The termhybrid regime arises from a polymorphic view of political regimes that oppose the dichotomy ofautocracy ordemocracy.[14] Modern scholarly analysis of hybrid regimes focuses attention on the decorative nature ofdemocratic institutions (elections do not lead to a change of power, different media broadcast the government point of view and the opposition inparliament votes the same way as the ruling party, among others),[15] from which it is concluded thatdemocratic backsliding, a transition to authoritarianism is the most prevalent basis of hybrid regimes.[b][16] Some scholars also contend that hybrid regimes may imitate a fulldictatorship.[17][18]
Scholars vary on the definition of hybrid regimes based on their primaryacademic discipline.[19] According to Christoph Mohamad-Klotzbach, "Some scholars argue that deficient democracies and deficient autocracies can be seen as examples of hybrid regimes, whereas others argue that hybrid regimes combine characteristics of both democratic and autocratic regimes."[3] Scholars also debate if these regimes are in transition or are inherently a stable political system.[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27]
In 1995Terry Karl introduced the notion of "hybrid" regime, which was simply defined as "combining democratic and authoritarian elements".[28]
not diminished subtypes, since they do not lack the full development of a characteristic, but rather they exhibit a mixture of characteristics of both basic types, so that they simultaneously combine autocratic and democratic dimensions or institutions
a system characterized by weak checks and balances on executive powers, flawed or even suspended elections, fragmented opposition forces, state restrictions on media freedoms, intellectuals, and civil society organizations, curbs on the independence of the judiciary and disregard for rule of law, the abuse of human rights by the security forces, and tolerance of authoritarian values.
a political regime that combines some democratic and some autocratic elements in a significant manner. It is not, however, a mere half-way category: hybrid regimes have their own distinct dynamics that do not simply amount to half of what we would see in a democracy plus half of what we would see in an autocracy.
a set of institutions that have been persistent, be they stable or unstable, for about a decade, have been preceded by authoritarianism, a traditional regime (possibly with colonial characteristics), or even a minimal democracy and are characterized by the break-up of limited pluralism and forms of independent, autonomous participation, but the absence of at least one of the four aspects of a minimal democracy
Hybrid regimes have the common feature that they all have competition, although the political elite in power deliberately rearranges state regulations and the political arena as to grant itself undue advantages
Countriesautocratizing (red) ordemocratizing (blue) substantially and significantly (2010–2020). Countries in grey are substantially unchanged.[34]
Thethird wave of democratization from the 1970s onward has led to the emergence of hybrid regimes that are neither fully democratic nor fully authoritarian.[35] Neither the concept ofilliberal democracy, nor the concept of electoral authoritarianism fully describes these hybrid regimes.[36][37]
Since the end of theCold War, such regimes have become the most common among undemocratic countries.[38][39] At the end of the process of transformation of authoritarian regimes, limited elections appear in one way or another whenliberalization occurs. Liberal democracy has always been assumed while in practice this process basically froze "halfway".[40]
In relation to regimes that were previously called "transitional" in the 1980s, the termhybrid regime began to be used and was strengthened according toThomas Carothers:
the majority of “transitional countries” are neither completely dictatorial nor aspiring to democracy, and by and large they cannot be called transitional. They are located in the politically stable gray zone, changes in which may not take place for decades. Thus, he stated that hybrid regimes must be considered without the assumption that they will ultimately become democracies. These hybrid regimes were called semi-authoritarianism or electoral authoritarianism.[41]
Hybrid regimes have evolved to lean more authoritarian while keeping some democratic traits.[42] One of the main issues with authoritarian rule is the ability to control the threats from the masses, and democratic elements in hybrid regimes can reduce social tension between the masses and the elite.[43] After thethird wave of democratization, some regimes became stuck in the transition to democracy, causing the creation of weak democratic institutions.[44] This results from a lack of institutional ownership during critical points in the transition period leading the regime into a gray zone between democracy and autocracy.[45]
These developments have caused some scholars to believe that hybrid regimes are not poorly functioning democracies, but rather new forms ofauthoritarian regimes.[46] Defective democratic stability is an indicator to explain and measure these new forms of autocracies.[47] Additionally, approval ratings of political leaders play an important role in these types of regimes, and democratic elements can drive up the ratings of astrongman leader creating a tool not utilized previously.[48] Today, 'hybrid regime' is a term used to explain a growing field of political development where authoritarian leaders incorporate elements of democracy that stabilize their regimes.[49]
The presence of external attributes of democracy (elections, multi-party system, legal opposition).
