Hybrid regime

The third wave of democratization has led to the emergence of hybrid regimes that are neither fully democratic nor fully authoritarian. Neither the concept of illiberal democracy, nor the concept of electoral authoritarianism fully describes these hybrid regimes.[4]

Since the end of the Cold War, such regimes have become the most common among undemocratic.[5] 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".[6]

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".[1] 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.[6]

One of the first to use the concept of "hybrid regime" was the sociologist Elemér Hankiss when analyzing the Goulash Communism of János Kádár's Hungary.[7]

According to Guillermo O'Donnell, Philippe C. Schmitter, Larry Diamond and Thomas Carothers, signs of a hybrid regime include:[1]

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.

Some countries that have been described as hybrid regimes include Colombia, Egypt, Hungary,[8] Indonesia, Mexico, Montenegro, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russia, Serbia, Tanzania, Tunisia, Turkey, Venezuela and Uganda.[9]

There are many different terms that describe specific types of hybrid regimes.[1]

• Regime with weak pluralism syndrome – regular elections, with high level of competition among the elite, weak political participation and corruption of elites. According to Thomas Carothers, it is typical for such countries as Albania, Ecuador, Madagascar, Moldova, Nepal, Nicaragua, Sierra Leone, South Korea, Thailand and Ukraine.[1]
• Regime with a dominant power syndrome (system with a dominant party, dominant-power politics) – the presence of decorative democratic institutions, weak opposition and erosion of borders between the state and the ruling party.[1] In the work (Suttner, R. 2006), these countries are Angola (MPLA), Bangladesh (Awami League), Cambodia (Cambodian People's Party), Japan (Liberal Democratic Party), Malaysia (Barisan Nasional), Montenegro (Democratic Party of Socialists of Montenegro), Russia (United Russia), Serbia (Serbian Progressive Party), Singapore (People's Action Party), Slovakia (Direction – Social Democracy), South Africa (African National Congress), Turkey (Justice and Development Party) and Zimbabwe (ZANU–PF).
• Guillermo O'Donnell's delegative democracy – the absolutization of the status of president as head of state, with the presence of the broadest possible powers, his regular excess of the constitutional framework and weak political participation of citizens. Guillermo O'Donnell cites countries such as Bolivia, Brazil, Peru, Philippines and South Korea. Fareed Zakaria noted that a similar type of regime was in Russia during the reign of Boris Yeltsin.[1]
• Philippe C. Schmitter's dictablanda – citizens have individual political rights in a multi-party system, but power is not controlled by citizens. Countries such as Ivory Coast and Kenya are cited as an example.[1]
• Philippe C. Schmitter's democradura – elections are held regularly, but there is no real political competition. The regimes of the 1980s–1990s in countries such as El Salvador and Guatemala as well as Putinism in Russia are cited as an example.[1]

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.[2] Hermet (Guy Hermet, Rose, & Rouquie 1978) explores how elections are held in such authoritarian regimes,[2] which are nominally democratic institutions.[13]

"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.[13]

• Andreas Schedler - “The Politics of Uncertainty” (Oxford UP, 2013);
• Guy Hermet, Richard Rose, and Alain Rouquie (eds.). 1978. Elections without Choice. New York: Wiley.
• Beatriz Magaloni. 2010. "The Game of Electoral Fraud and the Ousting of Authoritarian Rule." American Journal of Political Science, 54 (3): 751-65.

• Authoritarian democracy
• Democratic backsliding
• Embedded democracy
• Hybrid institutions and governance
• List of freedom indices
• Semi-democracy
• Anocracy