nucleation

LIT-1487: Autocratization and States of Emergency in Comparative Perspective

2 min read

Properties6
StatusActive — read in full 2026-10-24 (NOTE-1129) from the Israel Democracy Institute's web page, which is the whole of what is published; worth reading only for its three channels (formal emergency powers, powers functionally equivalent to them, emergency rhetoric) and its account of Hungary's successive emergencies since 2015. A think-tank summary, not peer-reviewed, with no sources or method, of five cases chosen because they autocratized; the authors say the convergence of emergency and autocratization "is not inevitable". Not evidence for a causal link.
Version2
Tagssociety-and-governance
SupportsCLAIM-445 — A protective regime, in a person, an institution or a system of states, becomes self-maintaining when the interventions it authorizes shift the evidence used to judge its necessity, the authority and resources of those who judge it, the capacities of its constituents or the threat environment itself in ways that favour its continuation; this can happen when the original threat was real and the first protection apt, and it is a failure only where the regime has become less responsive to evidence that it is no longer needed
Cited as “paper” byNOTE-1129 — Dagan & Benvenisty — Autocratization and states of emergency (IDI research summary)
Cited as “source” byTHEORY-1229 — Formal emergency powers, extraordinary powers functionally equivalent to them and emergency rhetoric are linked to the accelerated erosion or dismantling of democracy and to the consolidation of autocratic rule, though the convergence is not inevitable, THEORY-906 — In five formerly stable democracies selected because they later autocratized (South Korea, India, Hungary, Venezuela and Turkey), formal emergency powers, extraordinary powers functionally equivalent to them, and emergency rhetoric each contributed, on the authors' unsourced country accounts, to weakening democratic institutions

Graph View

Dagan, N. & Benvenisty, D. (2026). Autocratization and States of Emergency in Comparative Perspective (research summary). Jerusalem: Israel Democracy Institute. https://en.idi.org.il/articles/63592.

Key takeaways

From the reading, NOTE-1129, cited by paragraph.

  • Three channels. Formal emergency powers; “extraordinary powers functionally equivalent to emergency powers, even if not formally defined as such in law or in the constitution”; emergency rhetoric (para. 3).
  • Hungary. “Since 2015, Hungary has operated under successive, extended states of emergency, at times simultaneously” (para. 9).
  • Not inevitable. “Regime change can occur without the invocation of emergency powers, and many democracies have navigated states of emergency without suffering democratic breakdown” (para. 5).
  • Method. None stated; the five cases were selected because they autocratized (para. 4).

Why this is here

The exchange cited it at turn U16, unnamed, as a February 2026 comparative study of emergency governance in five countries and democratic erosion. The page matches the date and the five countries. It is a think-tank research summary, not a peer-reviewed article.

Corrected 2026-10-24, from the reading. Nothing to correct in the description. What it can bear is narrower than a study of emergency governance and democratic erosion suggests: cases chosen on the outcome, unsourced, and a mostly intentional account (leaders exploiting crises), where CLAIM-445’s mechanism needs no bad faith. Cite it for the channels and for Hungary, not for a link. Filed from it: THEORY-906.

Backlinks