Why are some authoritarian regimes highly competitive and others highly unified? Do they function differently? And what does it mean for our understanding of democracy and democratization?

In The Social Roots of Authoritarianism, Natalia Forrat describes two models of authoritarianism: the first in which people see the state as their team leader and the other where they trust informal (non-state) leaders and see the state as a source of perks or punishment. Depending on which vision of the state is dominant in society, she argues that autocrats must use different tools to consolidate their regimes or risk a pushback. If people view the state as their team leader, autocrats rely on social conformity and teamwork logic. If people view the state as an outsider, autocrats rely on clientelist bargains and utility maximization logic. Unpacking the grassroot mechanisms maintaining unity-based and division-based authoritarianisms further, Forrat compares the structures of political machines in four Russian regions. She finds that the two regions with centralized organizational structures bound by social solidarity and team logic delivered predictable, stable results across multiple elections. But the other two regions that relied on decentralized structures with multiple levels of brokers acting independently of each other were less effective in delivering stable results.

Carefully crafted and sophisticated, Forrat's theory of authoritarian power sheds new light on state-society relations in Russia. But it is also broadly applicable beyond Russia and helps explain the divergent patterns of regime maintenance strategies in authoritarian countries throughout the world.