Hybrid regime

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

A hybrid regime

petro-states.[18][8][19] 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.[20][21]

The term hybrid regime arises from a polymorphic view of political regimes that opposes the dichotomy 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),[23] from which it is concluded that democratic backsliding, a transition to authoritarianism is the most prevalent basis of hybrid regimes.[b][24] Some scholars also contend that hybrid regimes may imitate a full dictatorship.[25][26]

Definition

Scholars vary on the definition of hybrid regimes based on their primary academic discipline.[27] "Some scholars argue that deficient democracies and deficient autocracies can be seen as examples of hybrid regimes, whereas others argue that hybrid regimes combine characteristics of both democratic and autocratic regimes."[3] Scholars also debate if these regimes are in transition or are inherently a stable political system.[10]

In 1995 Terry Karl introduced the notion of "hybrid" regime, which was simply defined as "combining democratic and authoritarian elements".[28]

According to professor Matthijs Bogaards hybrid types are:[29]

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:[30]

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.

Henry E. Hale defined hybrid regimes as;[31]

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;[32]

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:[33]

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

History

Map showing liberalization of countries after the Cold War

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.[34] Neither the concept of illiberal democracy, nor the concept of electoral authoritarianism fully describes these hybrid regimes.[35][36]

Since the end of the Cold War, such regimes have become the most common among undemocratic countries.[37][38] 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".[39]

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

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".[verification needed][16] 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.[39]

democratizing (blue) substantially and significantly (2010–2020). Countries in grey are substantially unchanged.[40]

Hybrid regimes have evolved to lean more authoritarian while keeping some democratic traits.

third wave of democratization, some regimes became stuck in the transition to democracy, causing the creation of weak democratic institutions.[43] 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.[44]

These developments have caused some scholars to believe that hybrid regimes are not poorly functioning democracies, but rather new forms of

authoritarian regimes.[45] Defective democratic stability is an indicator to explain and measure these new forms of autocracies.[46] 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.[47] 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.[48]

Indicators

Global trend report Bertelsmann Transformation Index 2022[49]

According to

Philippe C. Schmitter, Larry Diamond and Thomas Carothers, signs of a hybrid regime include:[16][50]

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

Transition types

Autocratization

democratizing
(yellow)
Democratic backsliding
freedom of expression.[62][63] Democratic backsliding is the opposite of democratization
.

Democratisation

Democratization, or democratisation, is the structural government transition from an authoritarian government to a more democratic political regime, including substantive political changes moving in a democratic direction.[64][65]

Whether and to what extent democratization occurs can be influenced by various factors, including economic development, historical legacies, civil society, and international processes. Some accounts of democratization emphasize how elites drove democratization, whereas other accounts emphasize grassroots bottom-up processes.[66] How democratization occurs has also been used to explain other political phenomena, such as whether a country goes to a war or whether its economy grows.[67]

Measurement

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.[68]

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 world's population.[69]

"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."[68] The Democracy Index defines hybrid regimes with the following characteristics:[69]

  • 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
Democracy Index[69]

As of 2021 the countries considered hybrid regimes by the "Democracy Index" are:[69]

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.[70] "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."[68] IDEA defined hybrid regimes as:[71]

Combination of the elements of authoritarianism with democracy ... These often adopt the formal characteristics of democracy (while allowing little real competition for power) with weak respect for basic political and civil rights

As of 2021 the countries considered hybrid regimes by the "Global State of Democracy Report" are:[72]

V-Dem Democracy Indices

Map of V-Dem Electoral Democracy Index in 2023[73]

According to the V-Dem Democracy Indices compiled by the V-Dem Institute at the University of Gothenburg there are 65 hybrid regimes.[74] V-Dem's "Regimes of the World" indicators identify four political regimes: closed autocracies, electoral autocracies, electoral democracies, and liberal democracies.[75]

According to the V-Dem Institute:[76]

In 2021, 70% of the world population – 5.4 billion people – live in closed or electoral autocracies. A mere 13% of the world's population reside in liberal democracies, and 16% in electoral democracies.

Freedom House

Freedom House ratings for European Union and surrounding states, in 2019.[77]
  Free
  Partly free
  Not free

Freedom House measures the level of political and economic governance in 29 countries from Central Europe to Central Asia.[78]

"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)."[68] Freedom House classifies transitional or hybrid regimes as:[78]

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

In 2022, Freedom House classified 11 of 29 countries analyzed as "Transitional or Hybrid Regimes":[78]

Typology

Countries in green claim to be a type of democracy while countries in red do not. Only Saudi Arabia, Oman, the UAE, Qatar, Brunei, Afghanistan, and the Vatican do not claim to be democratic.

