ABSTRACT
One of the often voiced criticisms of the actor-centred approach normally termed ‘Transitology’ is that the sustainability of democracy is very much linked to the structural constraints (see, for example, Acemoglu and Robinson 2006: 77). Even if the actors have a lot of proximate influence during upheavals, the longer-term prospects are therefore likely to be shaped by the structures. This is a valid point, but to some extent it misses the mark. O’Donnell and Schmitter (1986), in particular, were primarily preoccupied with the transitional ‘black box’, hence the name Transitology. Their aim was to probe into this ‘window of opportunity’ surrounding the breakdown of an authoritarian regime. Here, they stressed, the choices of the actors were of vital importance. The future outcome of this transition, on the contrary, was perceived as nebulous.1
