fbpx
Wikipedia

Hybrid regime

March 08, 2023

A hybrid regime[a] 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).[b] Hybrid regimes are categorized as a combination of autocratic features with democratic ones and can simultaneously hold political repressions and regular elections.[b] Hybrid regimes are commonly found in developing countries with abundant natural resources such as petro-states.[16][7][17] Although these regimes experience civil unrest, they may be relatively stable and tenacious for decades at a time.[b] There has been a rise in hybrid regimes since the end of the Cold War.[18][19]

The term hybrid regime arises from a polymorphic view of political regimes that opposes the dichotomy of autocracy or democracy.[20] 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),[21] from which it is concluded that democratic backsliding, a transition to authoritarianism is the most prevalent basis of hybrid regimes.[b][22][23] Some scholars also contend that hybrid regimes may imitate a full dictatorship.[24][25]

History

 
Map showing democratization of countries after the Cold War.

The third wave of democratization has led to the emergence of hybrid regimes that are neither fully democratic nor fully authoritarian.[26] Neither the concept of illiberal democracy, nor the concept of electoral authoritarianism fully describes these hybrid regimes.[27][28]

Since the end of the Cold War, such regimes have become the most common among undemocratic.[29][30] 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".[31]

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".[14] 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.[31]

Hybrid regimes have evolved to lean more authoritarian while keeping some democratic traits.[32] 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.[33] After the third wave of democratization, some regimes became stuck in the transition to democracy causing the creation of weak democratic institutions.[34] 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.[35]

This has caused scholars to believe that hybrid regimes are not poorly functioning democracies, but rather new forms of authoritarian regimes.[36] Defective democratic stability is an indicator to explain and measure these new forms of autocracies.[37] Additionally, approval ratings of political leaders play an important role in these types of regimes, and democratic elements can drive up the ratings of a strongman leader which is a tool these kinds of leaders did not utilize beforehand.[38] 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.[39]

Definition

Scholars vary on the definition of hybrid regimes based on their primary academic discipline. "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."[2] Scholars also debate if these regimes are in transition or are inherently a stable political system.[9]

In 1995 Terry Karl introduced the notion of “hybrid” regime, which was simply defined as:[40]

combining democratic and authoritarian elements

According to professor Matthijs Bogaards hybrid types are:[41]

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

Pippa Norris defined hybrid regimes as:[42]

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.

Professor Henry E. Hale defined hybrid regimes as;[23]

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.

Leonardo Morlino defined hybrid regimes as;[23]

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

Professor Jeffrey C. Isaac defined hybrid regimes as:[43]

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

Indicators

According to Guillermo O'Donnell, Philippe C. Schmitter, Larry Diamond and Thomas Carothers, signs of a hybrid regime include:[14][44]

  1. The presence of external attributes of democracy (elections, multi-party system, legal opposition).
  2. 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).
  3. Low level of political participation.
  4. The declarative nature of political rights and freedoms (formally there is in fact difficult implementation).
  5. Low level of trust in political institutions by citizens.

Democratic backsliding

 
Since c. 2010, the number of countries autocratizing (blue) is higher than those democratizing (yellow)
Democratic backsliding, also called autocratization,[45][46][c] is the decline in the democratic characteristics of a political system,[53] and is the opposite of democratization. Democracy is the most popular form of government, with more than half of the nations in the world being democracies according to a 2020 study. This study examined 165 countries and determined that 98 of them were democracies.[54] Since the 2010s, the world has grown more authoritarian, with one quarter of the world's population under democratically backsliding hybrid regimes into the 2020s.[54]

Democratisation

Democratization, or democratisation, is the transition to a more democratic political regime, including substantive political changes moving in a democratic direction.[55] It may be a hybrid regime in transition from an authoritarian regime to a full democracy, a transition from an authoritarian political system to a semi-democracy or transition from a semi-authoritarian political system to a democratic political system.[56] The opposite process is known as democratic backsliding or autocratization.

Measurement

Further information: List of freedom indices

There are various democratic freedom indices produced by intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations that publish assessments of the worlds political systems, according to their own definitions.[57]

Democracy Index

 
Democracy index types

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.[58]

"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."[57] The Democracy Index defines hybrid regimes with the following characteristics;[58]

  • 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
 
The 2021 Economist Intelligence Unit Democracy Index [58]

As of 2021 the countries considered hybrid regimes by the "Democracy Index" are:[58]

Global State of Democracy

According to the "Global State of Democracy Report" by International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) there are 20 hybrid regimes.[59] "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."[57] IDEA defined hybrid regimes as;[60]

Combination of the elements of authoritarianism with democracy (……..).These often adopt the formal characteristics of democracy (while allowing little realcompetition 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:[61]

V-Dem Institute

Map of V-Dem's 2020 Index of Egalitarian Democracy [62]
Red indicates more authoritarian, blue indicates more democratic.

According to the V-Dem Institute compiled by the University of Gothenburg there are 65 hybrid regimes.[63] 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.[64]

According to the V-Dem Institute:[65]

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

 
Freedom House ratings for European Union and surrounding states, in 2019.[66]
  Free
  Partly free
  Not free

Freedom House "measures the level of democratic governance in 29 countries from Central Europe to Central Asia".[67]

"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)."[57] Freedom House classifies transitional or hybrid regimes as;[67]

Countries that are typically electoral democracies where democratic institutions are fragile, and substantial challenges to the protection of political rights and civil liberties exist

Freedom house has classified 11 of 29 countries analyzed as "Transitional or Hybrid Regimes";[67]

Typology

Further information: List of countries by system of government
 
World citizens living under different political regimes, as defined by Polity IV.[68]

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.[b][a][14][69][70]

Academics generally refer to a full dictatorship as either a form of authoritarianism or totalitarianism over a "hybrid system".[71][69][72] Authoritarian governments that conduct elections are in many scholars view not hybrids, but are successful well-institutionalized stable authoritarian regimes.[b][73][74][75] Democratic elements can simultaneously serve authoritarian purposes and contribute to democratization.[76]

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.[77] Electoral authoritarianism can be competitive and hegemonic, and the latter does not necessarily mean election irregularities.[31] A. Schedler calls electoral authoritarianism a new form of authoritarian regime, not a hybrid regime or illiberal democracy.[31] Moreover, a purely authoritarian regime does not need elections as a source of legitimacy[78] 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.[77]

Illiberal democracy

An illiberal democracy describes a governing system in which, although elections take place, citizens are cut off from knowledge about the activities of those who exercise real power because of the lack of civil liberties;[citation needed] thus it does not constitute an open society.

The rulers of an illiberal democracy may ignore or bypass constitutional limits on their power. They also tend to ignore the will of the minority which is what makes the democracy illiberal.[79] 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.[80]

Some theorists say that illiberal democracy is a fundamentally undemocratic hybrid regime and therefore prefer terms such as electoral authoritarianism,[81] competitive authoritarianism,[82] or soft authoritarianism.[83][84]

Dominant-party system

A dominant-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.[85] Any ruling party staying in power for more than one consecutive term may be considered a dominant party (also referred to as a predominant or hegemonic party).[86] Some dominant parties were called the natural governing party, given their length of time in power.[87][88][89]

Dominant-parties and their domination of a state, develop out of one-sided electoral and party constellations within a multi-party system (particularly under presidential systems of governance), and as such differ from states under a one-party system, which are intricately organized around a specific party. Sometimes the term "de facto one-party state" is used to describe dominant-party systems which, unlike a one-party system, allows (at least nominally) democratic multiparty elections, but the existing practices or balance of political power effectively prevent the opposition from winning power, thus resembling a one-party state.

Dominant-party systems differ from the political dynamics of other dominant multi-party constellations such as consociationalism, grand coalitions and two-party systems, which are characterized and sustained by narrow or balanced competition and cooperation.

Delegative democracy

In political science, delegative democracy is a mode of governance close to Caesarism, Bonapartism or caudillismo with a strong leader in a newly created otherwise democratic government. The concept arose from Argentinian political scientist Guillermo 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.[90] 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.[90] 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 Congress and the Judiciary.[91]

O'Donnell's notion of delegative democracy has been criticized as being misleading, because he renders the delegative model that is core to many current democratic governments worldwide into a negative concept.[92]

Dictablanda

Dictablanda is a dictatorship in which civil liberties are allegedly preserved rather than destroyed. The word dictablanda is a pun on the Spanish word dictadura ("dictatorship"), replacing dura, which by itself is a word meaning "hard", with blanda, meaning "soft".

The term was first used in Spain in 1930 when Dámaso Berenguer replaced Miguel Primo de Rivera y Orbaneja as the head of the ruling dictatorial government and attempted to reduce tensions in the country by repealing some of the harsher measures that had been introduced by the latter. It was also used to refer to the latter years of Francisco Franco's Spanish State,[93] and to the hegemonic 70-year rule of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) in Mexico, or by Augusto Pinochet when he was asked about his regime and the accusations about his government.

