Английская Википедия:Hybrid regime
Шаблон:Short description Шаблон:Politics Шаблон:Basic forms of government A hybrid regimeШаблон:Efn is a type of political system often created as a result of an incomplete democratic transition from an authoritarian regime to a democratic one (or vice versa).Шаблон:Efn Hybrid regimes are categorized as having a combination of autocratic features with democratic ones and can simultaneously hold political repressions and regular elections.Шаблон:Efn Hybrid regimes are commonly found in developing countries with abundant natural resources such as petro-states.[1][2][3] Although these regimes experience civil unrest, they may be relatively stable and tenacious for decades at a time.Шаблон:Efn There has been a rise in hybrid regimes since the end of the Cold War.[4][5]
The term hybrid regime arises from a polymorphic view of political regimes that opposes the dichotomy of autocracy or democracy.[6] 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 the government point of view and the opposition in parliament votes the same way as the ruling party, among others),[7] from which it is concluded that democratic backsliding, a transition to authoritarianism is the most prevalent basis of hybrid regimes.Шаблон:Efn[8] Some scholars also contend that hybrid regimes may imitate a full dictatorship.[9][10]
Definition
Scholars vary on the definition of hybrid regimes based on their primary academic discipline.[11] "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."[12] Scholars also debate if these regimes are in transition or are inherently a stable political system.[13]
In 1995 Terry Karl introduced the notion of "hybrid" regime, which was simply defined as "combining democratic and authoritarian elements".[14]
According to professor Matthijs Bogaards hybrid types are:[15] Шаблон:Blockquote
Pippa Norris defined hybrid regimes as:[16] Шаблон:Blockquote
Henry E. Hale defined hybrid regimes as;[17] Шаблон:Blockquote
Leonardo Morlino defined hybrid regimes as;[18] Шаблон:Blockquote
Professor Jeffrey C. Isaac defined hybrid regimes as:[19] Шаблон:Blockquote
History
The third wave of democratization from the 1970s onward has led to the emergence of hybrid regimes that are neither fully democratic nor fully authoritarian.[20] Neither the concept of illiberal democracy, nor the concept of electoral authoritarianism fully describes these hybrid regimes.[21][22]
Since the end of the Cold War, such regimes have become the most common among undemocratic countries.[23][24] 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".[25]
In relation to regimes that were previously called "transitional" in the 1980s, the term hybrid regime began to be used and was strengthened according to Thomas Carothers because 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".Шаблон:Verify inline[26] 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.[25]
Hybrid regimes have evolved to lean more authoritarian while keeping some democratic traits.[28] 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.[29] After the third wave of democratization, some regimes became stuck in the transition to democracy, causing the creation of weak democratic institutions.[30] 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.[31]
These developments have caused some scholars to believe that hybrid regimes are not poorly functioning democracies, but rather new forms of authoritarian regimes.[32] Defective democratic stability is an indicator to explain and measure these new forms of autocracies.[33] 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 creating a tool not utilized previously.[34] 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.[35] Шаблон:-
Indicators
According to Guillermo O'Donnell, Philippe C. Schmitter, Larry Diamond and Thomas Carothers, signs of a hybrid regime include:[26][37]
- The presence of external attributes of democracy (elections, multi-party system, legal opposition).
- A low degree of representation of the interests of citizens in the process of political decision-making (incapacity of associations of citizens, for example trade unions, or that they are in state control).
- A low level of political participation.
- The declarative nature of political rights and freedoms (formally there is in fact difficult implementation).
- A low level of trust in political institutions by the citizenry.
