Is Democracy Good for the Environment? Quasi-Experimental Evidence from Regime Transitions

This paper tests the hypothesis that democratisation is conducive to less environmental depletion due to human activity. Using Interrupted Time Series (ITS) design for a panel of 47 transition countries and two indexes of pollution, CO2 emissions and PM10 concentrations, I find that democracies and dictatorships have two different targets of environmental quality, with those of democracies higher than those of dictatorships. Income inequality may as well alter this targets, but with opposite effects in the two different regimesDemocracy; Environment; Cointegration; Interrupted Time Series; Segmented Regression

The international dimension of autocratisation and its prevention : Linking an actor-centred approach with a concept of external autocracy prevention

Democratic achievements resulting from political transformation processes of the 20th century are globally threatened by a manifesting third wave of autocratisation. Driven by trends of increasing political polarisation, populist leadership styles, and the gradual curtailment of core democratic institutions, this wave poses a challenge to democracy worldwide. While many of the challenges to democracy must first and foremost be addressed by the societies concerned, the policy field of international democracy promotion is also confronted with the challenge of readjusting established strategies and measures to promote democracy in the sense of a stronger focus on the protection of democratic institutions and actors. So far, only a few scientific studies have been conducted on the comparatively new practice of international democracy protection and the effectiveness of specific measures to prevent autocratisation. However, building on insights from autocratisation research, which increasingly contributes analyses of key domestic democracy protecting actors, processes, and institutions, the comparatively young field of research on international democracy protection is also gaining momentum. However, it is characterised by a low level of conceptualisation and theorisation, as well as an inconsistent use of central concepts and operationalisations. Accordingly, the empirical knowledge about the potential preventive or protective influence of international factors on autocratisation processes is comparatively limited. Taking up these research gaps and located at the interface between the two political science subdisciplines of Comparative Politics and International Relations, I examine as my overarching research question: how do external factors contribute to the prevention of autocratisation. To answer my question, I first develop the external autocracy prevention as a guiding concept and a decision theory that focuses on the decision-making process of incumbents and takes into account external factors in the assessment of costs and benefits. Based on the theoretical considerations, I derive specific hypotheses about the influence of external democracy protection measures and international context conditions on autocratisation processes, i.e. on the decisions of incumbents to initiate them. For the analysis, I develop and apply a mixed-methods design that combines a quantitative cross-national macro-analysis with two qualitative case studies on autocratisation processes in Senegal and Indonesia. The key findings of my work are that both cooperative external democracy protection measures such as democracy aid and more coercive ones such as democratic arms sanctions can contribute to preventing autocratisation. At the same time, my results suggest that the use and effectiveness especially of coercive measures are subject to high thresholds. These thresholds are highly context-dependent and depend, on the one hand, on the domestic political context and, on the other hand, on the international pro-democratic environment. Thus, international measures to protect democracy can only be effective if they can build on an established and mobilised domestic pro-democratic opposition and social movements. Furthermore, my results suggest that the depth and strength of pro-democratic international linkage and leverage are important for the use and effectiveness of protective measures – as well as a coordinated approach by international actors when applying measures based on coercion. The findings of my work contribute empirically, theoretically, and conceptually to different strands of literature, most notably to the field of research on international democracy protection. Lastly, my findings are also highly relevant for ongoing policy discussions among pro-democratic foreign policy-makers about how to prevent autocratisation from abroad, by showing that context-sensitive external democratic protection measures can actually contribute to autocracy prevention.Demokratische Errungenschaften, die das Ergebnis politischer Transformationsprozesse des 20. Jahrhunderts darstellen, sind durch eine sich manifestierende dritte Welle der Autokratisierung gefährdet. Diese geht einher mit Prozessen zunehmender Polarisierung, einem Vertrauensverlust in staatliche Institutionen und dem schrittweisen Abbau zentraler demokratischer Institutionen in allen Weltregionen. Während viele der Herausforderungen für die Demokratie zuallererst von den betroffenen Gesellschaften adressiert werden müssen, sieht sich auch das politische Handlungsfeld der internationalen Demokratieförderung mit der Herausforderung konfrontiert, dass eine Neujustierung etablierter Strategien und Maßnahmen zur Förderung der Demokratie im Sinne einer stärkeren Ausrichtung auf den Schutz demokratischer Institutionen und Akteure notwendig wird. Bisher haben sich zugleich nur wenige wissenschaftliche Studien mit der vergleichsweise neuen Praxis des internationalen Demokratieschutzes und der Wirksamkeit von spezifischen Maßnahmen zur Vorbeugung von Autokratisierung beschäftigt. Doch anknüpfend an Erkenntnisse aus der Autokratisierungsforschung, die verstärkt Analysen zu zentralen innerstaatlichen demokratieschützenden Akteuren, Prozessen und Institutionen beisteuert, nimmt auch das vergleichsweise junge Forschungsfeld des internationalen Demokratieschutzes zunehmend an Fahrt auf. Es ist jedoch geprägt von einem geringeren Konzeptualisierungs- und Theoretisierungsgrad sowie der uneinheitlichen Verwendung zentraler Konzepte und Operationalisierungen. Entsprechend ist der empirische Erkenntnisstand über den potenziellen vorbeugenden oder schützenden Einfluss internationaler Faktoren auf Autokratisierungsprozesse bisher vergleichsweise gering. Diese Forschungslücken aufgreifend und verortet an der Schnittstelle zwischen Vergleichender Regierungslehre und Internationalen Beziehungen untersuche ich als leitende Fragestellung, wie internationale Faktoren zur Vorbeugung von Autokratisierung beitragen. Zur Beantwortung meiner Frage entwickle ich zunächst die External Autocracy Prevention als leitendes Konzept und eine Entscheidungstheorie, die auf den Entscheidungsprozess von Amtsinhabenden fokussiert und dabei externe Faktoren in der Kosten-Nutzen-Bewertung mitberücksichtigt. Abgleitet von den theoretischen Vorüberlegungen formuliere ich konkrete Hypothesen über den Einfluss externer Demokratieschutzmaßnahmen und internationaler Kontextbedingungen auf Autokratisierungsprozesse, bzw. auf die Entscheidungen von Amtsinhabenden ebendiese einzuleiten. Für die Analyse konzipiere und wende ich ein Mixed Methods Design an, welches die Kombination einer quantitativen länderübergreifenden Makroanalyse mit zwei qualitativen Fallstudien zu Autokratisierungsprozessen im Senegal und in Indonesien beinhaltet. Zentrale Ergebnisse meiner Arbeit sind, dass sowohl kooperative externe Demokratieschutzmaßnahmen wie Demokratiehilfe als auch auf Unfreiwilligkeit beruhende Maßnahmen wie demokratische Rüstungssanktionen zur Vorbeugung von Autokratisierung beitragen können. Zugleich lassen meine Ergebnisse darauf schließen, dass der Einsatz und die Wirkung von auf Unfreiwilligkeit beruhenden Maßnahmen an hohe Schwellenwerte geknüpft sind. Diese Schwellenwerte sind stark kontextbezogen und hängen zum einen von der nationalen politischen Ausgangslage und zum anderen vom internationalen prodemokratischen Umfeld ab. So können internationale Maßnahmen zum Schutz der Demokratie nur ihre Wirkung entfalten, wenn sie auf nationaler Ebene auf bereits etablierte und mobilisierte prodemokratische Oppositionskräfte und soziale Bewegungen aufbauen können. Zudem deuten meine Ergebnisse darauf hin, dass die Tiefe bzw. Stärke prodemokratischer internationaler Verflechtungen und Hebelwirkungen für den Einsatz und die Wirkung von Maßnahmen von Bedeutung sind – sowie eine koordinierte Vorgehensweise internationaler Akteure bei der Anwendung von auf Unfreiwilligkeit beruhenden Maßnahmen. Die Erkenntnisse meiner Arbeit tragen empirisch, theoretisch und konzeptionell zum wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnisstand bei, insbesondere zum Forschungsfeld des internationalen Demokratieschutzes. Schließlich sind meine Erkenntnisse auch für politische Entscheidungsträger*innen von hoher Relevanz, die sich mit dem Schutz demokratischer Institutionen und Akteure von außen befassen, indem sie zeigen, dass kontextsensitive externe Schutzmaßnahmen tatsächlich zur Vorbeugung von Autokratisierung beitragen können