Analogously, the same pun is made in Portuguese as ditabranda or ditamole. In February 2009, the Brazilian newspaper Folha de S.Paulo ran an editorial classifying the military dictatorship in Brazil (1964–1985) as a "ditabranda", creating controversy.[94]

Guided democracy

Guided democracy, also called managed democracy,[95] is a formally democratic government that functions as a de facto authoritarian government or in some cases, as an autocratic government. Such hybrid regimes are legitimized by elections that are free and fair, but do not change the state's policies, motives, and goals.[96]

In other words, the government controls elections so that the people can exercise all their rights without truly changing public policy. While they follow basic democratic principles, there can be major deviations towards authoritarianism. Under managed democracy, the state's continuous use of propaganda techniques prevents the electorate from having a significant impact on policy.[97]

After World War II, the term was used in Indonesia for the approach to government under the Sukarno administration from 1959 to 1966. It is today widely employed in Russia, where it was introduced into common practice by Kremlin theorists, in particular Gleb Pavlovsky.[98]

Liberal autocracy

A liberal autocracy is a non-democratic government that follows the principles of liberalism. Until the 20th century, most countries in Western Europe were "liberal autocracies, or at best, semi-democracies".[99] One example of a "classic liberal autocracy" was the Austro-Hungarian Empire.[100] According to Fareed Zakaria, a more recent example is Hong Kong until 1 July 1997, which was ruled by the British Crown. He says that until 1991 "it had never held a meaningful election, but its government epitomized constitutional liberalism, protecting its citizens' basic rights and administering a fair court system and bureaucracy".

Semi-democracy

Anocracy or semi-democracy[101] is a form of government that is loosely defined as part democracy and part dictatorship,[102][103] or as a "regime that mixes democratic with autocratic features."[103] 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."[104][105] The term "semi-democratic" is reserved for stable regimes that combine democratic and authoritarian elements.[106][107] Scholars have also distinguished anocracies from autocracies and democracies in their capability to maintain authority, political dynamics, and policy agendas.[108] Similarly, the regimes have democratic institutions that allow for nominal amounts of competition.[102]

Defective democracy

Defective democracies is a concept that was proposed by the political scientists Wolfgang Merkel, Hans-Jürgen Puhle and Aurel S. Croissant at the beginning of the 21st century to subtilize the distinctions between totalitarian, authoritarian, and democratic political systems.[109][110] It is based on the concept of embedded democracy. There are four forms of defective democracy, how each nation reaches the point of defectiveness varies.[111] 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

Embedded democracy is a form of government in which democratic governance is secured by democratic partial regimes.[112][113][114] The term "embedded democracy" was coined by political scientists Wolfgang Merkel, Hans-Jürgen Puhle, and Aurel 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.[115] The five internal regimes work together to check the power of the government, while external regimes also help to secure and stabilize embedded democracies.[116] Together, all the regimes ensure that an embedded democracy is guided by the three fundamental principles of freedom, equality, and control.[117][118]

See also

Notes

  1. ^ a b Scholars uses a variety of terms to encompass the "greyzones” between full autocracies and full democracies such as competitive authoritarianism or semi-authoritarianism or hybrid authoritarianism or electoral authoritarianism or liberal autocracy or delegative democracy or illiberal democracy or guided democracy or semi-democracy or deficient democracy or defective democracy or hybrid democracy.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]
  2. ^ a b c d e f "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."[2] Scholars also debate if these regimes are in transition or are inherently a stable political system.[9][10][11][12][13][14][15]
  3. ^ Other names include democratic decline,[47] de-democratization,[48] democratic erosion,[49] democratic decay,[50] democratic recession,[51] democratic regression,[47] and democratic deconsolidation.[52]

