‘contagion’ (as in Latin America) and, rarely, military force. However, how
such international factor affect democratizing regimes has depended on how
domestic economic and political actors, institutions and structures were
linked to global geopolitical forces (Gill, 2000, pp. 18–25).
The dissolution of authoritarian regimes is commonly marked by liberal-
ization, whereby repression is eased and the right of political association is
recognized. Civil society is gradually ‘resurrected’. Parties re-emerge
(Mainwaring, 1992, p. 301). But mainly transition is characterized by nego-
tiations between representatives of the current regime and opposition forces
to design the new system of government. Dominant élites may judge that a
move towards democracy will be in their own interest, as in Mexico, leading
them to concede democratic reform. Alternatively they might have to retreat
in the face of opposition pressure, a factor in Argentina’s end to military rule.
Opposition groups then take the lead in negotiating the end of authoritarian-
ism. In most cases negotiation between representatives of the old regime and
its opponents characterize transition (Huntington, 1991; Little, 1997,
pp. 179–80). Latin American experience shows that successful transitions
were usually negotiated by moderates on both sides who were willing to
compromise in accommodating each other’s interests (Peeler, 1998).
Negotiations and pacts have implications for the quality of the democracy
created. For example, when transition requires pacts that protect the inter-
ests of groups and classes represented by authoritarian élites, the interests of
those supporting greater participation, accountability and equity are
unlikely to be dominant in the transition phase (Karl, 1996).
When the capacity for mass involvement in transition is understood it
becomes evident that many of the political leaders involved in negotiating tran-
sition to democracy have popular power bases, and that their role cannot be
understood in isolation from the sections of the populace they represent and to
which they owe their position. However, the precise contribution which social
forces and their leaders make towards the transition to democracy depends on
the nature of the authoritarian regime to be changed, and the nature of the soci-
ety within which it is located. By distinguishing between different types of
regime and different types of political society, Gill has developed a theory of
transition which combines information about both regime and non-regime
élites, the latter owing their power to their position in civil society.
Regimes are either ‘unitary’ in the face of challenges, or ‘segmentary’,
with different interests supporting the regime in conflict. Society is either
‘atomized’ (without independent groups and movements) or ‘civil’ – with
independent organizations enabling interests to be articulated and a degree
of popular control to be exercised. A political system’s position in relation
256 Understanding Third World Politics