Legacies of party origins on the electoral performance of former authoritarian ruling parties

Abstract

This article investigates why some former authoritarian ruling parties survive and succeed after democratic transitions, while others decline. We argue that parties formed before the onset of authoritarian rule ("pre-seizure" parties) are better positioned to endure and compete under democracy than those established after authoritarian consolidation ("post-seizure" parties). Pre-seizure parties, having developed strong party brands independent of authoritarian resource advantages, are more resilient to democratic constraints. In contrast, post-seizure parties, reliant on state patronage, are more vulnerable to collapse. Using a global dataset of former authoritarian ruling parties from 1946 to 2010, we find that pre-seizure parties are significantly more likely to survive and secure higher legislative vote shares after transition. They also weather transitional economic crises more effectively. Additional analysis shows that pre-seizure parties depend less on clientelism and more on grassroots support, further reflecting stronger party branding. These findings highlight the enduring influence of party origins on democratic performance and contribute to broader debates on authoritarian legacies, democratization, and party development.