This chapter develops the book’s conceptual and analytical framework for understanding autocratization, situating it within the broader literature on democratic backsliding and regime change. It reviews definitional debates, noting the limits of classic breakdown theories focused on abrupt collapses and the lack of consensus in approaches to incremental erosion. Building on critiques of the “transition paradigm” and earlier hybrid regime typologies, the chapter adopts “autocratization” as a sustained, incumbent-driven process of democratic erosion beginning in the first electoral cycle after authoritarian-leaning actors gain office, marked by systematic violations of a level playing field. It distinguishes this from temporary backsliding and specifies thresholds for identifying autocratization and competitive authoritarianism, applying Levitsky and Way’s concept while introducing a benchmark of at least two consecutive electoral cycles. The discussion examines institutional design debates about parliamentary vs. presidential systems and synthesizes scholarship on key mechanisms, including crisis exploitation, polarization, party-state fusion, and nationalist legitimation. The chapter concludes by outlining scope conditions, emphasizing applicability to parliamentary democracies and adaptability to cases where identity politics weaken democratic safeguards. This operationalized, context-sensitive approach underpins the book’s empirical analysis of Hungary and Macedonia while enabling comparative application across varied institutional and cultural settings.