Transition types
Autocratization
Democratisation
Measurement
Шаблон:Main Шаблон:Further 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.[38]
Democracy Index
According to the Democracy Index compiled by the Economist Intelligence Unit there are 34 hybrid regimes, representing approximately 20% of countries, encompassing 17.2% to 20.5% of the world's population.[39]
"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."[38] The Democracy Index defines hybrid regimes with the following characteristics:[39]
- Electoral fraud or irregularities occur regularly
- Pressure is applied to political opposition
- Corruption is widespread and rule of law tends to be weak
- Media is pressured and harassed
- There are issues in the functioning of governance
As of 2021 the countries considered hybrid regimes by the "Democracy Index" are:[39] Шаблон:Div col
- 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 Report
According to the "Global State of Democracy Report" by International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA), there are 20 hybrid regimes.[40] "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."[38] IDEA defined hybrid regimes as:[41]
As of 2021 the countries considered hybrid regimes by the "Global State of Democracy Report" are:[42] Шаблон:Div col
- Angola
- Benin
- Côte 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 Democracy Indices
According to the V-Dem Democracy Indices compiled by the V-Dem Institute at the University of Gothenburg there are 65 hybrid regimes.[44] V-Dem's "Regimes of the World" indicators identify four political regimes: closed autocracies, electoral autocracies, electoral democracies, and liberal democracies.[45]
According to the V-Dem Institute:[46]
Freedom House
Freedom House measures the level of political and economic governance in 29 countries from Central Europe to Central Asia.[48]
"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)."[38] Freedom House classifies transitional or hybrid regimes as:[48] Шаблон:Blockquote
In 2022, Freedom House classified 11 of 29 countries analyzed as "Transitional or Hybrid Regimes":[48] Шаблон:Div col
- Armenia
- Georgia
- Moldova
- Bosnia and Herzegovina
- Kosovo
- Ukraine
- Hungary
- Albania
- Serbia
- North Macedonia
- Montenegro
Typology
According to Yale professor Juan José Linz there a three main types of political systems today: democracies, totalitarian regimes and, sitting between these two, authoritarian regimes with many different terms that describe specific types of hybrid regimes.Шаблон:EfnШаблон:Efn[49][26][50][51][52]
Academics generally refer to a full dictatorship as either a form of authoritarianism or totalitarianism over a "hybrid system".[53][50][54] Authoritarian governments that conduct elections are in many scholars view not hybrids, but are successful well-institutionalized stable authoritarian regimes.Шаблон:Efn[55][56][57] Democratic elements can simultaneously serve authoritarian purposes and contribute to democratization.[58]
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.[59] Electoral authoritarianism can be competitive and hegemonic, and the latter does not necessarily mean election irregularities.[25] A. Schedler calls electoral authoritarianism a new form of authoritarian regime, not a hybrid regime or illiberal democracy.[25] Moreover, a purely authoritarian regime does not need elections as a source of legitimacy[60] 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.[59]
Electoral autocracy
Illiberal democracy
Dominant-party system
Delegative democracy
Dictablanda
Guided democracy
Liberal autocracy
Semi-democracy
Defective democracy
Embedded democracy
Competitive Authoritarian Regimes
Competitive Authoritarian Regimes (or Competitive Authoritarianism) is a subtype of Authoritarianism and of the wider Hybrid Regime regime type. This regime type was created to encapsulate states that contained formal democratic institutions that rulers viewed as the principal means of obtaining and exercising legitimate political authority with a meaningful opposition and other semblances of democratic political society. However officials violate elections frequently and interfere with opposition organisations causing the regime to miss the minimum conventional standard for democracy.[61] [62][63][64]
Three main instruments are used within Competitive Authoritarian Regimes to maintain political power: the self-serving use of state institutions (regarding abuses of electoral and judicial institutions such as voter intimidation and voter fraud); the overuse of state resources (to gain influence and/or power over proportional representation media, and use legal resources to disturb constitutional change); and the disruption of civil liberties (such as freedom of speech/press and association).[65]
Currently, within the political sphere, Competitive Authoritarianism has become a crucial regime type that has grown exponentially since the Post-Soviet era in multiple world regions without signs of slowing. On the contrary, there has been growth of Competitive Authoritarianism within previously steadfast democratic regimes, which has been attributed to the recent phenomenon of democratic backsliding.[66] [67]
Hungary Under Viktor Orban’s government (Fidesz) Hungary has become a prime example of a contemporary competitive authoritarian regime due to the disruption of legislative, democratic and electoral institutions without violating civil liberties [68] This has been achieved by the appropriation by Fidesz of the media and the electoral arena through the spread of loyalist Fidesz members within these institutions and businesses. Furthermore, the usage of Fidesz’s memberships within the European People’s Party (in the European Parliament) granted Fidesz protection from EU criticism and showed the EU’s lack of acceptance of the possibility of an EU state becoming a competitive authoritarian regime.[69] This aided Orban as to ‘democratically’ turn Hungary from a democracy to a competitive authoritarian regime strictly within Fidesz control [70] Moreover, this shift towards a competitive authoritarian regime attracted the attention of neighbours within Poland (the PSI or Law and Justice Party). The success of Fidesz’s takeover of the Hungarian government strengthened the PSI’s attempts to rollback judicial institutions and human rights for certain minorities within Poland, however, recently this has halted due to the victory of Donald Tusk's coalition government headed by the Civic Platform [71]
Turky Under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey has experienced a significant dedemocratization over the past decade. The incumbents used state resources and institutions to disadvantage opposition parties, and mandatory civil rights like freedom of press and thought were cut over the years. This led to journalists being threatened with persecution, and the role of opposition politicians became more dangerous [72] The connection between religion and the state became more important, and being part of the right religious group became a key part of a peaceful and successful life. Turkey has also changed its form of government from a parliamentary to a presidential democracy, with civil liberties becoming less important and protected by incumbents. This shows that Turkey is no longer a full-scale democracy, with a lack of democratic freedoms and attempts to combine power on one single person, such as Recep Tayyip Erdogan [73]Despite the lack of democratic freedoms and attempts to combine power on one person, Turkey still has a democratic constitution that significantly defines its state structure. Elections, despite being not fair, are held regularly and have a massive impact on the state [74]
See also
- Authoritarian democracy
- Embedded democracy
- Delegative democracy
- Types of democracy
- Democracy-Dictatorship Index
- Hybrid institutions and governance
Notes
References
Further reading
Contemporary analysts
- Шаблон:Cite journal
- Шаблон:Cite journal
- Шаблон:Cite journal
- Шаблон:Cite journal
- Шаблон:Cite book
- Шаблон:Citation
- Шаблон:Cite book
- Шаблон:Cite web
- Beatriz Magaloni. 2010. "The Game of Electoral Fraud and the Ousting of Authoritarian Rule." Шаблон:Webarchive American Journal of Political Science, 54 (3): 751-65.
