Authoritarianism in an Age of Democratization Illustrated Edition

Jason Brownlee's  Authoritarianism in an Age of Democratization  argues that strong party systems can stabilize authoritarian regimes by distributing patronage and resolving intra-elite conflicts. Brownlee's account of intra-elite competition in Egypt, Malaysia, Iran, and the Philippines is very compelling and filled with rich historical detail. However, the book doesn't quite prove his argument.First, Brownlee only discusses the theoretical debate and alternatives to his theory in the last chapter, almost as an afterthought. He never goes about systematically disproving competing theories. Based on his historical analysis (and events since the book's publication), one could argue that ensuring the loyalty of military elites matters more than party organization. Traditional accounts of the Philippines in 1986 emphasize the decisions of Enrile and Ramos to prevent the military from cracking down on People Power. It's not too hard to imagine a different scenario in which the military under General Ver executed a "tiananmen square" style crackdown.Second, the Iran case study simply seems at odds with Brownlee's argument. True, there have been electoral losses for the conservatives, but they conservatives seem firmly in control of the institutions that matter. Moreover, Brownlee suggests that the failure of liberals to dislodge the regime stemmed from the fact that they didn't engage in public confrontation. However, the 2009 election shows what happened when regime opponents took that approach - the Revolutionary Guards and basij cracked down on them. That, in the end, suggests the Iranian theocracy has some staying power, despite the lack of a strong elite party.Finally, Brownlee never explains what constitutes a strong party. Is it membership numbers? A strong executive committee? A connection to rural voters? In the end, this gap makes it difficult to apply Brownlee's argument to other countries and test his hypothesis. For example, was Suharto's Golkar strong or weak (Suharto lasted over 3 decades, but eventually fell). It's too bad, because  Authoritarianism in an Age of Democratization  is obviously well-researched and proposes an intriguing idea.

Jason Brownlee's  Authoritarianism in an Age of Democratization  argues that strong party systems can stabilize authoritarian regimes by distributing patronage and resolving intra-elite conflicts. Brownlee's account of intra-elite competition in Egypt, Malaysia, Iran, and the Philippines is very compelling and filled with rich historical detail. However, the book doesn't quite prove his argument.First, Brownlee only discusses the theoretical debate and alternatives to his theory in the last chapter, almost as an afterthought. He never goes about systematically disproving competing theories. Based on his historical analysis (and events since the book's publication), one could argue that ensuring the loyalty of military elites matters more than party organization. Traditional accounts of the Philippines in 1986 emphasize the decisions of Enrile and Ramos to prevent the military from cracking down on People Power. It's not too hard to imagine a different scenario in which the military under General Ver executed a "tiananmen square" style crackdown.Second, the Iran case study simply seems at odds with Brownlee's argument. True, there have been electoral losses for the conservatives, but they conservatives seem firmly in control of the institutions that matter. Moreover, Brownlee suggests that the failure of liberals to dislodge the regime stemmed from the fact that they didn't engage in public confrontation. However, the 2009 election shows what happened when regime opponents took that approach - the Revolutionary Guards and basij cracked down on them. That, in the end, suggests the Iranian theocracy has some staying power, despite the lack of a strong elite party.Finally, Brownlee never explains what constitutes a strong party. Is it membership numbers? A strong executive committee? A connection to rural voters? In the end, this gap makes it difficult to apply Brownlee's argument to other countries and test his hypothesis. For example, was Suharto's Golkar strong or weak (Suharto lasted over 3 decades, but eventually fell). It's too bad, because  Authoritarianism in an Age of Democratization  is obviously well-researched and proposes an intriguing idea.

The authors arguement falls short and was not convincing. The book was also not very well written.