The authoritarian regime cycle

In following Hale’s work on post-communist regimes (2005), we aim to extend regime cycle research to African states by introducing a logic of elite collective action to explain political change in African authoritarian states. This work is based on the consideration that political changes display cyclical qualities, rather than progressive or regressive trajectories, and that variations in the relations among elites dictate regime change (Higley and Burton 1989). Within a regime cycle, the expectation as to when a leader may leave office shapes elites’ strategies of political survival. This expectation underlies the politics and determines the form and magnitude of contestation between leaders and elites that emerge in each stage of the regime cycle.

By introducing the notion of regime cycles, we suggest that critical junctures in a regime’s lifetime are unlikely to determine the collapse of the existing political order, or a dogged persistence of the same political actors. Rather, regime crises produce a controlled reconfiguration of existing power structures that injects new legitimacy into the system through the disposal of the old leader, the co-option of elites, and a limited opening of the political space (Gerschewski 2013). These processes are, however, a prelude to the future centralisation of political power in the hands of a narrow ruling coalition.

We identify four stages in the political cycle of authoritarian regimes that culminates with the removal of the leader (see table 1). These include factionalisation, crisis, accommodation, and consolidation. Factionalisation and crisis are signs of dissension and breakdown; accommodation and consolidation are episodes when leaders engage in strategies to build elite coalitions. These dynamics are not necessarily chronologically ordered, but rather reflect the logical sequence of elite collective action. Across all dynamics, there is minimal, if any, attempt to meaningfully integrate the opposition or the public.

Factionalisation. The gravest threat facing dictators is a potential coup or usurpation by high-level individuals organised in factions (Egorov and Sonin 2011; McMahon and Slantchev 2015; Svolik 2012; Wintrobe 1998). The central driver during a factionalisation phase is the assumption that a leader’s power is overly centralised and suppressing the authority of surrounding senior elites. Leaders are dependent on their ‘elite court’ to assure their continued survival. Therefore, ruptures in the senior regime elite coalition suggest significant problems for a leader’s continued power. In pushing collaboration

among factions, elites seek to renegotiate and bargain their combined access to power through the threat of their own collective action.

Stage Elite

expectations

Logic Mechanism Composition of

senior ranks Accommodation Co-option Integration Distribution of

rents / positions

In turn, leaders limit alternative power centres in ‘rival ally networks’ and manage risks through purging detractors, controlling political appointments, selectively sanctioning, abusing, forcing retirements, imprisoning and exiling elites associated with the potentially rival factions (Cheeseman and Klaas 2018). Likewise, leaders can increase the coordination costs among the potential factions through institutional duplication and counterbalancing (Haber 2006; Diaz-Cayeros and Magaloni 2001; Lust-Okar 2004;

Magaloni 2006; Myerson 2008, 2015). Because of these tactics, senior elites prepare to seize opportunities to replace the leader. Some common opportunities include economic downturns endangering distributive rents, a leader’s illness requiring an impromptu succession, geopolitical tensions, and increasing domestic unrest following an escalation in violence or the emergence of mass protest movements (Tilly and Tarrow 2007).

Crisis. Regime crises can occur at any point after, when the factional band of rival allies seizes power ousting the leader. Once initiated, removals can follow patterns that are described in the classic texts from Luttwak (1969), and in more updated interpretations from Geddes, Frantz and Wright (2018), but may also result in forced resignations, constitutional coups, or in power-sharing agreements depriving the deposed leaders of any executive power. However, a commonality across modern removals is that a ‘seizing

group’³¹ locates and controls the central nodes of power, disenfranchises or dissembles those who could possibly organise against the group, and quickly work to reassure other elites and assuage the mobilised publics in the event of mass uprisings (Haber 2006).

While the duration of this interim phase can vary, the elite bloc who conspired to remove a leader share power in an interim ‘dictatorship by committee’. Once the leader is deposed, uncertainty surrounds the regime’s political trajectory, as well as the intentions of the new incumbents, but this small group consisting of key regime figures typically seeks to ally with military and security elites at this stage in order to make decisions about subsequent governance structures.

Accommodation. In the accommodation stage, many of the former regime’s positions are vacated, and elites begin competing for offices. The cardinal rule of modern authoritarianism is that, to keep power, you must spread it around (Haber 2006). This requires building elite coalitions, which aims to co-opt the most authoritative and coordinated group of highly networked individuals in positions of power, with the ultimate goal of selecting a public leader. The focus at this stage is to incorporate subnational elites, expand the beneficiaries of the new regime, and stabilise the coalition.

Aspiring to increase its legitimacy and reach, the resulting coalition is therefore broadly inclusive and comprises a variety of elites. This elite pool includes a number of recycled figures such as loyalists who turned, competitors who waited, strongmen who conquered, and technocrats who abstained. However, the ultimate power to appoint, authority, rents and monopoly of force remain centralised amongst the very senior elites.

Following the initial phases of accommodation, the new powerholders begin to unveil their political survival strategies. Common measures are to restrict the distribution of political rents, remunerate their own loyalists, counterbalance security institutions to secure their rule and access to armed forces, engage in mock trials, often around ‘rooting out corruption’ campaigns targeting loyalists of the former regime, and purge disposable elites. Those who remain may become the new ‘rival allies’ within the coalition: these are typically elites whose independent leverage is important to the legitimacy and reach of the government, but whose authority and strength may compete with the leader. The

31 Several terms are used to describe the group that initiates a coup, including ‘seizing organization’

(Geddes, Frantz and Wright 2018); ‘launching organization’ (Haber 2006); plotters (Wig and Rød 2016).

Here we use the term seizing group to denote the known participants at the senior regime level.

overall result is an inconsistent transition, entrenched elites, and the continued manipulation and degradation of governing and economic institutions as new leaders and senior elites extract in order to build their power bases (Geddes, Frantz and Wright 2018).

Consolidation. Processes of consolidation occur when leaders seek to control competition within their coalition (Bueno de Mesquita et al. 2003). The ultimate objective of this stage is to create an “unbalanced equilibrium” between a dominant leader and his coalition of rival allies. The power of leaders rests in their ability to coalesce a team of elites that includes loyalists and rivals who individually cannot overthrow them, or who are unlikely to cooperate due to mutual mistrust and difficulty. In this stage, a gradual realignment of power occurs within the elites, with leaders consolidating their grip on the regime and new groups struggle to emerge as potential spoilers or challengers (Frantz and Stein 2017). The elites continue to learn about each other's leverage, actively build their own networks and patronage opportunities.

Leaders often have multiple strategies that limit the degree to which senior elites can coordinate (Powell 2012). Among these is to engage in transactional loyalty in packing cabinets, governorships, military positions and intelligence positions: while this may decrease the degree of competence in positions, as loyalty is bought but merit may not be a priority, it also acts as a survival mechanism (Sudduth 2017). Loyalists are unlikely to be key allies of conspirators and therefore can work towards mitigating coup actions in the early period. As a result, this is the height of a leader’s independent power and the lowest risk of his being removed.

We apply the observations of a cyclical process to three recent cases in Africa where long serving leaders were removed from office. Each regime is at alternatives stages of the cycle outlined above, but display multiple reference points to the factionalisation, crisis, accommodation and consolidation practices noted above.