References

  1. ^ Plattner, Marc F. (1969-12-31). "Is Democracy in Decline?". kipdf.com. Retrieved 2022-12-27.
  2. ^ a b c "Hybrid Concepts and the Concept of Hybridity". European Consortium for Political Research. 2019-09-07. Retrieved 2022-11-18.
  3. ^ Urribarri, Raul A. Sanchez (2011). "Courts between Democracy and Hybrid Authoritarianism: Evidence from the Venezuelan Supreme Court". Law & Social Inquiry. Wiley. 36 (4): 854–884. doi:10.1111/j.1747-4469.2011.01253.x. ISSN 0897-6546. JSTOR 41349660. S2CID 232400805. Retrieved 2022-11-16.
  4. ^ 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. ISBN 9781412969017.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
  5. ^ Tlemcani, Rachid (2007-05-29). "Electoral Authoritarianism". Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Retrieved 2022-11-16.
  6. ^ "What is Hybrid Democracy?". Digital Society School. 2022-05-19. Retrieved 2022-11-16.
  7. ^ a b Zinecker, Heidrun (2009). "Regime-Hybridity in Developing Countries: Achievements and Limitations of New Research on Transitions". International Studies Review. [Oxford University Press, Wiley, The International Studies Association]. 11 (2): 302–331. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2486.2009.00850.x. ISSN 1521-9488. JSTOR 40389063. Retrieved 2022-11-18.
  8. ^ "Index". Dem-Dec. 2017-09-23. Retrieved 2022-11-21.
  9. ^ a b Ekman, Joakim (2009). "Political Participation and Regime Stability: A Framework for Analyzing Hybrid Regimes". International Political Science Review. SAGE Publications. 30 (1): 7–31. doi:10.1177/0192512108097054. ISSN 0192-5121. S2CID 145077481.
  10. ^ "Why Parties and Elections in Dictatorships?". How Dictatorships Work. Cambridge University Press. 2018. pp. 129–153. doi:10.1017/9781316336182.006. ISBN 9781316336182.
  11. ^ Riaz, Ali (2019). "What Is a Hybrid Regime?". Voting in a Hybrid Regime. Politics of South Asia. Singapore: Springer Singapore. pp. 9–19. doi:10.1007/978-981-13-7956-7_2. ISBN 978-981-13-7955-0. ISSN 2523-8345. S2CID 198088445.
  12. ^ Schmotz, Alexander (2019-02-13). "Hybrid Regimes". The Handbook of Political, Social, and Economic Transformation. Oxford University Press. pp. 521–525. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198829911.003.0053. ISBN 978-0-19-882991-1.
  13. ^ Morlino, Leonardo (2011-11-01). "Are There Hybrid Regimes?". Changes for DemocracyActors, Structures, Processes. Oxford University Press. pp. 48–69. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199572533.003.0004. ISBN 978-0-19-957253-3.
  14. ^ a b c d Подлесный, Д. В. (2016). Политология: Учебное пособие [Political Science: Textbook] (in Russian). Kharkiv: ХГУ НУА. pp. 62–65/164. Retrieved 2019-08-13.
  15. ^ Schulmann, Ekaterina. "Царство политической имитации" [The kingdom of political imitation]. vedomosti.ru. Retrieved 2019-08-13.
  16. ^ Croissant, A.; Kailitz, S.; Koellner, P.; Wurster, S. (2015). Comparing autocracies in the early Twenty-first Century: Volume 1: Unpacking Autocracies - Explaining Similarity and Difference. Taylor & Francis. p. 212. ISBN 978-1-317-70018-0. Retrieved Nov 27, 2022.
  17. ^ Carothers, Christopher (2018). "The Surprising Instability of Competitive Authoritarianism". Journal of Democracy. 29 (4): 129–135. doi:10.1353/jod.2018.0068. ISSN 1086-3214. S2CID 158234306.
  18. ^ Levitsky, Steven; Way, Lucan (2002). "The Rise of Competitive Authoritarianism". Journal of Democracy. Project Muse. 13 (2): 51–65. doi:10.1353/jod.2002.0026. ISSN 1086-3214. S2CID 6711009.
  19. ^ "Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes After the Cold War". Department of Political Science. Retrieved 2022-11-16.
  20. ^ "Hybrid Regimes". obo.
  21. ^ Mufti, Mariam (Jun 22, 2018). "What Do We Know about Hybrid Regimes after Two Decades of Scholarship?". Politics and Governance. Cogitatio. 6 (2): 112–119. doi:10.17645/pag.v6i2.1400. ISSN 2183-2463. S2CID 158943827.
  22. ^ "Home - IDEA Global State of Democracy Report". International IDEA. Retrieved Nov 26, 2022.
  23. ^ a b c Hameed, Dr. Muntasser Majeed (Jun 30, 2022). "Hybrid regimes: An Overview". IPRI Journal. Islamabad Policy Research Institute - IPRI. 22 (1): 1–24. doi:10.31945/iprij.220101. ISSN 1684-9787. S2CID 251173436.
  24. ^ Schedler, Andreas (Aug 1, 2013). "Shaping the Authoritarian Arena". The Politics of Uncertainty. Oxford University Press. pp. 54–75. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199680320.003.0003. ISBN 978-0-19-968032-0.
  25. ^ Brooker, P. (2013). Non-Democratic Regimes. Comparative Government and Politics. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 222. ISBN 978-1-137-38253-5. Retrieved Nov 27, 2022.
  26. ^ Huntington, S.P. (2012). The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late 20th Century. The Julian J. Rothbaum Distinguished Lecture Series. University of Oklahoma Press. ISBN 978-0-8061-8604-7. Retrieved Nov 16, 2022.
  27. ^ Matthijs Bogaards. 2009. «How to Classify Hybrid Regimes? Defective Democracy and Electoral Authoritarianism.» Democratization, 16 (2): 399—423.;
  28. ^ Gagné, Jean-François (2019-05-02). "Hybrid Regimes". obo. Retrieved 2022-11-19.
  29. ^ Leonardo Morlino; Dirk Berg-Schlosser; Bertrand Badie (6 March 2017). Political Science: A Global Perspective. SAGE. pp. 112–. ISBN 978-1-5264-1303-1. OCLC 1124515503.
  30. ^ Andreas Schedler. ed., 2006. Electoral Authoritarianism: The Dynamics of Unfree Competition, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner;
  31. ^ a b c d YONATAN L. MORSE Review: THE ERA OF ELECTORAL AUTHORITARIANISM; World Politics; Vol. 64, No. 1 (January 2012), pp. 161—198 (38 pages)
  32. ^ Authoritarianism: What Everyone Needs to Know®. What Everyone Needs To Know®. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. 2018-09-04. ISBN 978-0-19-088020-0.
  33. ^ Inc, VitalSource Technologies. "Foundations of Comparative Politics 4th edition | 9781108831826, 9781108934909". VitalSource. Retrieved 2023-03-03. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)
  34. ^ Rocha Menocal, Alina; Fritz, Verena; Rakner, Lise (2008-06-01). "Hybrid regimes and the challenges of deepening and sustaining democracy in developing countries". South African Journal of International Affairs. 15 (1): 29–40. doi:10.1080/10220460802217934. ISSN 1022-0461.
  35. ^ Stroh, Alexander; Elischer, Sebastian; Erdmann, Gero (2012). "Origins and Outcomes of Electoral Institutions in African Hybrid Regimes: A Comparative Perspective". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  36. ^ Ekman, Joakim (2009). "Political Participation and Regime Stability: A Framework for Analyzing Hybrid Regimes". International Political Science Review / Revue internationale de science politique. 30 (1): 7–31. ISSN 0192-5121.
  37. ^ academic.oup.com https://academic.oup.com/book/7722/chapter/152849448. Retrieved 2023-03-03. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  38. ^ Treisman, Daniel (2011). "Presidential Popularity in a Hybrid Regime: Russia under Yeltsin and Putin". American Journal of Political Science. 55 (3): 590–609. ISSN 0092-5853.
  39. ^ Morlino, Leonardo (July 2009). "Are there hybrid regimes? Or are they just an optical illusion?". European Political Science Review. 1 (2): 273–296. doi:10.1017/S1755773909000198. ISSN 1755-7747.
  40. ^ Colomer, J.M.; Beale, A.L. (2020). Democracy and Globalization: Anger, Fear, and Hope. Taylor & Francis. p. 180. ISBN 978-1-000-05363-0. Retrieved 2022-12-27.
  41. ^ Bogaards, Matthijs (2009). "How to classify hybrid regimes? Defective democracy and electoral authoritarianism". Democratization. Informa UK Limited. 16 (2): 399–423. doi:10.1080/13510340902777800. ISSN 1351-0347. S2CID 145315763.
  42. ^ Norris, Pippa (2017). "Is Western Democracy Backsliding? Diagnosing the Risks". SSRN Electronic Journal. Elsevier BV. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2933655. ISSN 1556-5068. S2CID 157117940.
  43. ^ Isaac, J.C. (1998). Democracy in Dark Times. Cornell University Press. p. 199. ISBN 978-0-8014-8454-4.
  44. ^ "Nations in Transit Methodology". Freedom House. 2021-12-31. Retrieved 2022-11-19.
  45. ^ Skaaning, Svend-Erik (2020). "Waves of autocratization and democratization: a critical note on conceptualization and measurement" (PDF). Democratization. 27 (8): 1533–1542. doi:10.1080/13510347.2020.1799194. S2CID 225378571.
  46. ^ Lührmann, Anna; Lindberg, Staffan I. (2019). "A third wave of autocratization is here: what is new about it?". Democratization. 26 (7): 1095–1113. doi:10.1080/13510347.2019.1582029. S2CID 150992660. The decline of democratic regime attributes – autocratization
  47. ^ a b Mietzner, 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. S2CID 225475139.
  48. ^ Mudde, Cas and Kaltwasser, Cristóbal Rovira (2017) Populism: a Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. pp.86-96. ISBN 978-0-19-023487-4
  49. ^ 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. S2CID 234870008.
  50. ^ 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. S2CID 159354232.
  51. ^ Huq, Aziz Z (2021). "How (not) to explain a democratic recession". International Journal of Constitutional Law. 19 (2): 723–737. doi:10.1093/icon/moab058.
  52. ^ 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. S2CID 228959708.
  53. ^ 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 a 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.
  54. ^ a b The Global State of Democracy 2021, International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance
  55. ^ Arugay, Aries A. (2021). "Democratic Transitions". The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Global Security Studies. Cham: Springer International Publishing. pp. 1–7. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-74336-3_190-1. ISBN 978-3-319-74336-3. S2CID 240235199.
  56. ^ Abjorensen, N. (2019). Historical Dictionary of Democracy. Historical Dictionaries of Religions, Philosophies, and Movements Series. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. p. 116. ISBN 978-1-5381-2074-3. Retrieved 2022-11-19.
  57. ^ a b c d Greenwood, Shannon (2022-12-06). "Appendix A: Classifying democracies". Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project. Retrieved 2022-12-27.
