Comparative case analysis reveals elite splits can paradoxically stabilize autocracies through adaptive reorganization, suggesting cohesive coalitions constrain flexibility.
This article challenges the assumption that elite splits inherently destabilise autocratic regimes. It proposes that some elite ruptures facilitate adaptive reorganisation, through three stabilising functions: first, elimination of horizontal conflict and internal constraints through exclusion; second, reduction of vertical pressure by reallocating resources toward co-optation; and third, attenuation of democratisation pressure through programmatic reorientation. Conversely, the article shows that cohesive coalition-building can constrain regimes’ adaptive capacity. The argument is developed through the comparison of Serbia and Montenegro, contrasting three stabilising elite splits (Serbia 1987; Montenegro 1989, 1997) with one destabilising rupture (Montenegro 2016) and the decline of one cohesive regime (Serbia 2000).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Claudia Laštro (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: