Competitive Authoritarianism

A hybrid regime is a mixed type of political system often created as a result of an incomplete transition from an authoritarian regime to a democratic one (or vice versa). Hybrid regimes are categorized as combine autocratic features with democratic ones and can simultaneously hold political repressions and regular elections. Hybrid regimes are commonly found in developing countries with abundant natural resources such as petro-states. Although these regimes experience civil unrest they maybe relatively stable and tenacious for decades at a time. There has been a rise in hybrid regimes since the end of the Cold War.

The term ''hybrid regime'' arises from a polymorphic view of political regimes that opposes the dichotomy of autocracy or democracy. Modern scholarly analysis of hybrid regimes focuses attention on the decorative nature of democratic institutions (elections do not lead to a change of power, different media broadcast government point of view and the opposition in parliament votes the same way as the ruling party, among others), from which it is concluded that democratic backsliding, a transition to authoritarianism is the most prevalent basis of hybrid regimes. Some scholars also contend that hybrid regimes may imitate a full dictatorship.

History

The third wave of democratization has led to the emergence of hybrid regimes that are neither fully democratic nor fully authoritarian. Neither the concept of illiberal democracy, nor the concept of electoral authoritarianism fully describes these hybrid regimes.Matthijs Bogaards. 2009. «How to Classify Hybrid Regimes? Defective Democracy and Electoral Authoritarianism.» Democratization, 16 (2): 399—423.;

Since the end of the Cold War, such regimes have become the most common among undemocratic.Andreas Schedler. ed., 2006. Electoral Authoritarianism: The Dynamics of Unfree Competition, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner; At the end of the process of transformation of authoritarian regimes, limited elections appear in one way or another when liberalization occurs. Liberal democracy has always been assumed while in practice this process basically froze "halfway".YONATAN L. MORS
Review: THE ERA OF ELECTORAL AUTHORITARIANISM
World Politics; Vol. 64, No. 1 (January 2012), pp. 161—198 (38 pages)

In relation to regimes that were previously called "transitional" in the 1980s, the term ''hybrid regime'' began to be used and was strengthened because according to Thomas Carothers the majority of "transitional countries" are neither completely dictatorial nor aspiring to democracy and by and large they can not 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.

One of the first to use the concept of "hybrid regime" was the sociologist Elemér Hankiss when analyzing the Goulash Communism of János Kádár's Hungary.

Definition

Scholars vary on the definition of hybrid regimes based on their primary academic discipline.

According to professor Matthijs Bogaards hybrid types are

Pippa Norris defined hybrid regimes as:

Professor Henry E. Hale defined hybrid regimes as;

Leonardo Morlino defined hybrid regimes as;

Professor Jeffrey C. Isaac defined hybrid regimes as:

The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance defined hybrid regimes as;

Indicators

According to Guillermo O'Donnell, Philippe C. Schmitter, Larry Diamond and Thomas Carothers, signs of a hybrid regime include:
# The presence of external attributes of democracy (elections, multi-party system, legal opposition).
# Low degree of representation of the interests of citizens in the process of political decision-making (incapacity of associations of citizens, for example trade unions, or that they are in state control).
# Low level of political participation.
# The declarative nature of political rights and freedoms (formally there is in fact difficult implementation).
# Low level of trust in political institutions by citizens.

Democratic backsliding

Democratisation

Measurement

There are various democratic freedom indices produced by non-governmental organizations that publish assessments of the worlds political systems, according to their own definitions.

Democracy Index

According to the Democracy Index compiled by the Economist Intelligence Unit there are 34 hybrid regimes, representing approximately 20% of countries, encompassing 17.2% to 20.5% of the worlds population.

The Democracy Index defines hybrid regimes with the following characteristics;

* Electoral fraud or irregularities occur regularly
* Pressure is applied to political opposition
* Corruption is widespread and rule of law tends to be weak
* Media is pressured and harassed
* There are issues in the functioning of governance

As of 2021 the countries considered hybrid regimes by the "Democracy Index" are:

* Bangladesh
* El Salvador
* North Macedonia
* Ukraine
* Moldova
* Montenegro
* Malawi
* Fiji
* Bhutan
* Madagascar
* Senegal
* Hong Kong
* Honduras
* Armenia
* Liberia
* Georgia
* Nepal
* Tanzania
* Bolivia
* Kenya
* Morocco
* Guatemala
* Uganda
* Zambia
* Sierra Leone
* Benin
* Gambia
* Turkey
* Pakistan
* Haiti
* Kyrgyzstan
* Lebanon
* Ivory Coast
* Nigeria

