본 논문은 사회주의 국가의 개혁 및 체제전환을 지배세력 내 분열에 의한 ‘러시아형’, 민중봉기를 통한 ‘동부유럽형’, 타협을 통한 ‘중부유럽형’, 위로부터의 초보적 정치개혁의 ‘중국형’, 당국가 위계제를 고수하고 있는 ‘쿠바형’ 등으로 유형화하여 각 유형별 정치적 다원주의 수용 및 공고화 과정을 비교하였다.그 결과 체제전환의 결정적 요인으로 체제정당성의 상실, 국제 정치?경제적 역학관계, 시민들의 체제전환의 이익 증가 등을 제시하였다. 그런데 동구 사회주의 국가의 체제전환 이후의 정치체제를 보면, 정당 간 경쟁과 정기적인 선거라는 최소한의 절차적 민주주의의 여건은 갖추었으나 구체적인 정치의 내용은 자유민주주의체제와 동일하지 않았다. 즉, 법에 의한 통치와 개인의 기본권 보장이라는 자유주의적 요소가 결여되어 중앙집권화된 정부, 자유의 쇠퇴, 폭력적 종족갈등, 전쟁 등을 양산하고 있다. 이러한 자유주의적 요소를 결여한 민주주의를 비자유민주주의라 일컬을 수 있다.This article compares the processes of accommodating political pluralism and those of system consolidation among previous socialist countries that experienced political transition. It suggests five types of the processes: the Russian type developing from the conflicts within political elites, the Eastern European type by citizen resistance, the type for countries in the middle of Europe resulting from coordination between political elites and mass public, the Chinese type through political innovation taken by political elites, and the Cuban type preserving the hierarchy between the Party and the Government. The comparison shows that the determinants of system transition have been the loss of system justice, the dynamic political economic environment in the world, and increasing benefits to mass public from system transition. However, this article finds that the emerging political systems in previous socialist countries from system transition are not the same as that of liberal democratic system. Even though the previous Eastern socialist countries are now equipped with the institutions such as party competitions and regular elections required for the minimum conditions of procedural democracy, their operation of the system is substantially different. In other words, they are lack of certain requirements for liberal democracy. Rule of law and fundamental human rights are not guaranteed in those countries. Meanwhile, they still depend on centralized authorities and experience the recession of liberalism. In addition, because of increasing violence from racial conflicts, the chance of breaking out war becomes higher. Therefore, this article calls the emerging democratic system in the previous socialist countries as illiberal democracy from the consideration of their lack of substantial aspects of liberal democracy.