  58. ^ a b c d "Democracy Index 2021: the China challenge". Economist Intelligence Unit. Feb 15, 2022. Retrieved Nov 18, 2022.
  59. ^ "The Global State of Democracy". Publications. 2021-11-22. Retrieved 2022-12-27.
  60. ^ "FAQs - The Global State of Democracy Indices". International IDEA. 2021-12-31. Retrieved 2022-12-27.
  61. ^ International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (2021). The Global State of Democracy 2021: Building resilience in a Pandemic Era. ISBN 978-91-7671-478-2. OCLC 1288461480.
  62. ^ Coppedge, Michael, John Gerring, Carl Henrik Knutsen, Staffan I. Lindberg, Jan Teorell, Nazifa Alizada, David Altman, Michael Bernhard, Agnes Cornell, M. Steven Fish, Lisa Gastaldi, Haakon Gjerløw, Adam Glynn, Allen Hicken, Garry Hindle, Nina Ilchenko, Joshua Krusell, Anna Lührmann, Seraphine F. Maerz, Kyle L. Marquardt, Kelly McMann, Valeriya Mechkova, Juraj Medzihorsky, Pamela Paxton, Daniel Pemstein, Josefine Pernes, Johannes von Römer, Brigitte Seim, Rachel Sigman, Svend-Erik Skaaning, Jeffrey Staton, Aksel Sundström, Eitan Tzelgov, Yi-ting Wang, Tore Wig, Steven Wilson and Daniel Ziblatt. 2021. "V-Dem [Country–Year/Country–Date] Dataset v11.1" Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Project. https://doi.org/10.23696/vdemds21.
  63. ^ 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) Project.[1] 8 June 2021 at the Wayback Machine
  64. ^ Lührmann, Anna; Tannenberg, Marcus; Lindberg, Staffan I. (Mar 19, 2018). "Regimes of the World (RoW): Opening New Avenues for the Comparative Study of Political Regimes". Politics and Governance. Cogitatio. 6 (1): 60–77. doi:10.17645/pag.v6i1.1214. ISSN 2183-2463.
  65. ^ Boese, Vanessa A.; Lundstedt, Martin; Morrison, Kelly; Sato, Yuko; Lindberg, Staffan I. (2022-05-23). "State of the world 2021: autocratization changing its nature?". Democratization. Informa UK Limited. 29 (6): 983–1013. doi:10.1080/13510347.2022.2069751. ISSN 1351-0347. S2CID 249031421.
  66. ^ Freedom House (2019-02-06). "2019". Freedom in the World. Retrieved 2019-02-06.
  67. ^ a b c "Countries and Territories". Freedom House. Retrieved Nov 25, 2022.
  68. ^ "World citizens living under different political regimes". Our World in Data. Retrieved 5 March 2020.
  69. ^ a b Juan José Linz (2000). Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes. Lynne Rienner Publisher. p. 143. ISBN 978-1-55587-890-0. OCLC 1172052725.
  70. ^ Jonathan Michie, ed. (3 February 2014). Reader's Guide to the Social Sciences. Routledge. p. 95. ISBN 978-1-135-93226-8.
  71. ^ Allan Todd; Sally Waller (10 September 2015). Allan Todd; Sally Waller (eds.). History for the IB Diploma Paper 2 AuthoritariaAuthoritarian States (20th Century). Cambridge University Press. pp. 10–. ISBN 978-1-107-55889-2.
  72. ^ Sondrol, P. C. (2009). "Totalitarian and Authoritarian Dictators: A Comparison of Fidel Castro and Alfredo Stroessner". Journal of Latin American Studies. 23 (3): 599–620. doi:10.1017/S0022216X00015868. JSTOR 157386. S2CID 144333167.
  73. ^ Schedler, Andreas (2009). "Electoral Authoritarianism". The SAGE Handbook of Comparative Politics. 1 Oliver's Yard, 55 City Road, London EC1Y 1SP United Kingdom: SAGE Publications Ltd. pp. 380–393. doi:10.4135/9780857021083.n21. ISBN 9781412919760.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
  74. ^ Levitsky and Way 2002; T. Karl 1995; L. Diamond 1999; A. Schedler 2002
  75. ^ Barbara Geddes — Why Parties and Elections in Authoritarian Regimes?; Department of Political Science ; March 2006
  76. ^ Brancati, Dawn (May 11, 2014). "Democratic Authoritarianism: Origins and Effects". Annual Review of Political Science. Annual Reviews. 17 (1): 313–326. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-052013-115248. ISSN 1094-2939.
  77. ^ a b Schedler, Andreas (May 15, 2015), "Electoral Authoritarianism", Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences, Wiley, pp. 1–16, doi:10.1002/9781118900772.etrds0098, ISBN 9781118900772
  78. ^ Гудков, Лев (2009). "Природа "Путинизма"" [The nature of "Putinism"]. Вестник общественного мнения. Данные. Анализ. Дискуссии. 3: 13. Retrieved 2019-08-13.
  79. ^ Mounk, Yascha (2020-03-18). The People Vs. Democracy - Why Our Freedom Is in Danger and How to Save It. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-24502-0.
  80. ^ 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.
  81. ^ Schedler, Andreas (2006). Electoral Authoritarianism: The Dynamics of Unfree Competition. Lynne Rienner Publishers. ISBN 978-1-58826-415-2.
  82. ^ Diamond, Larry (April 2002). "Assessing the Quality of Democracy". Journal of Democracy. 13 (2): 51–65.
  83. ^ DeVotta, Neil (2010). "From civil war to soft authoritarianism: Sri Lanka in comparative perspective". Global Change, Peace & Security. 22 (3): 331–343. doi:10.1080/14781158.2010.510268. S2CID 143630796.
  84. ^ Christie, Kenneth (1998). "Illiberal Democracy, Modernisation and Southeast Asia". Theoria: A Journal of Social and Political Theory (91): 102–118. ISSN 0040-5817. JSTOR 41802094.
  85. ^ Ostroverkhov, A.A. (2017). "In Searching for Theory of One-Party Dominance: World Experience of Studying Dominant-Party Systems (II)". Politeia. 87 (4): 133–149 (p. 136). doi:10.30570/2078-5089-2017-87-4-133-149.
  86. ^ Ostroverkhov, A.A. (2017). "In Searching for Theory of One-Party Dominance: World Experience of Studying Dominant-Party Systems (I)". Politeia. 86 (3): 136–153 (p. 148). doi:10.30570/2078-5089-2017-86-3-136-153.
  87. ^ "Natural Governing Party". The Dictionary of Canadian Politics. Campbell Strategies. 2022. Retrieved 5 December 2022.
  88. ^ "The Wonder Boy". Hoover An Extraordinary Life in Extraordinary Times. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. 2017. p. 338. ISBN 9780307743879. 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.
  89. ^ Chin, James (15 November 2022). "UMNO intends to return as Malaysia's natural governing party". asia.nikkei.com. Nikkei. Retrieved 5 December 2022.
  90. ^ a b O'Donnell, Guillermo (January 1994). "Delegative Democracy". Journal of Democracy. 5 (1): 55–69. doi:10.1353/jod.1994.0010. S2CID 8558740.
  91. ^ O'Donnell, Guillermo (1992). Delegative Democracy?. University of Notre Dame: Kellogg Institute for International Studies.
  92. ^ Kestler, Thomas (2011). "Demokratische Dilemmata: Zum Verhältnis zwischen Repräsentation und Partizipation". Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft. 21 (3): 24. doi:10.5771/1430-6387-2011-3-391. ISSN 1430-6387.
  93. ^ Jackson, Gabriel (Spring 1976). "The Franco Era in Historical Perspective". The Centennial Review. 20 (2): 103–127. JSTOR 23738276.
  94. ^ Ribeiro, Igor (February 25, 2009). (in Portuguese). Portal Imprensa. Archived from the original on 2012-02-01.
  95. ^ Rohmann, C (2000) A World of Ideas : The Dictionary of Important Ideas and Thinkers, Ballantine Books ISBN 978-0-345-43706-8
  96. ^ Wolin, Sheldon S. (2008). . Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-13566-3. Archived from the original on 2016-04-20. Retrieved 2012-03-11. p. 47
  97. ^ Wolin, Sheldon S. (2008). . Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-13566-3. Archived from the original on 2016-04-20. Retrieved 2012-03-11. p. 60
  98. ^ Weir, Fred (October 1, 2003). "Kremlin lobs another shot at marketplace of ideas". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 2009-11-10.
  99. ^ Zakaria, Fareed (November/December 1997). "The Rise of Illiberal Democracy". Foreign Affairs. 15 October 2005 at the Wayback Machine
  100. ^ Myers, Sondra (2002). The Democracy Reader. IDEA. p. 174.
  101. ^ Quigley, Carroll (1983). Weapons systems and political stability: a history. University Press of America. p. 307. ISBN 978-0-8191-2947-5. Retrieved 20 May 2013.
  102. ^ a b Gandhi, Jennifer; Vreeland, James (June 2008). "Political Institutions and Civil War: Unpacking Anocracy". Journal of Conflict Solutions. 52 (3): 401–425. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.584.1330. doi:10.1177/0022002708315594. S2CID 42071287.
  103. ^ a b Fearon, James; Laitan, David (February 2003). "Ethnicity, Insurgency, and Civil War". American Political Science Review. 97: 75–90. doi:10.1017/S0003055403000534. S2CID 8303905.
  104. ^ 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. S2CID 154960398.
  105. ^ 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. S2CID 143823486.
  106. ^ Montesquieu. "2–3". Spirit of the Laws. Vol. II.
  107. ^ William R. Everdell. The End of Kings: A History of Republics and Republicans. University of Chicago Press, 2000.
  108. ^ Marshall, Monty; Gurr, Ted (2003). "Peace and conflict 2003: A global study of armed conflicts, self-determination movements, and democracy". College Park: Center for International Development and Conflict Management, University of Maryland.
  109. ^ Романюк, О. І. (2017-11-24). "WHAT IS «DEFECTIVE DEMOCRACIES» AND WHAT THEY ARE". The Bulletin of Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University. Series: Philosophy, Philosophies of Law, Political Science, Sociology. Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University. 2 (33): 114–122. doi:10.21564/2075-7190.33.109732. ISSN 2663-5704.
  110. ^ Croissant, Aurel; Merkel, Wolfgang (2019-02-13). "Defective Democracy". The Handbook of Political, Social, and Economic Transformation. Oxford University Press. pp. 437–446. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198829911.003.0041. ISBN 978-0-19-882991-1.
  111. ^ Merkel, Wolfgang (2004-01-01). "Embedded and defective democracies". Democratization. Informa UK Limited. 11 (5): 33–58. doi:10.1080/13510340412331304598. hdl:10419/251950. ISSN 1351-0347. S2CID 149654333.
  112. ^ Merkel, Wolfgang (December 2004). "Embedded and Defective Democracies" (PDF). Democratization. 11 (5). Retrieved 6 November 2014.
  113. ^ Buhllman, Mark; Merkel, Wolfgang; Wessels, Bernhard (April 2008). "The Quality of Democracy: Democracy Barometer for Established Democracies". Hertie School of Governance - Working Papers.
  114. ^ Merkel, Wolfgang; Croissant, Aurel (December 2004). "Conclusion: Good and Defective Democracies". Democratization. 11 (5): 199–213. doi:10.1080/13510340412331304651. S2CID 218522553.
  115. ^ Merkel (2004) p.33
  116. ^ Merkel (2004) p.36-27
  117. ^ Merkel (2004) p.43-45
  118. ^ Buhllman et al. (2008) p.7