- Weyland, Kurt. 2024. "Hybrid Regimes in Historical Perspective." in The Oxford Handbook of Authoritarian Politics. Oxford University Press.
Research history
Шаблон:Refbegin The researchers conducted a comparative analysis of political regimes around the world (Samuel Finer 1970), in developing countries (Almond and Coleman, 1960 Шаблон:Webarchive), 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 Шаблон:Webarchive) 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 Шаблон:Webarchive), institutionalize electoral frauds (Lehoucq 2003 Шаблон:Webarchive, Schedler 2002 Шаблон:Webarchive) and manipulate the economy (L. Blaydes Шаблон:Webarchive 2006, Magaloni 2006) in order to win the election and stay in power. Шаблон:Refend
External links
- Hybrid Concepts and the Concept of Hybridity - European Consortium for Political Research
- Democracy data: how do researchers measure democracy? -Our World in Data
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite book
- ↑ Ошибка цитирования Неверный тег
<ref>; для сносокZinecker 2009 pp. 302–331не указан текст - ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite book
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite book
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
- ↑ Ошибка цитирования Неверный тег
<ref>; для сносокEuropean Consortium for Political Research 2019не указан текст - ↑ Ошибка цитирования Неверный тег
<ref>; для сносокEkman 2009 pp. 7–33не указан текст - ↑ Шаблон:Cite book
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite book
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite book
- ↑ Matthijs Bogaards. 2009. *How to Classify Hybrid Regimes? Defective Democracy and Electoral Authoritarianism". Democratization 16 (2): 399–423.
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite book
- ↑ Andreas Schedler, ed. (2006). Electoral Authoritarianism: The Dynamics of Unfree Competition. Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner.
- ↑ 25,0 25,1 25,2 25,3 Yonatan L. Morse (January 2012). "Review: The Era of Electoral Authoritarianism". World Politics 64(1). pp. 161—198. Шаблон:Webarchive.
- ↑ 26,0 26,1 26,2 Ошибка цитирования Неверный тег
<ref>; для сносокpodlesне указан текст - ↑ Шаблон:Cite book
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite book
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite report
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite book
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
- ↑ 38,0 38,1 38,2 38,3 Шаблон:Cite web
- ↑ 39,0 39,1 39,2 39,3 Шаблон:Cite web
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite book
- ↑ Democracy Report 2023, Table 3, V-Dem Institute, 2023
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
- ↑ 48,0 48,1 48,2 Шаблон:Cite web
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite book
- ↑ 50,0 50,1 Шаблон:Cite book
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite book
- ↑ Ошибка цитирования Неверный тег
<ref>; для сносокGagné 2015 p.не указан текст - ↑ Шаблон:Cite book
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite book
- ↑ Levitsky and Way 2002 Шаблон:Webarchive; T. Karl 1995 Шаблон:Webarchive; L. Diamond 1999 Шаблон:Webarchive; A. Schedler 2002 Шаблон:Webarchive
- ↑ Barbara Geddes — Why Parties and Elections in Authoritarian Regimes?; Department of Political Science ; March 2006
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
- ↑ 59,0 59,1 Шаблон:Citation
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite book
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite book
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite journal
- ↑ (Levitsky & Way, 2020).
- ↑ (Bakke and Sitter, 2019.)
- ↑ (Bakke, and Sitter, 2022).
- ↑ (Bakke, and Sitter, 2022)(Levitsky & Way, 2020).
- ↑ (Esen & Gumuscu 2016).
- ↑ (Castalado 2018).
- ↑ (Esen & Gumuscu 2016).