A low degree of representation of the interests of citizens in the process of political decision-making (incapacity of associations of citizens, for exampletrade unions, or that they are in state control).
A low level of political participation.
The declarative nature of political rights and freedoms (formally there is in fact difficult implementation).
A low level of trust in political institutions by the citizenry.
Whether and to what extent democratization occurs can be influenced by various factors, including economic development, historical legacies, civil society, and international processes. Some accounts of democratization emphasize how elites drove democratization, whereas other accounts emphasize grassroots bottom-up processes.[67] How democratization occurs has also been used to explain other political phenomena, such as whether a country goes to a war or whether its economy grows.[68]
There are various democratic freedom indices produced byintergovernmental andnon-governmental organizations that publish assessments of the worlds political systems, according to their own definitions.[69]
According to theDemocracy Index compiled by theEconomist Intelligence Unit there are 34 hybrid regimes, representing approximately 20% of countries, encompassing 17.2% to 20.5% of the world's population.[70]
"The EIU Democracy Index is based on ratings across 60 indicators, grouped into five categories: electoral process and pluralism, civil liberties, the functioning of government, political participation and political culture."[69] The Democracy Index defines hybrid regimes with the following characteristics:[70]
Electoral fraud or irregularities occur regularly
Pressure is applied to political opposition
Corruption is widespread and rule of law tends to be weak
According to the "Global State of Democracy Report" byInternational Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA), there are twenty hybrid regimes.[71] "International IDEA compiles data from 12 different data sources, including expert surveys and observational data includes the extent to which voting rights are inclusive, political parties are free to form and campaign for office, elections are free, and political offices are filled through elections."[69] IDEA defined hybrid regimes as:[72]
Combination of the elements of authoritarianism with democracy ... These often adopt the formal characteristics of democracy (while allowing little real competition for power) with weak respect for basic political and civil rights
As of 2021 the countries considered hybrid regimes by the "Global State of Democracy Report" are:[73]
According to theV-Dem Democracy Indices compiled by theV-Dem Institute at theUniversity of Gothenburg there are 65 hybrid regimes.[75] V-Dem's "Regimes of the World" indicators identify four political regimes: closed autocracies, electoral autocracies, electoral democracies, and liberal democracies.[76]
In 2021, 70% of the world population – 5.4 billion people – live in closed or electoral autocracies.A mere 13% of the world's population reside in liberal democracies, and 16% in electoral democracies.
"Freedom House assign scores to countries and territories across the globe on 10 indicators of political rights (e.g., whether there is a realistic opportunity for opposition parties to gain power through elections) and 15 indicators of civil liberties (e.g., whether there is a free and independent media)."[69] Freedom House classifies transitional or hybrid regimes as:[79]
Countries that are typically electoral democracies where democratic institutions are fragile, and substantial challenges to the protection of political rights and civil liberties exist
In 2022, Freedom House classified 11 of 29 countries analyzed as "Transitional or Hybrid Regimes":[79]
Academics generally refer to a fulldictatorship as either a form ofauthoritarianism ortotalitarianism over a "hybrid system".[83][81][84] Authoritarian governments that conduct elections are in many scholars view not hybrids, but are successful well-institutionalized stable authoritarian regimes.[b][85][86][87] Democratic elements can simultaneously serve authoritarian purposes and contribute to democratization.[88]
Electoral authoritarianism means that democratic institutions are imitative and, due to numerous systematic violations of liberal democratic norms, in fact adhere to authoritarian methods.[89] Electoral authoritarianism can be competitive and hegemonic, and the latter does not necessarily mean election irregularities.[40] A. Schedler calls electoral authoritarianism a new form of authoritarian regime, not a hybrid regime orilliberal democracy.[40] Moreover, a purely authoritarian regime does not need elections as a source oflegitimacy[90] while non-alternative elections, appointed at the request of the ruler, are not a sufficient condition for considering the regime conducting them to be hybrid.[89]
Electoral autocracy is a hybrid regime, in which democratic institutions are imitative and adhere toauthoritarian methods. In these regimes, regular elections are held, but they are accused of failing to reach democratic standards of freedom and fairness.[91][92]
The term "illiberal democracy" describes agoverning system that hides its "nondemocratic practices behind formally democratic institutions and procedures".[93] There is a lack of consensus among experts about the exact definition of illiberal democracy, however, it may be used broadly to refer to the notion that some governments attempt to look like democracies while suppressing opposing views.[94]
