In the 2000s the Belarusian regime appeared adept at developing appropriate methods for countering external democratisation efforts and was even a model for other post-Soviet autocracies. To cope with ever-changing internal and external environments, the regime honed the methods of adaptive authoritarianism. However, this article shows that the Belarusian system is fragile and failing by using a framework that analyses various aspects of adaptive authoritarianism, including performance legitimacy, personalist rule, neopatrimonialism, managed pluralism and coercive capacity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Stephen Hall (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched one closely related paper. Consider it for comparative context: