In an American and European context of governments with strong authoritarian elements, this article revisits the question of the classification of political regimes and the shifts between authoritarianism and democracy, proposing a dialogue between classic conceptualizations of studies on the transition to democracy and anthropological theories about situations of liminality. Liminality in anthropology refers to the specific moment in which a being is neither A nor B, but is in a process where it has ceased to be A but has not yet become B. With the expansion of “transitional” or undefined political regimes, the notion of liminality is a relevant complement to the concept of hybrid regimes. Furthermore, from the outset, there is a counterpoint between the notions of transition and liminality to consider the nuances of regime change. This article’s concern is specifically with the phase called “transition, ” its similarities and clarifications with the concept of “liminality.” It will also seek to show that this phase tends to stabilize and lacks a predetermined direction. It is probably worth not only revising our classifications, but also clarifying how democratic efforts are oriented in contexts of liminal democracies.
KEYWORDS
Democracy; Transition; Social theory; Authoritarianism; Liminality