According to

democracies
,
authoritarian regimes with many different terms that describe specific types of hybrid regimes.[b][a][79][16][80][81][1]

Academics generally refer to a full dictatorship as either a form of authoritarianism or totalitarianism over a "hybrid system".[82][80][83] Authoritarian governments that conduct elections are in many scholars view not hybrids, but are successful well-institutionalized stable authoritarian regimes.[b][84][85][86] Democratic elements can simultaneously serve authoritarian purposes and contribute to democratization.[87]

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.[88] Electoral authoritarianism can be competitive and hegemonic, and the latter does not necessarily mean election irregularities.[39] A. Schedler calls electoral authoritarianism a new form of authoritarian regime, not a hybrid regime or illiberal democracy.[39] Moreover, a purely authoritarian regime does not need elections as a source of legitimacy[89] 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.[88]

Electoral autocracy

Electoral autocracy is a hybrid regime, in which democratic institutions are imitative and adhere to authoritarian methods. In these regimes, regular elections are held, but they are accused of failing to reach democratic standards of freedom and fairness.[90][91]

Illiberal democracy

The term "illiberal democracy" describes a governing system that hides its "nondemocratic practices behind formally democratic institutions and procedures".[92] There is a lack of consensus among experts about the exact definition of illiberal democracy or whether it even exists.[93]

The rulers of an illiberal democracy may ignore or bypass

constitutional limits on their power.[94] While liberal democracies protect individual rights and freedoms, illiberal democracies do not.[95] 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.[96]

According to jurist
plebiscitarian sense",[97] while political scientist Ulrich Wagrandl argues that "illiberal democracy is actually more true to democracy’s roots".[98] Other theorists say that classifying illiberal democracy as democratic is overly sympathetic to the illiberal regimes[99] and therefore prefer terms such as electoral authoritarianism,[100] competitive authoritarianism,[101] or soft authoritarianism.[102][103]

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.[104] 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).[105] Some dominant parties were called the natural governing party, given their length of time in power.[106][107][108]

Delegative democracy

In political science,

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.[109]
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.[109] By contrast, the delegative form is partially democratic, for the president has a free rein to act and justify his or her acts in the name of the people. The president can "govern as he sees fit" even if it does not resemble promises made while running for election. The president claims to represent the whole nation rather than just a political party, embodying even the legislature and the judiciary.[110]

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.[111]

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

Spanish State,[112] and to the hegemonic 70-year rule of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) in Mexico.[113] Augusto Pinochet used the term when he was asked about his regime and the accusations about his government.[citation needed
]

Analogously, the same pun is made in
Portuguese as ditabranda or ditamole. In February 2009, the Brazilian newspaper Folha de S.Paulo ran a controversial editorial classifying the military dictatorship in Brazil (1964–1985) as a ditabranda.[114]

Guided democracy

semi-democracy
, also known as anocracy.

In a guided democracy, the government controls elections such that the people can exercise democratic 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.[117]

After
Kremlin theorists, in particular Gleb Pavlovsky.[118]

Liberal autocracy

A
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".[122]

Semi-democracy

authoritarian elements.[128][129] Scholars distinguish anocracies from autocracies and democracies in their capability to maintain authority, political dynamics, and policy agendas.[130] Similarly, the regimes have democratic institutions that allow for nominal amounts of competition.[124] Such regimes are particularly susceptible to outbreaks of armed conflict and unexpected or adverse changes in leadership.[131]

Defective democracy

political systems.[132][133] It is based on the concept of embedded democracy. While there are four forms of defective democracy, how each nation reaches the point of defectiveness varies.[134] 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

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.[138] The five internal regimes work together to check the power of the government, while external regimes also help to secure and stabilize embedded democracies.[139] Together, all the regimes ensure that an embedded democracy is guided by the three fundamental principles of freedom, equality, and control.[140][141]

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.[142] [143][144][145]

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).[146]

Currently, within the political sphere, Competitive Authoritarianism has become a crucial regime type that has grown exponentially since the Post-Soviet era in multiple world regions without signs of slowing. On the contrary, there has been growth of Competitive Authoritarianism within previously steadfast democratic regimes, which has been attributed to the recent phenomenon of democratic backsliding.[147] [148]

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 [149] 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.[150] This aided Orban as to ‘democratically’ turn Hungary from a democracy to a competitive authoritarian regime strictly within Fidesz control [151] 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 [152]

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 [153] 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 [154]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 [155]


See also

Notes

  1. ^
    semi-democracy or deficient democracy or defective democracy or hybrid democracy.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]
  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."[3] Scholars also debate if these regimes are in transition or are inherently a stable political system.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]
  3. ^ Other names include autocratization, democratic decline,[51] de-democratization,[52] democratic erosion,[53] democratic decay,[54] democratic recession,[55] democratic regression,[51] and democratic deconsolidation.[56]

