I thank Dan Slater, Ben Smith, Patrick McDonald, Stephan Haggard, and two anonymous reviewers at the Journal of East Asian Studies for constructive suggestions. Responsibility for this work and any remaining errors rests with me.Google Scholar

1. Geddes, Barbara, “Authoritarian Breakdown: Empirical Test of a Game Theoretic Argument,” paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Atlanta, 1999.Google Scholar

2. Huntington, Samuel P., The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991), p. 134.Google Scholar

3. Ibid., p. 137.Google Scholar

4. Ottaway, Marina and Olcott, Martha Brill, “The Challenge of Semi-Authoritarianism,” Carnegie Paper No.7 (Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, October 1999); Schedler, Andreas, “The Democratic Revelation,” Journal of Democracy 11 (October 2000); Levitsky, Steven and Way, Lucan A., “The Rise of Competitive Authoritarianism,” Journal of Democracy 13 (April 2002).Google Scholar

5. Schedler, Andreas, “The Menu of Manipulation,” Journal of Democracy 13, no. 2 (April 2002): 36–50; Levitsky, and Way, , “Rise of Competitive Authoritarianism,” pp. 54–55.Google Scholar

6. Armony, Ariel and Schamis, Hector, “Babel in Democratization Studies,” Journal of Democracy 16 (October 2005); Snyder, Richard, “Beyond Electoral Authoritarianism.” In Schedler, Andreas, ed., Electoral Authoritarianism (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 2006), pp. 219–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7. O'Donnell, Guillermo A. and Schmitter, Philippe C., Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Tentative Conclusions About Uncertain Democracies (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986), pp. 10, 15; Di Palman, Giuseppe, To Craft Democracies: An Essay on Democratic Transitions (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990), p. 33; Przeworski, Adam, Democracy and the Market: Political and Economic Reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991), p. 58; Linz, Juan J., “Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes.” In Greenstein, Fred I. and Polsby, Nelson W., eds., Handbook of Political Science, vol. 3: Macropolitical Theory (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1975), p. 236; Hermet, Guy, “State-Controlled Elections: A Framework.” In Hermet, Guy, Rose, Richard, and Rouquie, Alain, eds., Elections Without Choice (New York: Macmillan, 1978), p. 14; Brumberg, Daniel, “Survival Strategies vs. Democratic Bargains: The Politics of Economic Reform in Contemporary Egypt.” In Barkey, Henri, ed., The Politics of Economic Reform in the Middle East (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1992), p. 74; Crystal, Jill, “Authoritarianism and Its Adversaries in the Arab World,” World Politics 46 (January 1994): 263; Joseph, Richard, “Democratization in Africa After 1989: Comparative and Theoretical Perspectives,” Comparative Politics 29 (April 1997): 375; Chehabi, H. E. and Linz, Juan J., “A Theory of Sultanism 1: A Type of Nondemocratic Rule.” In Chehabi, and Linz, , eds., Sultanistic Regimes (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998), p. 18; Remmer, Karen L., “Regime Sustainability in the Latin Caribbean, 1944–1994,” Journal of Developing Areas 33 (Spring 1999): 349; Przeworski, Adam and Gandhi, Jennifer, “Dictatorial Institutions and the Survival of Dictators,” paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, August 30–September 2, 2001, pp. 15–16.Google Scholar

8. Huntington, , The Third Wave , p. 174.Google Scholar

9. On the limits of elections by themselves to bring change in Southeast Asia, see Case, William, “Southeast Asia's Hybrid Regimes: When Do Voters Change Them?” Journal of East Asian Studies 5 (2005). For a contrasting view on the subject, from sub-Saharan Africa, see Lindberg, Staffan, Democracy and Elections in Africa (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006).Google Scholar

