Winning the Uneven Playing Field: Configurations of Incumbent Survival in Democratic Backsliding

Elections in hybrid regimes are characterized by "conditioned uncertainties," where incumbents manipulate the playing field to narrow the range of possible outcomes. However, recent empirical trends reveal striking variation: while opposition parties have achieved victories in some backsliding states, incumbents in others have secured consecutive wins even amidst economic crises. This divergence raises a central puzzle: Why do some autocratizing incumbents successfully consolidate power at the ballot box, while others fail? Drawing on autocratization episodes identified via V-Dem (2016–2024), this study employs Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA). To rigorously define the universe of "competitive authoritarian" cases, the sample was refined using K-means clustering on Perceptions of Electoral Integrity (PEI) data, excluding both hegemonic regimes (where outcomes are predetermined) and established democracies, resulting in a final sample of 21 cases undergoing democratic backsliding. The analysis reveals that successful incumbents rely on a shared "Repressive Triad"—strong party organization, weak institutional constraints, and the suffocation of civic space—as a necessary foundation for survival. From this base, incumbents diverge into two distinct strategies. First, the "Hegemonic Identity Mobilization" path—exemplified by the AKP (Türkiye), BJP (India), Fidesz (Hungary), and SNS (Serbia)—combines the repressive triad with religious mobilization and toxic polarization to cement hegemony. This finding challenges prior distinctions between "hard" and "soft" autocracies, suggesting a convergence on identity-based polarization. Second, the "Administrative Closure" path—typified by Benin—demonstrates a bureaucratic route to survival that relies on institutional capture and civic restriction without high polarization or religious appeals. Robustness checks confirm that the closure of civic space is the decisive separator between authoritarian survival and defeat. Deviant case analysis of Poland (PiS) and Zambia (PF) illustrates that even with strong parties and populist mobilization, incumbents fail when they cannot sufficiently dismantle civil society resilience. This paper contributes to the literature by empirically mapping the diverse "technologies of rule" backsliding incumbents deploy. By operationalizing incumbent resilience through episode-based data, the study demonstrates that survival is not determined by single variables but by how party entrenchment, institutional capture, and civic space closure are assembled into specific configurations. The findings underscore that while the tools of repression are universal, the legitimation strategies—whether through heated identity mobilization or cool administrative control—vary decisively across contexts.