Further reading

Contemporary analysts

  • Herre, Bastian; Roser, Max (2013-03-15). "Democracy". Our World in Data.
  • Balderacchi, Claudio (2022-04-14). "Overlooked forms of non-democracy? Insights from hybrid regimes". Third World Quarterly. Informa UK Limited. 43 (6): 1441–1459. doi:10.1080/01436597.2022.2059460. ISSN 0143-6597. S2CID 248208017.
  • Ekman, Joakim (2009). "Political Participation and Regime Stability: A Framework for Analyzing Hybrid Regimes". International Political Science Review. Sage Publications, Ltd. 30 (1): 7–31. doi:10.1177/0192512108097054. ISSN 0192-5121. JSTOR 20445173. S2CID 145077481.
  • Lührmann, Anna; Tannenberg, Marcus; Lindberg, Staffan I. (2018-03-19). "Regimes of the World (RoW): Opening New Avenues for the Comparative Study of Political Regimes - Article - Politics and Governance". Politics and Governance. 6 (1): 60–77. doi:10.17645/pag.v6i1.1214. ISSN 2183-2463.
  • Skaaning, Svend-Erik (2021), Lexical Index of Electoral Democracy (LIED) dataset v6.0, Harvard Dataverse, doi:10.7910/DVN/WPKNIT
  • Schedler, A. (2013). The Politics of Uncertainty: Sustaining and Subverting Electoral Authoritarianism. Oxford Studies in Democratization. OUP Oxford. ISBN 978-0-19-166983-5.
  • "BTI 2022 Benin Country Report". BTI 2022. 2021-02-19.
  • 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 and 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 2003, Schedler 2002) and manipulate the economy (L. Blaydes 2006, ) in order to win the election and stay in power.