10. O'Donnell, and Schmitter, , Transitions from Authoritarian Rule. Google Scholar

11. See, among others, Remmer, Karen L., “New Wine or Old Bottlenecks?” Comparative Politics 23 (July 1991); Snyder, Richard, “Explaining Transitions from Neopatrimonial Dictatorships”, Comparative Politics 24 (July 1992); Linz, Juan J. and Stephan, Alfred C., Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996); Yashar, Deborah J., Demanding Democracy: Reform and Reaction in Costa Rica and Guatemala, 1870s–1950s (Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12. Haggard, Stephan and Kaufman, Robert R., The Political Economy of Democratic Transitions (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995), p. 291; Bratton, Michael and van de Walle, Nicolas, Democratic Experiments in Africa: Regime Transitions in Comparative Perspective (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997), p. 83.Google Scholar

13. Geddes, Barbara, “Authoritarian Breakdown”; Geddes, , “What Do We Know About Democratization After Twenty Years?” Annual Review of Political Science 2 (1999).Google Scholar

14. Geddes, , “Authoritarian Breakdown,” p. 37.Google Scholar

15. Beck, Thorsten, Clarke, George, Groff, Alberto, Keefer, Philip, and Walsh, Patrick, “New Tools in Comparative Political Economy: The Database of Political Institutions,” World Bank Economic Review 15, no. 1 (2001). Note that studies based on Freedom House or Polity data do not capture discrete changes within regimes, including the shift to multipartyism. The Database of Political Institutions (DPI) provides more traction on this problem because it better disaggregates theorized causes—the array of political institutions—from outcomes that may be conflated with levels of political and civic freedom. Covering 1975 to 2000, the database includes a seven-point scale of legislative and executive electoral competitiveness: 1 = no legislature, 2 = unelected legislature/executive, 3 = elected legislature/executive, one candidate/post, 4 = one party, multiple candidates, 5 = multiple parties are legal but only one party won seats, 6 = multiple parties did win seats but the largest party received more than 75 percent of the seats, 7 = largest party got less than 75 percent. The DPI's independent data on multipartyism cut across Geddes's regime types and are not endogenous to the outcomes of breakdown or continuity. Regime years that measured 1–4 in the DPI index were coded as not having multiparty elections. Those that received a score of 5–7 were coded as holding multiparty elections. Philip Keefer, Database of Political Institutions: Changes and Variable Definitions (New York: World Bank, 2002).Google Scholar

16. Heston, Alan, Summers, Robert, and Aten, Bettina, Penn World Table Version 6.2 (Philadelphia: Center for International Comparisons of Production, Income and Prices at the University of Pennsylvania, 2006); Geddes, , “Authoritarian Breakdown.” Google Scholar

17. I also performed pairwise correlation tests on the elections and regime breakdown variable. There was no significant correlation between the two variables. Military and single-party regimes were each significantly correlated with the dependent variable.Google Scholar

18. Variables measuring economic performance were also significant, pointing again to the need to incorporate socioeconomic development in causal narratives of regime change and continuity.Google Scholar

19. Geddes, Barbara, Paradigms and Sand Castles: Theory Building and Research Design in Comparative Politics (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2003), pp. 53–67.Google Scholar

20. Duverger, Maurice, Political Parties, Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State (New York: Wiley, 1951 [1954]), pp. 1–2; Huntington, Samuel P., Political Order in Changing Societies (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968), p. 461; Ware, Alan, Political Parties and Party Systems (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 4–5.Google Scholar

21. Sartori, Giovanni, Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1976), p. 25.Google Scholar

22. This perspective draws on David Waldner's influential distinction between “high intensity” and “low intensity” elite conflict. Waldner, David, State Building and Late Development (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1999), p. 29.Google Scholar

23. Crouch, Harold A., Government and Society in Malaysia (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1996), p. 11; Baharuddin, Shamsul Amri, “‘The Battle Royal’: The UMNO Elections of 1987.” In Southeast Asian Affairs 1988 (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1988), p. 174; Sydney Morning Herald, April 27, 1987.Google Scholar

24. Interview with Musa Hitam, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, June 11, 2003; Gomez, Edmund Terence and Sundaram, Jomo Kwame, Malaysia's Political Economy: Politics, Patronage and Profits (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp. 238–239; Sydney Morning Herald, April 24, 1987; Milne, Robert S. and Mauzy, Diane K., Politics and Government in Malaysia (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1980), p. 44; Sankaran, Ramanathan and Adnan, Mohammad Hamdan, Malaysia's 1986 General Election: The Urban-Rural Dichotomy (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1988), p. 70.Google Scholar