Contesting Autocratisation: Actors and Institutions of Democratic Resistance in a Global Perspective

While authoritarianism continues to gain ground globally, this book offers a global and nuanced perspective into how, when, and where autocratisation may be contested and sometimes reversed. Drawing on rich case studies from across Africa, Asia, Latin America, and Southeastern Europe, the chapters in this book map the actors and institutions of resistance, ranging from political parties and bureaucrats to social movements and transnational alliances. Rather than offering a binary view of success or failure of opposition and resistance, this book adopts a dynamic, process-driven approach, considering the conditions under which resistance emerges, adapts, and persists even in shrinking civic and political spaces. Whether through informal bureaucratic defiance, legal mobilisation, elite rivalries, transnational alliances, strategic litigation, or protest coalitions, these strategies reveal the agency of opposition actors navigating complex and often hostile terrains. These diverse experiences force us to rethink resistance as an ongoing, collective effort rather than a single moment of reversal. This volume spans multiple disciplines, including political science, sociology, international relations, and legal studies, making it essential reading for students, scholars, and policymakers to understand how resistance emerges, evolves, and endures in the face of authoritarian resurgence

Legalised resistance to autocratisation in common law Africa

Since the 1990s, African incumbents have engaged in forms of rule-bending that weaken democratic institutions. The democratic backsliding witnessed weaponises law through processes of autocratic lawfare. However, civil society and the opposition may challenge the incumbent’s attempts at autocratisation through the use of law and, in so doing, resist processes of democratic backsliding. We refer to processes where civil society actors and opposition politicians seek to defend pluralism through legal mobilisation as democratic lawfare. We explore the responses to autocratic lawfare by pro-democracy actors in five African common law countries: Kenya, Malawi, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Our analysis shows that across the common law system countries, court decisions have secured space for political debate and protest, particularly in relation to elections. In the countries with the strongest pluralist traditions (Kenya, Malawi and Zambia), court actions have often succeeded in preventing incumbents from tilting the electoral playing field and reigning in parliament. Even in the most autocratic settings, as the cases of Uganda and Zimbabwe, courts have provided some protection to opposition candidates. To understand resistance to autocratisation, it is necessary to analyse the opportunities inherent in the institutional context and the resources – organisational, strategic and normative – that different actors bring to these contests.publishedVersio

Is democratisation bad for global warming?

Summary: even if democracy and all good things go together the same may not be as true of democratisation. Given the growing number of countries that have attempted democratisation, with varying success, and as the challenge of addressing the causes of climate change becomes increasingly more urgent, it is worth knowing if democratisation makes that challenge more difficult. Similarly it is worth knowing if the political conditions for an effective response to climate instability and its economic and social consequences must impact on the outlook for democratisation. Although contrary to what was once believed, developing countries may not have the dilemma of having to choose between developing the economy and building democracy, the further addition of a requirement to significantly reduce carbon emissions might be just too demanding. The paper offers a framework of analysis as a preliminary to more detailed empirical investigation. It concludes with policy implications for international actors committed to promoting democracy, considering that in developing countries stable authoritarian rule might be better placed than regimes in political transition to mitigate climate change as well as adapt to its effects

Autocratisation‐Driven Urban Transformation: The Case of Novi Sad, Serbia

Autocratisation is on the rise, undermining democratic institutions and reshaping sociopolitical landscapes worldwide. This article situates urban transformation within this trend and argues that urban transformation should be reconceptualised, particularly in countries facing advanced democratic erosion, such as Serbia. It proposes a shift from the prevailing focus on neoliberalism and economic exploitation towards an emphasis on autocratisation and political domination. To lay the groundwork for this reconceptualisation, the article explores how urban spaces, institutions, discourses, and actors contribute to both democratic erosion and resilience. In doing so, it links contemporary urban transformation directly to the process of autocratisation. As a case study illustrating the relevance of this new approach, the article presents preliminary empirical findings from Novi Sad, a second‐tier Serbian city, focusing on the waterfront redevelopment and other major infrastructure projects that exemplify democratic erosion and provoke democratic contention

Archiving social movement memories amidst autocratization: a case study of Hong Kong’s Umbrella Movement Visual Archive

There has been a rise in archival activism, including the birth of social movement archives, leveraging marginalised communities’ voices, and challenging mainstream discourses. Through a case study of the Umbrella Movement Visual Archive (UMVA) in Hong Kong, this paper explores the risks faced by and the strategies of the archivists when preserving social movement objects amidst rapid autocratisation. Based on semi-structured interviews and documents analysis, this paper argues that autocratisation significantly restrains political opportunities for archival activism. When Hong Kong was relatively liberal before 2020, the UMVA encountered problems common in community archives in liberal democracies, such as sustainability crises and loss of public attention. Even so, archivists could still manage the risk by facilitating public communication and group solidarity. Nonetheless, the rapid autocratisation of Hong Kong since 2020 has created extreme political risks for archivists and the collection. Archivists could only migrate the archives overseas, resulting in public inaccessibility of the collection. While most extant literature on archival activism focuses on democratic or post-transitional context, this project offers an authoritarian-political perspective that tests the limits of the notion in the global wave of democratic backsliding

Mobilising international embeddedness to resist radical policy change and dismantling: the case of Brazil under Jair Bolsonaro (2019–2022)

Unpacking the ‘crisis of democracy’ and what is means and does to policy processes is a new and ever-growing agenda. This paper uses the case of Brazil to examine bureaucratic responses, and attempted resistance, to democratic backsliding and policy dismantling in times of autocratisation, notably under Jair Bolsonaro (2019–2022). It does so by focusing on a less explored transnational lenses. It argues that the growing international embeddedness of Brazilian policies, including through policy transfer and technical cooperation initiatives mostly with other developing countries, has provided domestic sectoral bureaucracies and policy communities with additional strategic discursive and argumentative resources to mobilise, respond and try to resist policy dismantling at home

Russia's 2024 Presidential Elections in a Context of War:A New Step in the Autocratisation of the Regime

No one was taken by surprise when Putin was re-elected as president of the Russian Federation in March 2024. Everything had been put in place to guarantee an overwhelming victory in the most rigged and unfree Russian elections since the demise of the Soviet Union. The elections took place amidst the ravaging war in Ukraine, giving them an additional dimension. They were not simply set up as a plebiscite for the president, but also as an endorsement of Russia's war against Ukraine and a proof of unity in this crisis context.Elections in an authoritarian context could easily be mistaken for an annoying inevitability for a regime that wants to keep up democratic appearances. The opposite is true. The elections were an opportunity for the regime to celebrate Russia's ‘democracy’. This article seeks to understand why this is the case. It starts by sketching the context in which the elections took place and how they were manipulated. In the next section, the elections are put into the wider context of radicalising repression, symbolised by the death of main oppositionist Navalny in captivity 1 month before the ballot. This prepares the ground for taking a bird's eye view of the autocratic evolution of Russia's regime and the role elections play within this authoritarian context. Finally, the question is raised how the war against Ukraine mattered for the elections. The analysis draws on studies on authoritarianism and on both the conceptual framework and the data of the V-Dem Institute (V-Dem Dataset, 2025; V-Dem Institute, 2024)