External links

March 08, 2023
hybrid, regime, hybrid, regime, mixed, type, political, system, often, created, result, incomplete, transition, from, authoritarian, regime, democratic, vice, versa, categorized, combination, autocratic, features, with, democratic, ones, simultaneously, hold, . A hybrid regime a 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 b Hybrid regimes are categorized as a combination of autocratic features with democratic ones and can simultaneously hold political repressions and regular elections b Hybrid regimes are commonly found in developing countries with abundant natural resources such as petro states 16 7 17 Although these regimes experience civil unrest they may be relatively stable and tenacious for decades at a time b There has been a rise in hybrid regimes since the end of the Cold War 18 19 The term hybrid regime arises from a polymorphic view of political regimes that opposes the dichotomy of autocracy or democracy 20 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 21 from which it is concluded that democratic backsliding a transition to authoritarianism is the most prevalent basis of hybrid regimes b 22 23 Some scholars also contend that hybrid regimes may imitate a full dictatorship 24 25 Contents 1 History 2 Definition 3 Indicators 3 1 Democratic backsliding 3 2 Democratisation 4 Measurement 4 1 Democracy Index 4 2 Global State of Democracy 4 3 V Dem Institute 4 4 Freedom House 5 Typology 5 1 Electoral authoritarianism 5 2 Illiberal democracy 5 3 Dominant party system 5 4 Delegative democracy 5 5 Dictablanda 5 6 Guided democracy 5 7 Liberal autocracy 5 8 Semi democracy 5 9 Defective democracy 5 10 Embedded democracy 6 See also 7 Notes 8 References 9 Further reading 9 1 Contemporary analysts 9 2 Research history 10 External linksHistory Edit Map showing democratization of countries after the Cold War The third wave of democratization has led to the emergence of hybrid regimes that are neither fully democratic nor fully authoritarian 26 Neither the concept of illiberal democracy nor the concept of electoral authoritarianism fully describes these hybrid regimes 27 28 Since the end of the Cold War such regimes have become the most common among undemocratic 29 30 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 31 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 14 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 31 Hybrid regimes have evolved to lean more authoritarian while keeping some democratic traits 32 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 33 After the third wave of democratization some regimes became stuck in the transition to democracy causing the creation of weak democratic institutions 34 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 35 This has caused scholars to believe that hybrid regimes are not poorly functioning democracies but rather new forms of authoritarian regimes 36 Defective democratic stability is an indicator to explain and measure these new forms of autocracies 37 Additionally approval ratings of political leaders play an important role in these types of regimes and democratic elements can drive up the ratings of a strongman leader which is a tool these kinds of leaders did not utilize beforehand 38 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 39 Definition EditScholars vary on the definition of hybrid regimes based on their primary academic discipline 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 2 Scholars also debate if these regimes are in transition or are inherently a stable political system 9 In 1995 Terry Karl introduced the notion of hybrid regime which was simply defined as 40 combining democratic and authoritarian elementsAccording to professor Matthijs Bogaards hybrid types are 41 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 Pippa Norris defined hybrid regimes as 42 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 Professor Henry E Hale defined hybrid regimes as 23 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 Leonardo Morlino defined hybrid regimes as 23 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 Professor Jeffrey C Isaac defined hybrid regimes as 43 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 advantagesIndicators EditAccording to Guillermo O Donnell Philippe C Schmitter Larry Diamond and Thomas Carothers signs of a hybrid regime include 14 44 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 Edit Since c 2010 the number of countries autocratizing blue is higher than those democratizing yellow Democratic backsliding also called autocratization 45 46 c is the decline in the democratic characteristics of a political system 53 and is the opposite of democratization Democracy is the most popular form of government with more than half of the nations in the world being democracies according to a 2020 study This study examined 165 countries and determined that 98 of them were democracies 54 Since the 2010s the world has grown more authoritarian with one quarter of the world s population under democratically backsliding hybrid regimes into the 2020s 54 Democratisation Edit Democratization or democratisation is the transition to a more democratic political regime including substantive political changes moving in a democratic direction 55 It may be a hybrid regime in transition from an authoritarian regime to a full democracy a transition from an authoritarian political system to a semi democracy or transition from a semi authoritarian political system to a democratic political system 56 The opposite process is known as democratic backsliding or autocratization Measurement EditFurther information List of freedom indices There are various democratic freedom indices produced by intergovernmental and non governmental organizations that publish assessments of the worlds political systems according to their own definitions 57 Democracy Index Edit Democracy index types 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 58 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 57 The Democracy Index defines hybrid regimes with the following characteristics 58 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 The 2021 Economist Intelligence Unit Democracy Index 58 Full democracies 9 01 10 8 01 9 Flawed democracies 7 01 8 6 01 7 Hybrid regimes 5 01 6 4 01 5 Authoritarian regimes 3 01 4 2 01 3 0 2 00 As of 2021 the countries considered hybrid regimes by the Democracy Index are 58 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 Global State of Democracy Edit According to the Global State of Democracy Report by International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance IDEA there are 20 hybrid regimes 59 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 57 IDEA defined hybrid regimes as 60 Combination of the elements of authoritarianism with democracy These often adopt the formal characteristics of democracy while allowing little realcompetition 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 61 Angola Benin Cote d Ivoire Democratic Republic of the Congo Ethiopia Gabon Jordan Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Libya Mauritania Morocco Mozambique Nigeria Serbia Singapore Tanzania Togo Tunisia Turkey V Dem Institute Edit Map of V Dem s 2020 Index of Egalitarian Democracy 62 Red indicates more authoritarian blue indicates more democratic According to the V Dem Institute compiled by the University of Gothenburg there are 65 hybrid regimes 63 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 64 According to the V Dem Institute 65 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 Edit Freedom House ratings for European Union and surrounding states in 2019 66 Free Partly free Not free Freedom House measures the level of democratic governance in 29 countries from Central Europe to Central Asia 67 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 57 Freedom House classifies transitional or hybrid regimes as 67 Countries that are typically electoral democracies where democratic institutions are fragile and substantial challenges to the protection of political rights and civil liberties exist Freedom house has classified 11 of 29 countries analyzed as Transitional or Hybrid Regimes 67 Armenia Georgia Moldova Bosnia and Herzegovina Kosovo Ukraine Hungary Albania Serbia North Macedonia MontenegroTypology EditFurther information List of countries by system of government World citizens living under different political regimes as defined by Polity IV 68 According to Yale professor Juan Jose 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 b a 14 69 70 Academics generally refer to a full dictatorship as either a form of authoritarianism or totalitarianism over a hybrid system 71 69 72 Authoritarian governments that conduct elections are in many scholars view not hybrids but are successful well institutionalized stable authoritarian regimes b 73 74 75 Democratic elements can simultaneously serve authoritarian purposes and contribute to democratization 76 Electoral authoritarianism Edit Electoral authoritarianism means that democratic institutions are imitative and due to numerous systematic violations of liberal democratic norms in fact adhere to authoritarian methods 77 Electoral authoritarianism can be competitive and hegemonic and the latter does not necessarily mean election irregularities 31 A Schedler calls electoral authoritarianism a new form of authoritarian regime not a hybrid regime or illiberal democracy 31 Moreover a purely authoritarian regime does not need elections as a source of legitimacy 78 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 77 Illiberal democracy Edit An illiberal democracy describes a governing system in which although elections take place citizens are cut off from knowledge about the activities of those who exercise real power because of the lack of civil liberties citation needed thus it does not constitute an open society The rulers of an illiberal democracy may ignore or bypass constitutional limits on their power They also tend to ignore the will of the minority which is what makes the democracy illiberal 79 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 80 Some theorists say that illiberal democracy is a fundamentally undemocratic hybrid regime and therefore prefer terms such as electoral authoritarianism 81 competitive authoritarianism 82 or soft authoritarianism 83 84 Dominant party system Edit A dominant 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 85 Any ruling party staying in power for more than one consecutive term may be considered a dominant party also referred to as a predominant or hegemonic party 86 Some dominant parties were called the natural governing party given their length of time in power 87 88 89 Dominant parties and their domination of a state develop out of one sided electoral and party constellations within a multi party system particularly under presidential systems of governance and as such differ from states under a one party system which are intricately organized around a specific party Sometimes the term de facto one party state is used to describe dominant party systems which unlike a one party system allows at least nominally democratic multiparty elections but the existing practices or balance of political power effectively prevent the opposition from winning power thus resembling a one party state Dominant party systems differ from the political dynamics of other dominant multi party constellations such as consociationalism grand coalitions and two party systems which are characterized and sustained by narrow or balanced competition and cooperation Delegative democracy Edit In political science delegative democracy is a mode of governance close to Caesarism Bonapartism or caudillismo with a strong leader in a newly created otherwise democratic government The concept arose from Argentinian political scientist Guillermo 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 90 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 90 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 Congress and the Judiciary 91 O Donnell s notion of delegative democracy has been criticized as being misleading because he renders the delegative model that is core to many current democratic governments worldwide into a negative concept 92 Dictablanda Edit Dictablanda is a dictatorship in which civil liberties are allegedly preserved rather than destroyed The word dictablanda is a pun on the Spanish word dictadura dictatorship replacing dura which by itself is a word meaning hard with blanda meaning soft The term was first used in Spain in 1930 when Damaso Berenguer replaced Miguel Primo de Rivera y Orbaneja as the head of the ruling dictatorial government and attempted to reduce tensions in the country by repealing some of the harsher measures that had been