25. Ramanathan, and Adnan, , Malaysia's 1986 General Election , pp. 71–72; Shamsul, , “The Battle Royal,” p. 185; Sydney Morning Herald, April 28, 1987; Crouch, Harold, “Authoritarian Trends, the UMNO Split and the Limits of State Power.” In Kahn, Joel S. and Loh, Francis Wah, Kok, eds., Fragmented Vision: Culture and Politics in Contemporary Malaysia (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1992), p. 33; Milne, and Mauzy, , Politics and Government in Malaysia, p. 43; Crouch, , Government and Society, p. 119.Google Scholar

26. Japan Economic Newswire, August 26, 1988; The Economist , October 13, 1990.Google Scholar

27. New Straits Times , October 31, 1988; New Straits Times, November 1, 1988; New Straits Times, December 19, 1988; New Straits Times, January 14, 1988; New Straits Times, January 21, 1989; New Straits Times, February 1, 1989.Google Scholar

28. Crouch, , Government and Society , pp. 127–128; Hoong, Khong Kim, Malaysia's General Election 1990: Continuity, Change, and Ethnic Politics (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1991), p. 13; Hoong, Khong Kim, “Malaysia 1990: The Election Show-down,” Southeast Asian Affairs 1991 (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies), p. 164; Reuters, , October 23, 1990.Google Scholar

29. Tan, Kevin Y. L., “Malaysia.” In Nohlen, Dieter, Grotz, Florian, and Hartmann, Christof, eds., Elections in Asia and the Pacific: A Data Handbook , vol. 2 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), pp. 172, 179; interview with Edmund Terence Gomez, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, June 6, 2003.Google Scholar

30. Teik, Khoo Boo, “Malaysia: Challenges and Upsets in Politics and Other Contestations.” In Southeast Asian Affairs 1997 (Singapore: Institue of Southeast Asian Studies), p. 168.Google Scholar

31. Kiat, Liak Teng, “Malaysia: Mahathir's Last Hurrah?” In Southeast Asian Affairs 1996 (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies), p. 231; Slater, Daniel, “Iron Cage in an Iron Fist: Authoritarian Institutions and the Personalization of Power in Malaysia,” Comparative Politics 36 (October 2003): 90; Funston, John, “Malaysia: A Fateful September.” In Southeast Asian Affairs 1999, (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies), pp. 169–170; Teik, Khoo Boo, “Unfinished Crises: Malaysian Politics in 1999,” Southeast Asian Affairs 2000 (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies), pp. 168–169.Google Scholar

32. Funston, , “Malaysia,” pp. 172–173; Teik, Khoo Boo, “Unfinished Crises,” pp. 172–174.Google Scholar

33. Funston, , “Malaysia,” pp. 172–175; Case, William, “Malaysia's Resilient Pseudodemocracy,” Journal of Democracy 12 (January 2001): 51; Teik, Khoo Boo, “Unfinished Crises,” p. 179; Tan, , “Malaysia,” p. 179.Google Scholar

34. Kohli, Atul, “Centralization and Powerlessness: India's Democracy in Comparative Perspective.” In Migdal, Joel, Kohli, Atul, and Shur, Vivienne, eds., State Power and Social Forces: Domination and Transformation in the Third World (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994), p. 95.Google Scholar

35. Thompson, Mark R., The Anti-Marcos Struggle: Personalistic Rule and Democratic Transition in the Philippines (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), pp. 49–61; Wurfel, David, Filipino Politics: Development and Decay (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1988), p. 95.Google Scholar

36. Thompson, , The Anti-Marcos Struggle , pp. 43–44; interview with Juan Ponce Enrile, Manila, May 28, 2003; Rocamora, Joel, “Philippine Political Parties: Continuity and Change” (Quezon City: Institute for Popular Democracy, 1998); interview with Laurel, Salvador, Manila, May 30, 2003; “Opposition Candidates Stage ‘Huge’ Rally in Manila,” Hong Kong AFP, FBIS-APA-78-63, March 30, 1978: “Aquino: ‘Brazen and Massive Cheatings,”’ Hong Kong AFP, FBIS-APA-78-69, April 10, 1978; “KBL Maintains 21-0 Lead Over Laban in Manila,” Manila Domestic Services, FBIS-APA-78-70, April 10, 1978.Google Scholar

