This essay aims to explore and analyze Ukraine’s democratic development over time. This will be done within two time periods from 2007 to 2014 and 2014 to 2019 to enable drawing reasonable conclusions regarding what challenges prevent further democratic development and what similarities and differences can be seen between the periods. Democracy is often described as a complex concept that can vary between being defined minimalistic and maximalistic. This essay will study the maximalistic perception through the theory of Linz and Stepans four arenas of democratic consolidation, political society, civil society, the rule of law and state bureaucracy and be doing so as a qualitative theory consuming diachronical comparative study. The arenas will in turn be broken down into statements to make them easier to measure. This essay concludes that both periods have had democratic problems regarding all arenas. The widespread corruption remains as a main problem through both periods as do the low institutional trust, although in the second period the Crimea-conflict becomes the bigger political priority which affects the ongoing democratic process. Despite this civil society has remained strong and forced forward change when needed. To conclude there has been improvements but Ukraine still faces large democratic challenges.

This study aims to utilize Juan J. Linz and Alfred Stepan's (1996) theory of democratic consolidation with its five interactive arenas to comprehend how the Belarusian dictatorship consolidated during the 1990s. A crucial aspect to achieve this aim is to ascertain whether the theory can provide clarity on when autocratic consolidation has occurred, or if it rather elucidates the process of autocratization in Belarus. The paper adopts a descriptive qualitative case study methodology with a deductive approach. By flipping the theory's perspective and examining how the regime undermined the arenas to strengthen autocracy, the study reveals the extent to which Belarus fulfills Linz and Stepan's (1996) three criteria of behavioral, attitudinal, and constitutional consolidation to gain insights into the consolidation of the Belarusian dictatorship. The findings reveal that the Lukashenko-led Belarusian regime systematically eroded aspects across all five arenas to consolidate its dictatorship. However, given the unascertainable attitudinal consolidation that transpired in Belarus during the 1990s, the study cannot pinpoint when autocratic consolidation occurred. Instead, it concludes that an autocratization process began under Lukashenko's rule, facilitated by political, social, legal, institutional, and economic maneuvers aimed at consolidating power. Taken together, the results deepen our understanding of what strategies autocratic regimes may employ to strengthen autocracy.