introduced by the latter It was also used to refer to the latter years of Francisco Franco s Spanish State 93 and to the hegemonic 70 year rule of the Institutional Revolutionary Party PRI in Mexico or by Augusto Pinochet when he was asked about his regime and the accusations about his government Analogously the same pun is made in Portuguese as ditabranda or ditamole In February 2009 the Brazilian newspaper Folha de S Paulo ran an editorial classifying the military dictatorship in Brazil 1964 1985 as a ditabranda creating controversy 94 Guided democracy Edit Guided democracy also called managed democracy 95 is a formally democratic government that functions as a de facto authoritarian government or in some cases as an autocratic government Such hybrid regimes are legitimized by elections that are free and fair but do not change the state s policies motives and goals 96 In other words the government controls elections so that the people can exercise all their rights without truly changing public policy While they follow basic democratic principles there can be major deviations towards authoritarianism Under managed democracy the state s continuous use of propaganda techniques prevents the electorate from having a significant impact on policy 97 After World War II the term was used in Indonesia for the approach to government under the Sukarno administration from 1959 to 1966 It is today widely employed in Russia where it was introduced into common practice by Kremlin theorists in particular Gleb Pavlovsky 98 Liberal autocracy Edit A liberal autocracy is a non democratic government that follows the principles of liberalism Until the 20th century most countries in Western Europe were liberal autocracies or at best semi democracies 99 One example of a classic liberal autocracy was the Austro Hungarian Empire 100 According to Fareed Zakaria a more recent example is Hong Kong until 1 July 1997 which was ruled by the British Crown He says that until 1991 it had never held a meaningful election but its government epitomized constitutional liberalism protecting its citizens basic rights and administering a fair court system and bureaucracy Semi democracy Edit Anocracy or semi democracy 101 is a form of government that is loosely defined as part democracy and part dictatorship 102 103 or as a regime that mixes democratic with autocratic features 103 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 104 105 The term semi democratic is reserved for stable regimes that combine democratic and authoritarian elements 106 107 Scholars have also distinguished anocracies from autocracies and democracies in their capability to maintain authority political dynamics and policy agendas 108 Similarly the regimes have democratic institutions that allow for nominal amounts of competition 102 Defective democracy Edit Defective democracies is a concept that was proposed by the political scientists Wolfgang Merkel Hans Jurgen Puhle and Aurel S Croissant at the beginning of the 21st century to subtilize the distinctions between totalitarian authoritarian and democratic political systems 109 110 It is based on the concept of embedded democracy There are four forms of defective democracy how each nation reaches the point of defectiveness varies 111 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 Edit Embedded democracy is a form of government in which democratic governance is secured by democratic partial regimes 112 113 114 The term embedded democracy was coined by political scientists Wolfgang Merkel Hans Jurgen Puhle and Aurel 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 115 The five internal regimes work together to check the power of the government while external regimes also help to secure and stabilize embedded democracies 116 Together all the regimes ensure that an embedded democracy is guided by the three fundamental principles of freedom equality and control 117 118 See also Edit Politics portalAuthoritarian democracy Embedded democracy Delegative democracy Types of democracy Democracy Dictatorship Index Hybrid institutions and governanceNotes Edit a b Scholars uses a variety of terms to encompass the greyzones between full autocracies and full democracies such as competitive authoritarianism or semi authoritarianism or hybrid authoritarianism or electoral authoritarianism or liberal autocracy or delegative democracy or illiberal democracy or guided democracy or semi democracy or deficient democracy or defective democracy or hybrid democracy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 a b c d e f 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 2 Scholars also debate if these regimes are in transition or are inherently a stable political system 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Other names include democratic decline 47 de democratization 48 democratic erosion 49 democratic decay 50 democratic recession 51 democratic regression 47 and democratic deconsolidation 52 References Edit Plattner Marc F 1969 12 31 Is Democracy in Decline kipdf com Retrieved 2022 12 27 a b c Hybrid Concepts and the Concept of Hybridity European Consortium for Political Research 2019 09 07 Retrieved 2022 11 18 Urribarri Raul A Sanchez 2011 Courts between Democracy and Hybrid Authoritarianism Evidence from the Venezuelan Supreme Court Law amp Social Inquiry Wiley 36 4 854 884 doi 10 1111 j 1747 4469 2011 01253 x ISSN 0897 6546 JSTOR 41349660 S2CID 232400805 Retrieved 2022 11 16 Gobel 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 ISBN 9781412969017 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint location link Tlemcani Rachid 2007 05 29 Electoral Authoritarianism Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Retrieved 2022 11 16 What is Hybrid Democracy Digital Society School 2022 05 19 Retrieved 2022 11 16 a b Zinecker Heidrun 2009 Regime Hybridity in Developing Countries Achievements and Limitations of New Research on Transitions International Studies Review Oxford University Press Wiley The International Studies Association 11 2 302 331 doi 10 1111 j 1468 2486 2009 00850 x ISSN 1521 9488 JSTOR 40389063 Retrieved 2022 11 18 Index Dem Dec 2017 09 23 Retrieved 2022 11 21 a b Ekman Joakim 2009 Political Participation and Regime Stability A Framework for Analyzing Hybrid Regimes International Political Science Review SAGE Publications 30 1 7 31 doi 10 1177 0192512108097054 ISSN 0192 5121 S2CID 145077481 Why Parties and Elections in Dictatorships How Dictatorships Work Cambridge University Press 2018 pp 129 153 doi 10 1017 9781316336182 006 ISBN 9781316336182 Riaz Ali 2019 What Is a Hybrid Regime Voting in a Hybrid Regime Politics of South Asia Singapore Springer Singapore pp 9 19 doi 10 1007 978 981 13 7956 7 2 ISBN 978 981 13 7955 0 ISSN 2523 8345 S2CID 198088445 Schmotz Alexander 2019 02 13 Hybrid Regimes The Handbook of Political Social and Economic Transformation Oxford University Press pp 521 525 doi 10 1093 oso 9780198829911 003 0053 ISBN 978 0 19 882991 1 Morlino Leonardo 2011 11 01 Are There Hybrid Regimes Changes for DemocracyActors Structures Processes Oxford University Press pp 48 69 doi 10 1093 acprof oso 9780199572533 003 0004 ISBN 978 0 19 957253 3 a b c d Podlesnyj D V 2016 Politologiya Uchebnoe posobie Political Science Textbook in Russian Kharkiv HGU NUA pp 62 65 164 Retrieved 2019 08 13 Schulmann Ekaterina Carstvo politicheskoj imitacii The kingdom of political imitation vedomosti ru Retrieved 2019 08 13 Croissant A Kailitz S Koellner P Wurster S 2015 Comparing autocracies in the early Twenty first Century Volume 1 Unpacking Autocracies Explaining Similarity and Difference Taylor amp Francis p 212 ISBN 978 1 317 70018 0 Retrieved Nov 27 2022 Carothers Christopher 2018 The Surprising Instability of Competitive Authoritarianism Journal of Democracy 29 4 129 135 doi 10 1353 jod 2018 0068 ISSN 1086 3214 S2CID 158234306 Levitsky Steven Way Lucan 2002 The Rise of Competitive Authoritarianism Journal of Democracy Project Muse 13 2 51 65 doi 10 1353 jod 2002 0026 ISSN 1086 3214 S2CID 6711009 Competitive Authoritarianism Hybrid Regimes After the Cold War Department of Political Science Retrieved 2022 11 16 Hybrid Regimes obo Mufti Mariam Jun 22 2018 What Do We Know about Hybrid Regimes after Two Decades of Scholarship Politics and Governance Cogitatio 6 2 112 119 doi 10 17645 pag v6i2 1400 ISSN 2183 2463 S2CID 158943827 Home IDEA Global State of Democracy Report International IDEA Retrieved Nov 26 2022 a b c Hameed Dr Muntasser Majeed Jun 30 2022 Hybrid regimes An Overview IPRI Journal Islamabad Policy Research Institute IPRI 22 1 1 24 doi 10 31945 iprij 220101 ISSN 1684 9787 S2CID 251173436 Schedler Andreas Aug 1 2013 Shaping the Authoritarian Arena The Politics of Uncertainty Oxford University Press pp 54 75 doi 10 1093 acprof oso 9780199680320 003 0003 ISBN 978 0 19 968032 0 Brooker P 2013 Non Democratic Regimes Comparative Government and Politics Bloomsbury Publishing p 222 ISBN 978 1 137 38253 5 Retrieved Nov 27 2022 Huntington S P 2012 The Third Wave Democratization in the Late 20th Century The Julian J Rothbaum Distinguished Lecture Series University of Oklahoma Press ISBN 978 0 8061 8604 7 Retrieved Nov 16 2022 Matthijs Bogaards 2009 How to Classify Hybrid Regimes Defective Democracy and Electoral Authoritarianism Democratization 16 2 399 423 Gagne Jean Francois 2019 05 02 Hybrid Regimes obo Retrieved 2022 11 19 Leonardo Morlino Dirk Berg Schlosser Bertrand Badie 6 March 2017 Political Science A Global Perspective SAGE pp 112 ISBN 978 1 5264 1303 1 OCLC 1124515503 Andreas Schedler ed 2006 Electoral Authoritarianism The Dynamics of Unfree Competition Boulder CO Lynne Rienner a b c d YONATAN L MORSE Review THE ERA OF ELECTORAL AUTHORITARIANISM World Politics Vol 64 No 1 January 2012 pp 161 198 38 pages Authoritarianism What Everyone Needs to Know What Everyone Needs To Know Oxford New York Oxford University Press 2018 09 04 ISBN 978 0 19 088020 0 Inc VitalSource Technologies Foundations of Comparative Politics 4th edition 9781108831826 9781108934909 VitalSource Retrieved 2023 03 03 a href Template Cite web html title Template Cite web cite web a last has generic name help Rocha Menocal Alina Fritz Verena Rakner Lise 2008 06 01 Hybrid regimes and the challenges of deepening and sustaining democracy in developing countries South African Journal of International Affairs 15 1 29 40 doi 10 1080 10220460802217934 ISSN 1022 0461 Stroh Alexander Elischer Sebastian Erdmann Gero 2012 Origins and Outcomes of Electoral Institutions in African Hybrid Regimes A Comparative Perspective a href Template Cite journal html title Template Cite journal cite journal a Cite journal requires journal help Ekman Joakim 2009 Political Participation and Regime Stability A Framework for Analyzing Hybrid Regimes International Political Science Review Revue internationale de science politique 30 1 7 31 ISSN 0192 5121 academic oup com https academic oup com book 7722 chapter 152849448 Retrieved 2023 03 03 a href Template Cite web html title Template Cite web cite web a Missing or empty title help Treisman Daniel 2011 Presidential Popularity in a Hybrid Regime Russia under Yeltsin and Putin American Journal of Political Science 55 3 590 609 ISSN 0092 5853 Morlino Leonardo July 2009 Are there hybrid regimes Or are they just an optical illusion European Political Science Review 1 2 273 296 doi 10 1017 S1755773909000198 ISSN 1755 7747 Colomer J M Beale A L 2020 Democracy and Globalization Anger Fear and Hope Taylor amp Francis p 180 ISBN 978 1 000 05363 0 Retrieved 2022 12 27 Bogaards Matthijs 2009 How to classify hybrid regimes Defective democracy and electoral authoritarianism Democratization Informa UK Limited 16 2 399 423 doi 10 1080 13510340902777800 ISSN 1351 0347 S2CID 145315763 Norris Pippa 2017 Is Western Democracy Backsliding Diagnosing the Risks SSRN Electronic Journal Elsevier BV doi 10 2139 ssrn 2933655 ISSN 1556 5068 S2CID 157117940 Isaac J C 1998 Democracy in Dark Times Cornell University Press p 199 ISBN 978 0 8014 8454 4 Nations in Transit Methodology Freedom House 2021 12 31 Retrieved 2022 11 19 Skaaning Svend Erik 2020 Waves of autocratization and democratization a critical note on conceptualization and measurement PDF Democratization 27 8 1533 1542 doi 10 1080 13510347 2020 1799194 S2CID 225378571 Luhrmann Anna Lindberg Staffan I 2019 A third wave of autocratization is here what is new about it Democratization 26 7 1095 1113 doi 10 1080 13510347 2019 1582029 S2CID 150992660 The decline of democratic regime attributes autocratization a b Mietzner 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 S2CID 225475139 Mudde Cas and Kaltwasser Cristobal Rovira 2017 Populism a Very Short Introduction New York Oxford University Press pp 86 96 ISBN 978 0 19 023487 4 Laebens Melis G Luhrmann Anna 2021 What halts democratic erosion The changing