References

  1. ^
  2. ^ Plattner, Marc F. (1969-12-31). "Is Democracy in Decline?". kipdf.com. Archived from the original on 2023-04-06. Retrieved 2022-12-27.
  3. ^ a b c "Hybrid Concepts and the Concept of Hybridity". European Consortium for Political Research. 2019-09-07. Archived from the original on 2023-04-06. Retrieved 2022-11-18.
  4. from the original on 2022-11-16. Retrieved 2022-11-16.
  5. ISBN 9781412969017.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link
    )
  6. ^ Tlemcani, Rachid (2007-05-29). "Electoral Authoritarianism". Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Archived from the original on 2023-04-06. Retrieved 2022-11-16.
  7. ^ "What is Hybrid Democracy?". Digital Society School. 2022-05-19. Archived from the original on 2023-04-05. Retrieved 2022-11-16.
  8. ^ from the original on 2022-11-16. Retrieved 2022-11-18.
  9. ^ "Index". Dem-Dec. 2017-09-23. Archived from the original on 2022-11-21. Retrieved 2022-11-21.
  10. ^
    S2CID 145077481
    .
  11. from the original on 2023-04-23. Retrieved 2023-04-23.
  12. .
  13. .
  14. .
  15. .
  16. ^ a b c d Подлесный, Д. В. (2016). Политология: Учебное пособие [Political Science: Textbook] (in Russian). Kharkiv: ХГУ НУА. pp. 62–65/164. Archived from the original on 2023-04-22. Retrieved 2019-08-13.
  17. ^ Schulmann, Ekaterina (15 August 2014). "Царство политической имитации" [The kingdom of political imitation]. Ведомости. Archived from the original on 2019-07-30. Retrieved 2019-08-13.
  18. from the original on December 9, 2022. Retrieved Nov 27, 2022.
  19. .
  20. .
  21. ^ "Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes After the Cold War". Department of Political Science. Archived from the original on 2023-04-06. Retrieved 2022-11-16.
  22. ^ "Hybrid Regimes". obo. Archived from the original on 2019-07-29. Retrieved 2019-08-13.
  23. S2CID 158943827
    .
  24. ^ "Home - IDEA Global State of Democracy Report". International IDEA. Archived from the original on April 4, 2023. Retrieved Nov 26, 2022.
  25. .
  26. from the original on December 9, 2022. Retrieved Nov 27, 2022.
  27. .
  28. from the original on 2023-04-04. Retrieved 2022-12-27.
  29. .
  30. from the original on 2023-04-04. Retrieved 2022-12-09.
  31. .
  32. .
  33. .
  34. . Retrieved November 16, 2022.
  35. ^ Matthijs Bogaards. 2009. *How to Classify Hybrid Regimes? Defective Democracy and Electoral Authoritarianism". Democratization 16 (2): 399–423.
  36. ^ Gagné, Jean-François (2019-05-02). "Hybrid Regimes". obo. Archived from the original on 2019-07-29. Retrieved 2022-11-19.
  37. from the original on 16 November 2022. Retrieved 16 November 2022.
  38. ^ Andreas Schedler, ed. (2006). Electoral Authoritarianism: The Dynamics of Unfree Competition. Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner.
  39. ^ a b c d Yonatan L. Morse (January 2012). "Review: The Era of Electoral Authoritarianism". World Politics 64(1). pp. 161—198. Archived 2021-07-29 at the Wayback Machine.
  40. OCLC 1156414956.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link
    )
  41. from the original on 2023-03-03. Retrieved 2023-03-03.
  42. from the original on 2023-03-02. Retrieved 2023-03-03.
  43. .
  44. ^ Stroh, Alexander; Elischer, Sebastian; Erdmann, Gero (2012). Origins and Outcomes of Electoral Institutions in African Hybrid Regimes: A Comparative Perspective (Report). German Institute of Global and Area Studies (GIGA). Archived from the original on 2023-03-03. Retrieved 2023-03-03.
  45. S2CID 145077481
    .
  46. ISBN 978-0-19-882991-1. Archived from the original on 2023-04-22. Retrieved 2023-03-03. {{cite book}}: |website= ignored (help
    )
  47. from the original on 2023-03-24. Retrieved 2023-03-03.
  48. from the original on 2023-03-03. Retrieved 2023-03-03.
  49. ^ "Global Dashboard". BTI 2022. Archived from the original on April 17, 2023. Retrieved April 17, 2023.
  50. ^ "Nations in Transit Methodology". Freedom House. 2021-12-31. Archived from the original on 2023-03-18. Retrieved 2022-11-19.
  51. ^
    S2CID 225475139
    .
  52. .
  53. .
  54. .
  55. .
  56. .
  57. (PDF) from the original on 6 February 2023. Retrieved 7 November 2022.
  58. . The decline of democratic regime attributes – autocratization
  59. .
