Explain Why Are Some Autocratic Regime More Durable Than Others

Why are some autocratic regimes more durable than others?

There are many factors which can affect the durability of autocratic regimes. Firstly, durability is hugely affected by the type of autocratic regime a state is. This is because of the variation in the relative proportion of the selectorate who are in the winning coalition between the types. It is also down to institutional differences and checks and balances on the regime.

An autocratic regime can be defined as those where power is vested in a person, or a body of people, by an undemocratic process. In other words, leaders are not competitively selected by the whole population. There are often negative connotations of autocratic regimes; however this has not always been the case. Rousseau,

This can be subdivided into two further types; those which are politically closed and those which rely upon electoral authoritarianism. Politically closed regimes are those which do not legally allow any sort of political competition on a national level. These can be personalistic, where a leader leads on the basis of their personality, such as North Korea. They can also be systems such as that in China which only allows one party to exist. These are dominant party regimes. Electoral authoritarism means that there is some political competition and elections are held, however the results are manipulated in such a way that there is only one realistic outcome. These can be hegemonic, whereby the dominant party win large majorities, such as in Singapore; or they can be more competitive, whereby the opposition wins substantial minorities such as in

It could be argued that the only real autocracies in the world are those which are completely isolated from international interference, such as Myanmar, North Korea and Belarus. States like North Korea and Belarus are protectorates of China and Russia respectively, states that the USA would not want to go to war with. There is therefore little incentive for military interference to instate a democratic regime. Fewer countries trade with these countries too; therefore they never see an alternative sort of lifestyle. This process of globalisation can, according to Richard Inglehart, lead to “conditions conducive to democracy can and do emerge -- and the process of "modernization," according to abundant empirical evidence, advances them.” There is therefore little incentive to democratise from within the state either. Regimes that are more open to international trade and intervention are therefore less likely to be durable than these closed regimes. However, states such as the UAE and Qatar with an abundance of natural oil resources could arguably be an exception to this. Democratised nations are reliant upon trade with them for oil supplies, and are therefore far less likely to intervene. They are also economically modernised, with a large GDP per capita. Therefore, it could be argued that they are unlikely to democratise