role of accountability Democratization 28 5 908 928 doi 10 1080 13510347 2021 1897109 S2CID 234870008 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 S2CID 159354232 Huq Aziz Z 2021 How not to explain a democratic recession International Journal of Constitutional Law 19 2 723 737 doi 10 1093 icon moab058 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 S2CID 228959708 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 a 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 a b The Global State of Democracy 2021 International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance Arugay Aries A 2021 Democratic Transitions The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Global Security Studies Cham Springer International Publishing pp 1 7 doi 10 1007 978 3 319 74336 3 190 1 ISBN 978 3 319 74336 3 S2CID 240235199 Abjorensen N 2019 Historical Dictionary of Democracy Historical Dictionaries of Religions Philosophies and Movements Series Rowman amp Littlefield Publishers p 116 ISBN 978 1 5381 2074 3 Retrieved 2022 11 19 a b c d Greenwood Shannon 2022 12 06 Appendix A Classifying democracies Pew Research Center s Global Attitudes Project Retrieved 2022 12 27 a b c d Democracy Index 2021 the China challenge Economist Intelligence Unit Feb 15 2022 Retrieved Nov 18 2022 The Global State of Democracy Publications 2021 11 22 Retrieved 2022 12 27 FAQs The Global State of Democracy Indices International IDEA 2021 12 31 Retrieved 2022 12 27 International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance 2021 The Global State of Democracy 2021 Building resilience in a Pandemic Era ISBN 978 91 7671 478 2 OCLC 1288461480 Coppedge Michael John Gerring Carl Henrik Knutsen Staffan I Lindberg Jan Teorell Nazifa Alizada David Altman Michael Bernhard Agnes Cornell M Steven Fish Lisa Gastaldi Haakon Gjerlow Adam Glynn Allen Hicken Garry Hindle Nina Ilchenko Joshua Krusell Anna Luhrmann Seraphine F Maerz Kyle L Marquardt Kelly McMann Valeriya Mechkova Juraj Medzihorsky Pamela Paxton Daniel Pemstein Josefine Pernes Johannes von Romer Brigitte Seim Rachel Sigman Svend Erik Skaaning Jeffrey Staton Aksel Sundstrom Eitan Tzelgov Yi ting Wang Tore Wig Steven Wilson and Daniel Ziblatt 2021 V Dem Country Year Country Date Dataset v11 1 Varieties of Democracy V Dem Project https doi org 10 23696 vdemds21 Coppedge Michael John Gerring Carl Henrik Knutsen Staffan I Lindberg Jan Teorell David Altman Michael Bernhard Agnes Cornell M Steven Fish Lisa Gastaldi Haakon Gjerlow Adam Glynn Allen Hicken Anna Luhrmann Seraphine F Maerz Kyle L Marquardt Kelly McMann Valeriya Mechkova Pamela Paxton Daniel Pemstein Johannes vonRomer Brigitte Seim Rachel Sigman Svend Erik Skaaning Jeffrey Staton Aksel Sundtrom EitanTzelgov Luca Uberti Yi ting Wang Tore Wig and Daniel Ziblatt 2021 V Dem Codebook v11 Varieties of Democracy V Dem Project 1 Archived 8 June 2021 at the Wayback Machine Luhrmann Anna Tannenberg Marcus Lindberg Staffan I Mar 19 2018 Regimes of the World RoW Opening New Avenues for the Comparative Study of Political Regimes Politics and Governance Cogitatio 6 1 60 77 doi 10 17645 pag v6i1 1214 ISSN 2183 2463 Boese Vanessa A Lundstedt Martin Morrison Kelly Sato Yuko Lindberg Staffan I 2022 05 23 State of the world 2021 autocratization changing its nature Democratization Informa UK Limited 29 6 983 1013 doi 10 1080 13510347 2022 2069751 ISSN 1351 0347 S2CID 249031421 Freedom House 2019 02 06 2019 Freedom in the World Retrieved 2019 02 06 a b c Countries and Territories Freedom House Retrieved Nov 25 2022 World citizens living under different political regimes Our World in Data Retrieved 5 March 2020 a b Juan Jose Linz 2000 Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes Lynne Rienner Publisher p 143 ISBN 978 1 55587 890 0 OCLC 1172052725 Jonathan Michie ed 3 February 2014 Reader s Guide to the Social Sciences Routledge p 95 ISBN 978 1 135 93226 8 Allan Todd Sally Waller 10 September 2015 Allan Todd Sally Waller eds History for the IB Diploma Paper 2 AuthoritariaAuthoritarian States 20th Century Cambridge University Press pp 10 ISBN 978 1 107 55889 2 Sondrol P C 2009 Totalitarian and Authoritarian Dictators A Comparison of Fidel Castro and Alfredo Stroessner Journal of Latin American Studies 23 3 599 620 doi 10 1017 S0022216X00015868 JSTOR 157386 S2CID 144333167 Schedler Andreas 2009 Electoral Authoritarianism The SAGE Handbook of Comparative Politics 1 Oliver s Yard 55 City Road London EC1Y 1SP United Kingdom SAGE Publications Ltd pp 380 393 doi 10 4135 9780857021083 n21 ISBN 9781412919760 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint location link Levitsky and Way 2002 T Karl 1995 L Diamond 1999 A Schedler 2002 Barbara Geddes Why Parties and Elections in Authoritarian Regimes Department of Political Science March 2006 Brancati Dawn May 11 2014 Democratic Authoritarianism Origins and Effects Annual Review of Political Science Annual Reviews 17 1 313 326 doi 10 1146 annurev polisci 052013 115248 ISSN 1094 2939 a b Schedler Andreas May 15 2015 Electoral Authoritarianism Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences Wiley pp 1 16 doi 10 1002 9781118900772 etrds0098 ISBN 9781118900772 Gudkov Lev 2009 Priroda Putinizma The nature of Putinism Vestnik obshestvennogo mneniya Dannye Analiz Diskussii 3 13 Retrieved 2019 08 13 Mounk Yascha 2020 03 18 The People Vs Democracy Why Our Freedom Is in Danger and How to Save It Harvard University Press ISBN 978 0 674 24502 0 Nyyssonen Heino Metsala 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 Schedler Andreas 2006 Electoral Authoritarianism The Dynamics of Unfree Competition Lynne Rienner Publishers ISBN 978 1 58826 415 2 Diamond Larry April 2002 Assessing the Quality of Democracy Journal of Democracy 13 2 51 65 DeVotta Neil 2010 From civil war to soft authoritarianism Sri Lanka in comparative perspective Global Change Peace amp Security 22 3 331 343 doi 10 1080 14781158 2010 510268 S2CID 143630796 Christie Kenneth 1998 Illiberal Democracy Modernisation and Southeast Asia Theoria A Journal of Social and Political Theory 91 102 118 ISSN 0040 5817 JSTOR 41802094 Ostroverkhov A A 2017 In Searching for Theory of One Party Dominance World Experience of Studying Dominant Party Systems II Politeia 87 4 133 149 p 136 doi 10 30570 2078 5089 2017 87 4 133 149 Ostroverkhov A A 2017 In Searching for Theory of One Party Dominance World Experience of Studying Dominant Party Systems I Politeia 86 3 136 153 p 148 doi 10 30570 2078 5089 2017 86 3 136 153 Natural Governing Party The Dictionary of Canadian Politics Campbell Strategies 2022 Retrieved 5 December 2022 The Wonder Boy Hoover An Extraordinary Life in Extraordinary Times Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group 2017 p 338 ISBN 9780307743879 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 Chin James 15 November 2022 UMNO intends to return as Malaysia s natural governing party asia nikkei com Nikkei Retrieved 5 December 2022 a b O Donnell Guillermo January 1994 Delegative Democracy Journal of Democracy 5 1 55 69 doi 10 1353 jod 1994 0010 S2CID 8558740 O Donnell Guillermo 1992 Delegative Democracy University of Notre Dame Kellogg Institute for International Studies Kestler Thomas 2011 Demokratische Dilemmata Zum Verhaltnis zwischen Reprasentation und Partizipation Zeitschrift fur Politikwissenschaft 21 3 24 doi 10 5771 1430 6387 2011 3 391 ISSN 1430 6387 Jackson Gabriel Spring 1976 The Franco Era in Historical Perspective The Centennial Review 20 2 103 127 JSTOR 23738276 Ribeiro Igor February 25 2009 A ditabranda da Folha in Portuguese Portal Imprensa Archived from the original on 2012 02 01 Rohmann C 2000 A World of Ideas The Dictionary of Important Ideas and Thinkers Ballantine Books ISBN 978 0 345 43706 8 Wolin Sheldon S 2008 Democracy Incorporated Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism Princeton Princeton University Press ISBN 978 0 691 13566 3 Archived from the original on 2016 04 20 Retrieved 2012 03 11 p 47 Wolin Sheldon S 2008 Democracy Incorporated Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism Princeton Princeton University Press ISBN 978 0 691 13566 3 Archived from the original on 2016 04 20 Retrieved 2012 03 11 p 60 Weir Fred October 1 2003 Kremlin lobs another shot at marketplace of ideas The Christian Science Monitor Retrieved 2009 11 10 Zakaria Fareed November December 1997 The Rise of Illiberal Democracy Foreign Affairs Archived 15 October 2005 at the Wayback Machine Myers Sondra 2002 The Democracy Reader IDEA p 174 Quigley Carroll 1983 Weapons systems and political stability a history University Press of America p 307 ISBN 978 0 8191 2947 5 Retrieved 20 May 2013 a b Gandhi Jennifer Vreeland James June 2008 Political Institutions and Civil War Unpacking Anocracy Journal of Conflict Solutions 52 3 401 425 CiteSeerX 10 1 1 584 1330 doi 10 1177 0022002708315594 S2CID 42071287 a b Fearon James Laitan David February 2003 Ethnicity Insurgency and Civil War American Political Science Review 97 75 90 doi 10 1017 S0003055403000534 S2CID 8303905 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 S2CID 154960398 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 S2CID 143823486 Montesquieu 2 3 Spirit of the Laws Vol II William R Everdell The End of Kings A History of Republics and Republicans University of Chicago Press 2000 Marshall Monty Gurr Ted 2003 Peace and conflict 2003 A global study of armed conflicts self determination movements and democracy College Park Center for International Development and Conflict Management University of Maryland Romanyuk O I 2017 11 24 WHAT IS DEFECTIVE DEMOCRACIES AND WHAT THEY ARE The Bulletin of Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University Series Philosophy Philosophies of Law Political Science Sociology Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University 2 33 114 122 doi 10 21564 2075 7190 33 109732 ISSN 2663 5704 Croissant Aurel Merkel Wolfgang 2019 02 13 Defective Democracy The Handbook of Political Social and Economic Transformation Oxford University Press pp 437 446 doi 10 1093 oso 9780198829911 003 0041 ISBN 978 0 19 882991 1 Merkel Wolfgang 2004 01 01 Embedded and defective democracies Democratization Informa UK Limited 11 5 33 58 doi 10 1080 13510340412331304598 hdl 10419 251950 ISSN 1351 0347 S2CID 149654333 Merkel Wolfgang December 2004 Embedded and Defective Democracies PDF Democratization 11 5 Retrieved 6 November 2014 Buhllman Mark Merkel Wolfgang Wessels Bernhard April 2008 The Quality of Democracy Democracy Barometer for Established Democracies Hertie School of Governance Working Papers Merkel Wolfgang Croissant Aurel December 2004 Conclusion Good and Defective Democracies Democratization 11 5 199 213 doi 10 1080 13510340412331304651 S2CID 218522553 Merkel 2004 p 33 Merkel 2004 p 36 27 Merkel 2004 p 43 45 Buhllman et al 2008 p 7Further reading EditContemporary analysts Edit Herre Bastian Roser Max 2013 03 15 Democracy Our World in Data Balderacchi Claudio 2022 04 14 Overlooked forms of non democracy Insights from hybrid regimes Third World Quarterly Informa UK Limited 43 6 1441 1459 doi 10 1080 01436597 2022 2059460 ISSN 0143 6597 S2CID 248208017 Ekman Joakim 2009 Political Participation and Regime Stability A Framework for Analyzing Hybrid Regimes International Political Science Review Sage Publications Ltd 30 1 7 31 doi 10 1177 0192512108097054 ISSN 0192 5121 JSTOR 20445173 S2CID 145077481 Luhrmann Anna Tannenberg Marcus Lindberg Staffan I 2018 03 19 Regimes of the World RoW Opening New Avenues for the Comparative Study of Political Regimes Article Politics and Governance Politics and Governance 6 1 60 77 doi 10 17645 pag v6i1 1214 ISSN 2183 2463 Skaaning Svend Erik 2021 Lexical Index of Electoral Democracy LIED dataset v6 0 Harvard Dataverse doi 10 7910 DVN WPKNIT Schedler A 2013 The Politics of Uncertainty Sustaining and Subverting Electoral Authoritarianism Oxford Studies in Democratization OUP Oxford ISBN 978 0 19 166983 5 BTI 2022 Benin Country Report BTI 2022 2021 02 19 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 Edit 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 and Perlmutter 1981 Huntington and Moore Huntington and Moore 1970 discuss the one party system issue Hermet Guy Hermet Rose amp 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 2003 Schedler 2002 and manipulate the economy L Blaydes 2006 Magaloni 2006 in order to win the election and stay in power External links EditHybrid Concepts and the Concept of Hybridity European Consortium for Political Research Political regime 2021 Our World in Data Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Hybrid regime amp oldid 1142804978, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,

article

, read, download, free, free download, mp3, video, mp4, 3gp, jpg, jpeg, gif, png, picture, music, song, movie, book, game, games.