asia Studies, 75(1), 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holzer, J., & Hlaváček, P. (2009). Lukashenka’s Belarus: A dilemma of regime type in the light of Linz’s theory. Politeja, 12, 157–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, M. M., & Roessler, P. G. (2006). Liberalising electoral outcomes in competitive authoritarian regimes. American Journal of Political Science, 50(2), 365–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huntington, S. P. (1993). The third wave: Democratization in the late twentieth century. University of Oklahoma Press.

  • Huskey, E. (2016). Authoritarian leadership in the post-communist world. Daedalus, 145(3), 69–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyde, S. D., Lamb, E., & Samet, O. (2023). Promoting democracy under electoral authoritarianism: Evidence from Cambodia. Comparative Political Studies, 56(7), 1029–1071.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ioffe, G. (2008). Understanding Belarus and how western policy misses the mark. Roman & Littlefield.

  • Ioffe, G. (2007). Unfinished nation building in Belarus and the 2006 presidential election. Eurasian Geography and Economics, 48(1), 37–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korosteleva, E. A. (2003). Party system development in post-communist Belarus. In E. A. Korosteleva, C. W. Lawson, & R. J. Marsh (Eds.), Contemporary Belarus: Between democracy and dictatorship (pp. 68–84). Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lacatus, C. (2023). Populism, competitive authoritarianism, and foreign policy: The case of Uganda’s 2021 election. Global Studies Quarterly, 3, 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitsky, S., & Loxton, J. (2014). Populism and competitive authoritarianism in the Andes. In A. Croissant, S. Kailitz, P. Koellner, & S. Wurster (Eds.), Comparing autocracies in the early twenty-first century (pp. 185–214). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levitsky, S., & Way, L. A. (2002). The rise of competitive authoritarianism. Journal of Democracy, 13(2), 51–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitsky, S., & Way, L. A. (2010). Competitive authoritarianism. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mahdavi, A. (2023). Iran’s 2021 election as a turning point from electoral authoritarianism to hegemonic autocracy. The Muslim World, 113(1–2), 79–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marples, D. R. (1999). Belarus: A denationalized nation. Harwood Academic Publishers.

  • Marples, D. R. (2006). Colour revolutions: The Belarusian case. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 39, 351–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marples, D. R. (2021). Changing Belarus. Canadian Slavonic Papers, 63(3/4), 278–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marples, D. R. (2022). Stalin’s ghosts, parasites, and pandemic: The roots of the 2020 uprising in Belarus. Journal of Belarusian Studies, 11(1), 5–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mateo, E. (2022). ‘All of Belarus has come out onto the streets’: Exploring nationwide protest and the role of pre-existing social networks. Post-Soviet Affairs, 38(1/2), 26–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morse, Y. L. (2012). The era of electoral authoritarianism. World Politics, 64(1), 161–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mudrov, S. A. (2021). Doomed to fail? Why success was almost not an option in the 2020 protests in Belarus. Journal of Contemporary Central and Eastern Europe, 29(1), 109–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Onuch, O., & Sasse, G. (2022). The Belarus crisis: People, protest, and political dispositions. Post-Soviet Affairs, 38(1/2), 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ottaway, M. (2013). Democracy challenged: The rise of semi-authoritarianism. Carnegie Endowment.

  • Petrov, N., Lipman, M., & Hale, H. E. (2010). Overmanaged democracy in Russia: Governance implications of hybrid regimes. Carnegie Papers, No. 106.

  • Przetacznik, J., & Tothova, L. (2022). Media environment in Belarus. European Parliament Briefing https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2022/698922/EPRS_BRI(2022)698922_EN.pdf.

  • Roeder, P. G. (1994). Varieties of post-Soviet authoritarian regimes. Post-Soviet Affairs, 10, 61–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schedler, A. (2013). The Politics of uncertainty: Sustaining and subverting electoral authoritarianism. Oxford University Press.

  • Schedler, A. (2002). The menu of manipulation. Journal of Democracy, 13(2), 36–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silitski, V. (2005). Preempting democracy: The case of Belarus. Journal of Democracy, 16(4), 83–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stokke, K., & Aung, S. M. (2020). Transition to democracy or hybrid regime? The dynamics and outcomes of democratization in Myanmar. European Journal of Development Research, 32, 274–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Svolik, M. W. (2009). Power sharing and leadership dynamics in authoritarian regimes. American Journal of Political Science, 53(2), 477–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Svolik, M. W. (2012). The politics of authoritarian rule. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Terzyan, A. (2020). Belarus in the wake of a revolution: Domestic and international factors. East European Affairs, 3, 2–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trantidis, A. (2021a). Building an authoritarian regime: Strategies for autocratization and resistance in Belarus and Slovakia. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 24(1), 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trantidis, A. (2021b). The political economy of autocratization. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 54(4), 117–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turan, I. (2019). The rise of populist electoral authoritarian in Turkey: A case of culturally rooted recidivism. In J. J. Wiatr (Ed.), New authoritarianism: Challenges to democracy in the 21st century (pp. 57–776). Verlag Barbara Budrich.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Way, L. A. (2004). The sources and dynamics of competitive authoritarianism in Ukraine. In D. S. Hutcheson & E. A. Korosteleva (Eds.), The quality of democracy in post-communist Europe (pp. 143–161). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkin, P. (2018). The rise of ‘illiberal’ democracy: The orbánization of Hungarian political culture. Journal of World Systems Research, 24(1), 5–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, A. (2011). Belarus: The last European dictatorship. Yale University Press.

  • Zakaria, F., (2003). The future of freedom. W. W. Norton & Company.

  • Zakaria, F. (1997). The rise of illiberal democracy. Foreign Affairs, 76(6), 22–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper has been presented at the Midwest Political Science Association conference, Chicago (April 2022). I appreciate helpful comments and suggestions from an associate editor and anonymous reviewer of this journal, and also from Peter Boettke, Daniela Lup, Peter Rutland, Nick Schandler, and Nikolai Wenzel. The usual disclaimer applies.

Funding

No funding was received for conducting this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ESCP Business School, London, UK

    Anthony J. Evans

Authors
  1. Anthony J. Evans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anthony J. Evans.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Evans, A.J. Competitive authoritarianism, informational authoritarianism, and the development of dictatorship: a case study of Belarus. Public Choice 198, 343–360 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-023-01132-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-023-01132-2

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation