Institutions, legitimacy, and divergent regime trajectories after political openings: a comparative analysis of Tunisia, Egypt, Turkey, and Indonesia

Why do similar political openings produce divergent regime trajectories? This article develops a comparative institutional framework to explain variation in post-authoritarian outcomes through a structured comparison of Tunisia, Egypt, Turkey and Indonesia. It argues that political openings generate uncertainty but do not determine political outcomes. Instead, divergent trajectories emerge through the interaction of three analytically distinct but causally interdependent elements: contingent political openings, institutional mediation and legitimacy narratives. Institutional mediation shapes the strategic environment confronting political actors by influencing the distribution of coercive power, the strength of executive constraints and the inclusiveness of political competition, thereby altering the perceived costs of political defeat. Political actors adapt publicly articulated legitimacy narratives that justify strategies compatible with these institutional conditions, reinforcing patterns of political behaviour that contribute to democratic consolidation, democratic inclusion, democratic backsliding, or authoritarian restoration. Drawing on a theory-driven comparative research design combining structured, focused comparison with within-case process tracing based on secondary scholarship, the analysis demonstrates that where institutions constrain coercive actors, maintain credible executive constraints and sustain inclusive political competition, legitimacy narratives tend to reinforce compromise, constitutionalism and democratic cooperation. Conversely, where coercive power remains concentrated or institutional constraints erode, legitimacy narratives increasingly justify majoritarian authority, exclusion and executive dominance. By specifying the mechanism linking institutional environments, legitimacy narratives, political behaviour and regime trajectories, the article contributes a middle-range comparative framework that explains variation in post-authoritarian political development beyond culturalist and institution-only explanations.