Archives

The persistence of authoritarianism in the modern era, despite the global spread of democratic norms, presents a critical puzzle for comparative political science. This paper provides a comprehensive analysis of the internal structures and strategies that underpin authoritarian resilience. Moving beyond simplistic ‘black box’ models of dictatorship, it employs a comparative framework to dissect the varied institutional architectures of authoritarian rule, including single-party, military, personalist, and hybrid regimes. The paper argues that regime durability is not merely a function of brute coercion but is engineered through a sophisticated combination of co-optation, institutionalization, legitimation, and selective repression. Through a systematic review of scholarly literature and case studies, the paper examines how different regime types manage elite politics to prevent fissures and distribute rents, and how they manipulate the citizenry through performance legitimacy, nationalism, and controlled political participation. A key finding is that institutionalized single-party regimes exhibit greater longevity than more fluid personalist or military juntas due to their capacity to manage leadership succession and incorporate broader societal interests. However, all authoritarian regimes face inherent vulnerabilities, including economic crises, elite fragmentation, and mass mobilization. The study concludes that authoritarianism is a dynamic, adaptive form of governance rather than a histori.