The rulers of an illiberal democracy may ignore or bypassconstitutional limits on their power.[95] While liberal democracies protect individual rights and freedoms, illiberal democracies do not.[96] Elections in an illiberal democracy are often manipulated or rigged, being used to legitimize and consolidate the incumbent rather than to choose the country's leaders and policies.[97]
According to juristAndrás Sajó, illiberal democracy should be counted as a type of democracy because it is "democratic in aplebiscitarian sense",[98] while political scientist Ulrich Wagrandl argues that "illiberal democracy is actually more true to democracy’s roots".[99] Other theorists say that classifying illiberal democracy as democratic is overly sympathetic to the illiberal regimes,[100] and therefore prefer terms such as electoral authoritarianism,[101] competitive authoritarianism,[102] or soft authoritarianism.[103][104]
Adominant-party system, or one-party dominant system, is a political occurrence in which a single political party continuously dominates election results over running opposition groups or parties.[105] Any ruling party staying in power for more than one consecutive term may be considered adominant party (also referred to as apredominant orhegemonic party).[106] Some dominant parties were called thenatural governing party, given their length of time in power.[107][108][109]
In political science,delegative democracy is a mode of governance close toCaesarism,Bonapartism orcaudillismo with a strong leader in a newly created otherwise democratic government. The concept arose from Argentinian political scientistGuillermo O'Donnell, who notes that representative democracy as it exists is usually linked solely to highly developed capitalist countries. However, newly installed democracies do not seem to be on a path of becoming fully representative democracies,[110] and instead exhibit authoritarian tendencies.[111] O'Donnell calls the former delegative democracies, for they are not fully consolidated democracies but may be enduring.
For a representative democracy to exist, there must be an important interaction effect. The successful cases have featured a decisive coalition of broadly supported political leaders who take great care in creating and strengthening democratic political institutions.[110] By contrast, the delegative form is partially democratic, for the president has a free rein to act and justify his or her acts in the name of the people. The president can "govern as he sees fit" even if it does not resemble promises made while running for election. The president claims to represent the whole nation rather than just a political party, embodying even the legislature and the judiciary.[112]
O'Donnell's notion of delegative democracy has been criticized as being misleading, because he renders thedelegative model that is core to many current democratic governments worldwide into a negative concept.[113]
Dictablanda is adictatorship in whichcivil liberties are allegedly preserved rather than destroyed. The worddictablanda is apun on the Spanish worddictadura ("dictatorship"), replacingdura, which by itself is a word meaning 'hard', withblanda, meaning 'soft'.
In a guided democracy, the government controls elections such that the people can exercise democratic rights without truly changing public policy. While they follow basicdemocratic principles, there can be major deviations towardsauthoritarianism. Under managed democracy, the state's continuous use ofpropaganda techniques, such as throughmanufacturing consent, prevents the electorate from having a significant impact on policy.[121]
The concept is also related tosemi-democracy, also known asanocracy.
Anocracy, or semi-democracy,[126] is aform of government that is loosely defined as partdemocracy and partdictatorship,[127][128] or as a "regime that mixes democratic with autocratic features".[128] Another definition classifies anocracy as "a regime that permits some means of participation through opposition group behavior, but that has incomplete development of mechanisms to redress grievances."[129][130] The term "semi-democratic" is reserved for stable regimes that combine democratic andauthoritarian elements.[131][132] Scholars distinguish anocracies fromautocracies and democracies in their capability to maintain authority, political dynamics, and policy agendas.[133] Anocratic regimes have democratic institutions that allow for nominal amounts of competition.[127] Such regimes are particularly susceptible to outbreaks of armed conflict and unexpected or adverse changes in leadership.[134]
Defective democracy (or flawed democracy) is a concept that was proposed by the political scientists Wolfgang Merkel,Hans-Jürgen Puhle andAurel S. Croissant at the beginning of the 21st century to subtilize the distinctions betweentotalitarian,authoritarian, anddemocraticpolitical systems.[135][136] It is based on the concept ofembedded democracy. While there are four forms of defective democracy, how each nation reaches the point of defectiveness varies.[137] One recurring theme is the geographical location of the nation, which includes the effects of the influence of surrounding nations in the region. Other causes for defective democracies include their path of modernization, level of modernization,economic trends,social capital, civil society, political institutions, and education.
