Democratization Theory and Nontransitions: Insights from Cuba

Abstract

Theories of democratization have focused on successful transitions to democracy without considering cases of stable authoritarian rule. The opposite of a transition to democracy is not a transition to authoritarianism, but rather the absence of a democratic transition. To help sort through the seemingly endless variables that are said to promote a democratic transition, scholars should examine cases of stable authoritarianism. Good research design and logic require that scholars examine all outcomes on the dependent variable: regime stability as well as regime change. In other words, countries that have undergone a transition to democracy should be compared with each other, but also with countries that have not experienced such a transition. An examination of Cuba, the clearest example of sustained authoritarian rule in Latin America, leads to the conclusion that agent-oriented theories of democratization perform better than those that focus on structural factors. Recent scholarly analyses have focused on structural pressures, such as socioeconomic development, economic crisis, and a favorable international environment, as primary causes of democratization. Cuba, however, demonstrates that these pressures, even when they act collectively, are not sufficient to produce regime change. The presence of strong structural forces and absence of democratization cast significant doubt on their explanatory ability. At best, structural factors operate only under certain conditions; at worst, they are irrelevant and can not distinguish between transitions and nontransitions. The absence of key democratizing agents inside Cubaindependent social groups and softline regime factions-seems to be a decisive factor in Cuba's nontransition. It is of course difficult to conclude from analysis of a single country that a causal relationship exists between the absence of democratizing agents and the absence of democratization. Yet, if this analysis is combined with others that show that softliners and opposition groups produce democracy, it can offer important support for agent-oriented hypotheses because it can help distinguish nontransitions from transitions. The absence of democratizing actors in Cuba raises important questions not addressed in studies of democratization. Why do some countries develop autonomous social groups and softline regime factions, while others do not? Democratization theorists have been content to show how social groups and softliners produce democracy without asking how these groups evolve in the first place.