Does Przeworski et al.'s alternation rule imply the U.S. during Roosevelt administration shall be categorized as dictatorship?

Question

In Przeworski et al.'s Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and Well-Being in the World, 1950-1990 (pages 28-29), four rules for regime classification are proposed:

A regime is classified as a dictatorship during a particular year if at least one of these conditions holds:

Rule 1: "Executive selection." The chief executive is not elected.

Rule 2: "Legislative selection." The legislature is not elected.

Rule 3: "Party." There is no more than one party. Specifically, this rule applies if (1) there are no parties or (2) there is only one party or (3) the current term in office ends in the establishment of non-party or one-party rule or (4) the incumbents unconstitutionally close the legislature and rewrite the rules in the favor.

Rule 4: "Alternation" (applies only to regimes that have passed the previous three rules). The incumbents will have or already have held office continuously by virtue of elections for more than two terms or have held office without being elected for any duration of their current tenure in office, and until today or until the time when they were overthrown they had not lost an election.

I am a bit confused by these rules. Specifically, as stated in the title of this post, does the alternation rule imply the U.S. during the Roosevelt administration shall be categorized as a dictatorship?

I think the tricky part of this example falls into the question: whether the U.S. before, during, and after the Roosevelt administration shall be considered three regimes, with the first and third ones (before and after) being democratic regimes and the second one (during) being dictatorship, or not. (See this post for a related question on regime change.)

If we regard the U.S. through its history (or at least through this pre- and post-Roosevelt period) as one (clearly democratic) regime, then the answer to the title question would be no; or perhaps more properly, the question is not well asked because the U.S. during the Roosevelt administration is not "a" regime but instead part of a regime. If, on the other hand, we regard the pre-Roosevelt, Roosevelt administration, and post-Roosevelt America as three regimes, then according to Przeworski et al.'s rules, we might have to say yes to the title question.

Hence, I think one question we need to ask is this: Should the basic democratic institutions of the U.S. be considered transformed (see here) at the time when the U.S. entered Roosevelt's era?

Could people please kindly share your thoughts on it? (It could be a thought on the question in the preceding paragraph, on the title question, on how to think about the title question and the rules, or on anything that you think is related and worth attention.)

---

I apologize for asking a question that is to some extent "not definitively formulated".

I would really appreciate when you post a comment or an answer you could include the necessary historical background knowledge (or a link to it).

Answer 1

Note: I have not read Przeworski et al, so this answer is based solely on the verbiage provided in the question.

Rule 1: Does not apply

Roosevelt was legitimately elected during the entire time he held office.

Rule 2: Does not apply

Both the House and the Senate were legitimately elected during the entire time Roosevelt held office.

Rule 3: Does not apply

There were two parties in the House and Senate. The Democrats never controlled more than 80% of either chamber.

Rule 4: Confusing and Poorly worded, but probably not

The incumbents will have or already have held office continuously by virtue of elections for more than two terms

The text here does not specify which "incumbents" they are referring to. Do they mean the president and vice president? Every congressperson? The president and the party in control?

FDR held his position for 12 (and a bit) years, but none of his vice presidents served form more than two terms. And the Democratic party maintained control over both chambers, but many individual seats changed hands every election.

While we're talking about incumbents, it's worth noting that many congresspeople hold their seats for decades. Was John McCain's position as Arizona Senator a regime because he held it for 5 terms?

until the time when they were overthrown they had not lost an election.

We don't have definition of 'overthrown' either. Does losing an election count as being overthrown? If so, this qualifier is slightly nonsensical, as it is impossible to lose an election without being overthrown (unless you ignore the election, but now we're back at Rule 1). Does FDR dying count as him being overthrown?

This clause is framed in a "When did you stop beating your spouse?" sort of way, in that it takes for granted that the regime being studied was overthrown (unless it has persisted to present day), but it's unclear whether this is because they're defining 'overthrown' to include any regime end, including legitimate election, or because a dictatorship never ends of its own free will.

or have held office without being elected for any duration of their current tenure in office.

This clearly does not apply to FDR. It arguably applies to Truman, but only if you consider "elected to Vice President, became President after previous president's death" to be 'holding office without being elected'. Interestingly, this condition is more commonly applied to Gerald Ford, who was elected to the House, but never to Executive position. Ford was a Republican president with a Democratic Congress - it's unclear if that control is relevant to this Rule either.

In summation, without better definitions of 'incumbent' and 'overthrown' there is no way to definitively say whether applying this model makes FDR a dictator.

Incidentally, by Rule 2 the US was arguably a Dictatorship for the first few years of its life - Washington did not have a party, and his opposition in the legislature did not organize into a formal party until 1792 (although it definitely existed as a group of people before that). This is rather interesting, as by all I have read Washington was the US president most capable of becoming a dictator, and the least interested in becoming one.

Answer 2

By a literal interpretation, possibly yes. Which implies that the rule is badly worded.

The dichotomy between 'dictatorship' and 'not dictatorship' is a false one. In between, there are for instance dysfunctional or flawed democracies.

It is a sign of a functioning democracy that the party in power allows free and fair elections and abides by the results of these elections, even if the result goes against them. So how does one tell that this is the case, if there are two or more parties (see rule 3) and one party always wins?

Drawing the line at two terms, and not at one or three or 42, is arbitrary. Especially if the length of the term is not given. Note also that the rule (as written) does not function if there is one dominant party which rotates personnel after two terms. It also does not account for coalition politics, where a number of parties combine in different pairings.

Consider West Germany during the Cold War. Hans-Dietrich Genscher was Vice Chancellor under Chancellor Schmidt, then again under Chancellor Schmidt, then again under Chancellor Schmidt, then under Chancellor Kohl, then again under Chancellor Kohl, then again under Chancellor Kohl, and then again under Chancellor Kohl (when he left mid-term). Notable in this remarkable story is that Schmidt and Kohl came from opposing parties. At the time, Germany had large center-right and center-left parties who tried to form a majority coalition, usually including the liberal party and their leader as a junior partner. The fact that power changed hands between the center-left and the center-right should meet the 'Alternation' requirement, while the number of terms by Chancellor Kohl was seen as excessive by many at the time. It ended with the electoral defeat of his party.

Having the same party win free and fair elections, all the time, would be a sign of a dysfunctional democracy.