V-Dem Institute

According to the V-Dem Institute compiled by the University of Gothenburg there are 65 hybrid regimes.Coppedge, Michael, John Gerring, Carl Henrik Knutsen, Staffan I. Lindberg,Jan Teorell, David Altman, Michael Bernhard, Agnes Cornell, M. Steven Fish, Lisa Gastaldi,Haakon Gjerløw, Adam Glynn, Allen Hicken, Anna Lührmann, Seraphine F. Maerz, Kyle L.Marquardt, Kelly McMann, Valeriya Mechkova, Pamela Paxton, Daniel Pemstein, Johannes vonRömer, Brigitte Seim, Rachel Sigman, Svend-Erik Skaaning, Jeffrey Staton, Aksel Sundtröm, EitanTzelgov, Luca Uberti, Yi-ting Wang, Tore Wig, and Daniel Ziblatt. 2021. "V-Dem Codebook v11"Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Projec

V-Dem's "Regimes of the World" indicators identify four political regimes: closed autocracies, electoral autocracies, electoral democracies, and liberal democracies with both electoral autocracies and electoral democracies grouped as hybrid regimes.

According to the V-Dem Institute:

Freedom House

Freedom House "measures the level of democratic governance in 29 countries from Central Europe to Central Asia".

Freedom House classifies transitional or hybrid regimes as;

Freedom house has classified 11 of 29 countries analyzed as "Transitional or Hybrid Regimes";
* Armenia
* Georgia
* Moldova
* Bosnia and Herzegovina
* Kosovo
* Ukraine
* Hungary
* Albania
* Serbia
* North Macedonia
* Montenegro

Typology

According to Yale professor Juan José Linz there a three main types of political systems today: democracies,
totalitarian regimes and, sitting between these two, authoritarian regimes with many different terms that describe specific types of hybrid regimes.

Academics generally refer to a full dictatorship as either a form of authoritarianism or totalitarianism over a "hybrid system". Authoritarian governments that conduct elections are in many scholars view not hybrids, but are successful well-institutionalized stable authoritarian regimes. Democratic elements can simultaneously serve authoritarian purposes and contribute to democratization.

Electoral authoritarianism

Electoral authoritarianism means that democratic institutions are imitative and, due to numerous systematic violations of liberal democratic norms, in fact adhere to authoritarian methods. Electoral authoritarianism can be competitive and hegemonic, and the latter does not necessarily mean election irregularities. A. Schedler calls electoral authoritarianism a new form of authoritarian regime, not a hybrid regime or illiberal democracy. Moreover, a purely authoritarian regime does not need elections as a source of legitimacy 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.

Dominant-party system

Delegative democracy

Dictablanda

Illiberal democracy

Guided democracy

Liberal autocracy

Semi-democracy

Defective democracy

Embedded democracy

See also

* Authoritarian democracy
* Embedded democracy
*Delegative democracy
*Types of democracy
*Democracy-Dictatorship Index
* Hybrid institutions and governance

Notes

References

Further reading

Contemporary analysts

*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Beatriz Magaloni
. 2010. "The Game of Electoral Fraud and the Ousting of Authoritarian Rule." American Journal of Political Science, 54 (3): 751-65.">Beatriz Magaloni">Beatriz Magaloni
. 2010. "The Game of Electoral Fraud and the Ousting of Authoritarian Rule." American Journal of Political Science, 54 (3): 751-65.

Research history

The researchers conducted a comparative analysis of political regimes around the world (Samuel Finer 1970), in developing countries
Almond and Coleman, 1960
, among Latin America
Collier 1979
and West Africa regimes
Zolberg, 1966
. Types of non-democratic regimes are described
Linz, 2000, originally published in 1975
an
Perlmutter, 1981
. Huntington and Moore
Huntington and Moore, 1970
discuss the one-party system issue Hermet
Guy Hermet, Rose, & Rouquie 1978
explores how elections are held in such authoritarian regimes,which are nominally democratic institutions.

"Hybrid regimes"
Diamond 2002
, "competitive authoritarianism"
Levitsky and Way 2002
and "electoral authoritarianism"
Schedler, 2006
as well as how officials who came to power in an undemocratic way form election rules
Lust-Okar and Jamal, 2002
, institutionalize electoral frauds
Lehoucq 2003Schedler 2002
and manipulate the economy
L. Blaydes
2006
Magaloni 2006
in order to win the election and stay in power.

External links

Hybrid Concepts and the Concept of Hybridity
- European Consortium for Political Research
Political regime, 2021
- Our World in Data
{{Political spectrum
Mixed government