ABSTRACT
According to the ‘natural’ model used by practitioners (Carothers 2002a) and the ‘theoretical’ model developed by academics, liberalization and democratization are not related to each other in a linear or inevitable fashion. Between the two ‘phases’ of LoA and CoD, with their different actors and processes, lies the period of transition. Virtually all observers of regime change agree that this involves a more or less lengthy period of exceptional politics, the outcome of which is more or less uncertain. They also agree that there is no one way by which the transition from one regime to another is accomplished – if it is accomplished at all. Labeled as the mode of transition (MoT), lively debates are fought over which specifi c MoT – pact, reform, revolution, etc. – has which kind of impact, not only on the structure of the nascent democracy, but also on its likelihood to survive. Many of the debates around transition modes are still unresolved.1 Whether a transition mode matters or not is anything but just another purely academic dispute. Finding out more about this question has important practical repercussions, too. External and internal actors in autocracies could adapt their strategies for promoting democracy based on this knowledge.