Embedded democracy is a form ofgovernment in which democratic governance is secured by democratic partial regimes.[138][139][140] The term "embedded democracy" was coined by political scientists Wolfgang Merkel,Hans-Jürgen Puhle, andAurel Croissant, who identified "five interdependent partial regimes" necessary for an embedded democracy: electoral regime, political participation, civil rights, horizontal accountability, and the power of the elected representatives to govern.[141] The five internal regimes work together to check the power of the government, while external regimes also help to secure and stabilize embedded democracies.[142] Together, all the regimes ensure that an embedded democracy is guided by the three fundamental principles of freedom, equality, and control.[143][144]
Competitive Authoritarian Regimes (or Competitive Authoritarianism) is a subtype ofAuthoritarianism and of the wider Hybrid Regime regime type. This regime type was created to encapsulate states that contained formal democratic institutions that rulers viewed as the principal means of obtaining and exercising legitimate political authority with a meaningful opposition and other semblances of democratic political society. However officials violate elections frequently and interfere with opposition organisations causing the regime to miss the minimum conventional standard fordemocracy.[145][146][147][148]
Three main instruments are used within Competitive Authoritarian Regimes to maintainpolitical power: the self-serving use of state institutions (regarding abuses of electoral and judicial institutions such as voter intimidation and voter fraud); the overuse of state resources (to gain influence and/or power over proportional representation media, and use legal resources to disturb constitutional change); and the disruption of civil liberties (such as freedom of speech/press and association).[146]
Currently, within the political sphere, Competitive Authoritarianism has become a crucial regime type that has grown exponentially since the Post-Soviet era in multiple world regions without signs of slowing. On the contrary, there has been growth of Competitive Authoritarianism within previously steadfastdemocratic regimes, which has been attributed to the recent phenomenon ofdemocratic backsliding.[149][147]
^Göbel, Christian (2011). "Semiauthoritarianism".21st Century Political Science: A Reference Handbook. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks California 91320 United States: SAGE Publications, Inc. pp. 258–266.doi:10.4135/9781412979351.n31.ISBN9781412969017.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
^Tlemcani, Rachid (2007-05-29)."Electoral Authoritarianism".Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.Archived from the original on 2023-04-06. Retrieved2022-11-16.
^Cassani, Andrea (September 3, 2013). "Hybrid what? Partial consensus and persistent divergences in the analysis of hybrid regimes".International Political Science Review.35 (5). SAGE:542–558.doi:10.1177/0192512113495756.ISSN0192-5121.S2CID144881011.
^abcПодлесный, Д. В. (2016).Политология: Учебное пособие [Political Science: Textbook] (in Russian). Kharkiv: ХГУ НУА. pp. 62–65/164.Archived from the original on 2023-04-22. Retrieved2019-08-13.
^Schulmann, Ekaterina (15 August 2014)."Царство политической имитации" [The kingdom of political imitation].Ведомости.Archived from the original on 2019-07-30. Retrieved2019-08-13.
^Hale, Henry E. (2010). "Eurasian Polities as Hybrid Regimes: The Case of Putin's Russia".Journal of Eurasian Studies.1 (1). SAGE Publications:33–41.doi:10.1016/j.euras.2009.11.001.ISSN1879-3665.
^Isaac, J. C. (1998).Democracy in Dark Times. Cornell University Press. p. 199.ISBN978-0-8014-8454-4.
^Newton, Kenneth; van Deth, Jan W. (2021).Foundations of comparative politics: democracies of the modern world. Cambridge, United Kingdom.ISBN978-1-108-92494-8.OCLC1156414956.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
^abMietzner, Marcus (2021). "Sources of resistance to democratic decline: Indonesian civil society and its trials".Democratization.28 (1):161–178.doi:10.1080/13510347.2020.1796649.S2CID225475139.
