ABSTRACT
Timor-Leste chose a challenging political road after independence, combining a state-building agenda with the construction of a democratic polity. The institutional choice made by the Constituent Assembly was unusual in the regional context: a semi-presidential system of government. Timor-Leste emerges as a paradoxical case since it has chosen the variety of semi-presidentialism generally regarded as least conducive to democratic success but has also made significant advances in its democratic credentials. A brief analysis of the first three presidential mandates suggests that a specific tradition was invented – the election of “independent”, non-partisan presidents – that favoured the rooting of democracy in the political fabric of the country. However, the fourth presidential election broke the rule as an openly partisan president was elected. At the same time, the zeitgeist in world politics changed from supporting democracy to sliding into autocracy. Important features that sustained Timor-Leste democratic performance have been questioned in the last few years, and fears of autocratic backsliding have emerged if only at their early stages, in part prompted by the ways in which the president interpreted his powers and how the country dealt with the Covid-19 pandemic. A critical disjuncture between legal-rational and charismatic forms of political legitimacy that had hitherto marched hand in hand offers a background to the dilemmas now facing Timor-Leste, which will be put to the test in the next round of elections (between 2022 and 2023).
