What's the oldest democracy to fall into authoritarianism due to internal reasons?

Obviously there's the semantic issue of what counts as a real democracy but a fairly relaxed definition is probably best for discussion.

So what is the country with the longest democratic tradition that, through internal political mechanisms, abandoned them for some form of authoritarian rule?
 
Obviously there's the semantic issue of what counts as a real democracy but a fairly relaxed definition is probably best for discussion.

So what is the country with the longest democratic tradition that, through internal political mechanisms, abandoned them for some form of authoritarian rule?

Rome?
 
I suppose, although I was thinking in the modern era.

I'm genuinely struggling to think of any examples with more than 20-30 years democratic tradition, maybe somewhere in South America?

Brazil went 41 years between the establishment of the republic and Vargas' coup.
 
Chile had 150 years before Pinochet, but that leaves out a couple of civil wars and some major instability. That said the country was generally democratic, and function, so take it as you will.
 
I would say Argentina as one example. From 1861 to 1930, there wasn't a single coup attempt or revolution. Then everything went to hell for about five decad s.
 
*Cough* America during the Red Scare and War on Terror*cough*

Quasi-sincere snark notwithstanding, I dunno. Some of those Latin American caudillos probably should count, I think. The CIA and fruit companies may have given a push, but it wouldn't have worked if those countries' militaries weren't willing to go along with it.
 
*Cough* America during the Red Scare and War on Terror*cough*

Quasi-sincere snark notwithstanding, I dunno. Some of those Latin American caudillos probably should count, I think. The CIA and fruit companies may have given a push, but it wouldn't have worked if those countries' militaries weren't willing to go along with it.

I'd include them anyway. The CIA etc did use internal tools to achieve their aim.
 
Abraham Lincoln took some extraordinary measures during the Civil War.

You can argue the Germanic tribes were democratic more or less but turned into monarchies and such from Charlemagne, if not earlier, onwards.

Chile had 150 years before Pinochet, but that leaves out a couple of civil wars and some major instability. That said the country was generally democratic, and function, so take it as you will.

It certainly does, looking at the 1920s and 1930s in Chile. I guess from the first Chilean Civil War to the overthrow of José Manuel Balmaceda, and at most, until the aforementioned instability of the 1920s and 1930s you have something which meets this. It was always the most stable Latin American country, and it's ironic that Chile played host to possibly the most infamous dictatorship in Pinochet's rule.
 
San Marino might count, they were a de jure one party state for 17 years under a Fascist government, and they have the longest democratic tradition, of course they were influenced to a degree by surrounding Italy
 
Liberia? If 100 years of one party minority rule and blatant vote fixing counts as democracy anyway.

No way it should, since President Charles D.B. King was once listed in the Guiness World Records book as the winner of the most fraudulent election. He won 234,000 votes to 15,000 registered voters in 1927. From everything I get at, the True Whig Party in Liberia was worse than the pro-Apartheid parties in South Africa in terms of one-party minority rule.
 
Japan had an elected legislature and was something of a constitutional monarchy before the Black Dragon jagoffs took over. They at least had a generation of functional democracy in the Meiji era. Granted voting wasn't really expanded until 1925, but it counts for something.
 
Top