^Mudde, Cas and Kaltwasser, Cristóbal Rovira (2017)Populism: a Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. pp.86-96.ISBN978-0-19-023487-4
^Laebens, Melis G.; Lührmann, Anna (2021). "What halts democratic erosion? The changing role of accountability".Democratization.28 (5):908–928.doi:10.1080/13510347.2021.1897109.S2CID234870008.
^Daly, Tom Gerald (2019). "Democratic Decay: Conceptualising an Emerging Research Field".Hague Journal on the Rule of Law.11:9–36.doi:10.1007/s40803-019-00086-2.S2CID159354232.
^Chull Shin, Doh (2021). "Democratic deconsolidation in East Asia: exploring system realignments in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan".Democratization.28 (1):142–160.doi:10.1080/13510347.2020.1826438.S2CID228959708.
^Cassani, Andrea; Tomini, Luca (2019). "What Autocratization Is".Autocratization in post-Cold War Political Regimes. Springer International Publishing. pp. 15–35.ISBN978-3-030-03125-1.
^Walder, D.; Lust, E. (2018)."Unwelcome Change: Coming to Terms with Democratic Backsliding".Annual Review of Political Science.21 (1):93–113.doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-050517-114628.Backsliding entails deterioration of qualities associated with democratic governance, within any regime. In democratic regimes, it is a decline in the quality of democracy; in autocracies, it is a decline in democratic qualities of governance.
^International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (2021).The Global State of Democracy 2021: Building resilience in a Pandemic Era.ISBN978-91-7671-478-2.OCLC1288461480.
^Гудков, Лев (2009)."Природа "Путинизма"" [The nature of "Putinism"].Вестник общественного мнения. Данные. Анализ. Дискуссии.3: 13.Archived from the original on 2019-08-13. Retrieved2019-08-13.
^Bonet, Lluis; Zamorano, Mariano Martín (2021). "Cultural policies in illiberal democracies: a conceptual framework based on the Polish and Hungarian governing experiences".International Journal of Cultural Policy.27 (5):559–573.doi:10.1080/10286632.2020.1806829.S2CID225285163.
^Nyyssönen, Heino; Metsälä, Jussi (24 September 2020)."Liberal Democracy and its Current Illiberal Critique: The Emperor's New Clothes?".Europe-Asia Studies.73 (2):273–290.doi:10.1080/09668136.2020.1815654.Thus, there is a real danger of 'pseudo-democracy', especially because elections can be manipulated and often are. In these cases, elections and other democratic institutions are simply adapted patterns of authoritarianism, not democracy in some imperfect form, having the dual purpose of legitimising the incumbent's rule and guarding it from any danger of democratic change.
^"Natural Governing Party".The Dictionary of Canadian Politics. Campbell Strategies. 2022. Retrieved5 December 2022.
^"The Wonder Boy".Hoover: An Extraordinary Life in Extraordinary Times. Knopf Doubleday. 2017. p. 338.ISBN9780307743879.The Republicans had come to see themselves as the natural governing party of the United States. Leaving aside the Cleveland and Wilson accidents, they had been in power since Grant's day. If Republican delegates declared an uncharismatic Hoover worthy of the presidency, voters were unlikely to argue.
^Sultana, Tasneem. (2012).The Evolution of Democracy through the Ages: Focus on the European Experience. 28. p. 38. "[Guided democracy] is also called Directed Democracy."
^abFearon, James; Laitan, David (February 2003). "Ethnicity, Insurgency, and Civil War".American Political Science Review.97:75–90.doi:10.1017/S0003055403000534.S2CID8303905.
^Regan, Patrick; Bell, Sam (December 2010). "Changing Lanes or Stuck in the Middle: Why Are Anocracies More Prone to Civil Wars?".Political Science Quarterly.63 (4):747–759.doi:10.1177/1065912909336274.S2CID154960398.
^Benson, Michelle; Kugler, Jackek (April 1998). "Power Parity, Democracy, and Severity of Internal Violence".Journal of Conflict Resolution.42 (2):196–209.doi:10.1177/0022002798042002004.S2CID143823486.
^Buhllman, Mark; Merkel, Wolfgang; Wessels, Bernhard (April 2008). "The Quality of Democracy: Democracy Barometer for Established Democracies".Hertie School of Governance - Working Papers.
Politics portal
