Across the world,  a gap exists between autocratic and democratic regimes in terms of the relationship between governance outcomes—for example, the delivery of services and the protection of civil rights—and perceptions of the government. Autocratic regimes in the Global South seem to be increasingly successful at shaping public narratives in their favor even as they fail to provide positive governance outcomes. Alternatively, democratic regimes struggle with public trust even when providing positive governance outcomes. The Governance Compared project seeks to understand how citizens across the Global South form perceptions of government performance, and, ultimately, whether autocratic regimes are really better at providing for their citizens, as they claim to be.

The past decade has witnessed a slow and steady decline of democracy across the globe. Following the euphoria of the Arab Spring, which brought democracy to many autocracies in the Middle East, Tunisia President Kais Saied’s self-coup ten years later extinguished the hope of many democracy observers. But Tunisia’s failure is not unique. Out of the 91 democratic transitions initiated since the third wave of democracy began in 1974, 21 were no longer classified as democracies only 16 were classified as a “liberal democracy” ten years after they began their democratic experiment and according to the Varieties of Democracy Index (V-Dem). And while autocrats have learned many lessons since 1974, pro-democracy activists and international democracy promoters still understand very little about how to maximize the chances to help fragile democratic transitions succeed. Through this project, Middle East Program Senior Fellow Sarah Yerkes draws lessons from global cases of democratic success and failure to provide recommendations for policymakers and activists on best practices during the critical first years of a transition.