It's Good to Be King: Ruler Type and Democracy in Authoritarian Regimes

• In Event: Democracy Support and Democratic Performance

Abstract

This paper argues that individuals think differently about types of political leaders in ways that influence evaluations of democracy in their countries. Specifically, people expect presidents but not kings to represent the people by facing political competition for their position. These divergent expectations make it easier for autocratic monarchs to obscure their authoritarianism relative to autocratic presidents, reducing their vulnerability to demands for democratic governance. A survey experiment implemented in Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, and Tunisia provides evidence that people think differently about how monarchs and presidents relate to democracy, and observational survey data from the Arab Barometer demonstrates that citizens of authoritarian monarchies are significantly more likely to believe their regimes are democratic. A comparison of Egypt, Tunisia, Jordan, and Morocco connects these beliefs to divergent patterns of opposition during the Arab Spring. Finally, cross-national data reinforces the case studies by showing that authoritarian monarchies are less likely to confront mass mobilizations as a result of anti-democratic grievances. The paper indicates the importance of studying how institutions shape authoritarian regime durability by influencing the public's perceptions of how they are being governed. It also helps to explain the surprising stability of authoritarian monarchies in the modern world.

Author

• Scott Williamson, Bocconi University