37. Interview with Enrile; interview with Gabriel Claudio, former assistant to the secretary-general of KBL, Manila, , May 26, 2003; interview with Aquilino Pimentel, senator, leader in UNIDO, Manila, May 21, 2003.Google Scholar

38. Interview with Enrile; Thompson, , The Anti-Marcos Struggle , p. 103.Google Scholar

39. Joaquin, Nick, Doy Laurel in Profile: A Philippine Political Odyssey (Manila: Makati Trade Times Publishing, 1985), pp. 270–274; Wurfel, , Filipino Politics, p. 209.Google Scholar

40. “Opposition Party Leaders Issue Joint ‘Manifesto,”’ Hong Kong AFP, FBIS-APA-80-170, August 29, 1980: P1; Wurfel, , Filipino Politics, p. 209; “Endorsed by Aquino,” Hong Kong AFP, FBIS-APA-80-170, August 29, 1980: P3.Google Scholar

41. Interview with Antonio Cuenco, former KBL cardholder and UNIDO member, Manila, May 20, 2003; interview with Pimentel.Google Scholar

42. Wurfel, , Filipino Politics , p. 210; Thompson, , The Anti-Marcos Struggle, p. 107; Overholt, William, “The Rise and Fall of Ferdinand Marcos,” Asian Survey 26 (November 1986): 1156–1157; interview with Rudolph Albano, former KBL congressman, Manila, May 26, 2003; DeGuzman, Raul P. and Tancangco, Luzviminda G., An Assessment of the May 1984 Batasang Pambansa Elections: A Summary of Findings (Manila: University of the Philippines, 1986), p. 134; interview with Enrile; interview with Laurel.Google Scholar

43. “Unido Viewed as Dominant Opposition Party,” Bulletin Today , FBIS-APA-84-075, April 15, 1984; Tancangco, Luzviminda G., “The Electoral System and Political Parties in the Philippines.” In De Guzman, R. and Reforma, M., eds., Government and Politics in the Philippines (Singapore: Oxford University Press, 1988), pp. 101, 105.Google Scholar

44. Overholt, , “The Rise and Fall of Ferdinand Marcos,” p. 1152.Google Scholar

45. Joaquin, , Doy Laurel in Profile , p. 310; the extract is from DeGuzman and Tancangco, An Assessment, p. 26; Hartmann, Christof, Hassall, Ghaham, and Santos, Soliman M. Jr., “Philippines.” In Nohlen, Dieter, Grotz, Florian, and Hartmann, Christof, eds., Elections in Asia and the Pacific: A Data Handbook, Volume 2 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 222.Google Scholar

46. Bonner, Raymond, Waltzing with a Dictator: The Marcoses and the Making of American Policy (New York: Times Books, 1987), p. 392.Google Scholar

47. Interview with Laurel.Google Scholar

48. Steinberg, David Joel, The Philippines: A Singular and a Plural Place (Boulder: Westview Press, 1994), p. 146; National Citizens Movement for Free Elections, The NAMFREL Report on the February 7, 1986, Philippine Presidential Elections (Manila: National Citizens Movement for Free Elections, 1986), pp. 3–4, 74.Google Scholar

49. NAMFREL, The NAMFREL Report , pp. 3–4, 74; DeGuzman, and Tancangco, , An Assessment, p. 153; Goodno, James B., The Philippines: Land of Broken Promises (London: Zed Books, 1991), p. 97.Google Scholar

50. Overholt, , “The Rise and Fall,” p. 1162; Goodno, , The Philippines , pp. 97, 102; Bonner, , Waltzing with a Dictator, p. 445. On the institutional dynamics of the post-Marcos era, see Guitierrez, Eric U., Torrente, Ildefonso C., and Narca, Noli G., All in the Family: A Study of Elites and Power Relations in the Philippines (Quezon City: Institute for Popular Democracy, 1992); Rocamora, , “Philippine Political Parties.” Google Scholar