  60. . Backsliding entails deterioration of qualities associated with democratic governance, within any regime. In democratic regimes, it is a decline in the quality of democracy; in autocracies, it is a decline in democratic qualities of governance.
  61. ^ Lindberg, Staffan I. "The Nature of Democratic Backsliding in Europe". Carnegie Europe. Archived from the original on 13 April 2021. Retrieved 2021-01-27.
  62. from the original on 21 January 2020. Retrieved 27 January 2021.
  63. .
  64. .
  65. .
  66. .
  67. ^ a b c d Greenwood, Shannon (2022-12-06). "Appendix A: Classifying democracies". Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project. Archived from the original on 2023-03-05. Retrieved 2022-12-27.
  68. ^ a b c d "Democracy Index 2021: the China challenge". Economist Intelligence Unit. Feb 15, 2022. Archived from the original on November 8, 2022. Retrieved November 18, 2022.
  69. ^ "The Global State of Democracy". Publications. 2021-11-22. Archived from the original on 2023-03-08. Retrieved 2022-12-27.
  70. ^ "FAQs – The Global State of Democracy Indices". International IDEA. 2021-12-31. Archived from the original on 2023-04-04. Retrieved 2022-12-27.
  71. .
  72. ^ Democracy Report 2023, Table 3, V-Dem Institute, 2023
  73. ^ "V-Dem Codebook v11" (PDF). March 2021. Archived from the original (PDF) on 30 October 2022. Retrieved 21 April 2023.
  74. ISSN 2183-2463
    .
  75. .
  76. ^ Freedom House (2019-02-06). "Democracy in Retreat". Freedom in the World. Archived from the original on 2019-02-05. Retrieved 2019-02-06.
  77. ^ a b c "Countries and Territories". Freedom House. Archived from the original on March 26, 2023. Retrieved Nov 25, 2022.
  78. from the original on April 30, 2023. Retrieved Apr 30, 2023.
  79. ^ from the original on 2023-04-22. Retrieved 2022-11-19.
  80. from the original on 22 April 2023. Retrieved 19 November 2022.
  81. from the original on 22 April 2023. Retrieved 19 November 2022.
  82. from the original on 2023-03-08. Retrieved 2022-11-19.
  83. ISBN 9781412919760.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link
    )
  84. ^ Levitsky and Way 2002 Archived 2022-12-30 at the Wayback Machine; T. Karl 1995 Archived 2021-03-01 at the Wayback Machine; L. Diamond 1999 Archived 2023-01-31 at the Wayback Machine; A. Schedler 2002 Archived 2022-12-30 at the Wayback Machine
  85. ^ Barbara Geddes — Why Parties and Elections in Authoritarian Regimes?; Department of Political Science ; March 2006
  86. ISSN 1094-2939
    .
  87. ^
  88. ^ Гудков, Лев (2009). "Природа "Путинизма"" [The nature of "Putinism"]. Вестник общественного мнения. Данные. Анализ. Дискуссии. 3: 13. Archived from the original on 2019-08-13. Retrieved 2019-08-13.
  89. S2CID 154433302
    .
  90. ^ Liboreiro, Jorge; Zsiros, Sandor (2022-09-16). "Hungary is no longer a full democracy but an 'electoral autocracy,' MEPs declare in new report". Euronews.
  91. S2CID 225285163
    .
  92. ^ Self, Darin (2022-09-26). "Illiberal Democracies and Democratic Backsliding". obo. Retrieved 2023-04-26.
  93. .
  94. ^ "Illiberal Democracy and the Struggle on the Right". Journal of Democracy.
  95. . 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.
  96. ^ Sajó 2021, pp. 23–24.
  97. .
  98. ^ Sajó 2021, p. 24.
  99. .
  100. ^ Diamond, Larry (April 2002). "Assessing the Quality of Democracy". Journal of Democracy. 13 (2): 51–65.
  101. S2CID 143630796
    .
  102. .
  103. .
  104. .
  105. ^ "Natural Governing Party". The Dictionary of Canadian Politics. Campbell Strategies. 2022. Retrieved 5 December 2022.
  106. . 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.
  107. ^ Chin, James (15 November 2022). "UMNO intends to return as Malaysia's natural governing party". Nikkei. Retrieved 5 December 2022.
  108. ^
    S2CID 8558740
    .
  109. ^ O'Donnell, Guillermo (1992). Delegative Democracy?. University of Notre Dame: Kellogg Institute for International Studies.
  110. ISSN 1430-6387
    .
  111. .
  112. .
  113. ^ Ribeiro, Igor (February 25, 2009). "A 'ditabranda' da Folha" (in Portuguese). Portal Imprensa. Archived from the original on 2012-02-01.
  114. on 2016-04-20. Retrieved 2012-03-11. p. 47
  115. on 2016-04-20. Retrieved 2012-03-11. p. 60
  116. ^ Weir, Fred (October 1, 2003). "Kremlin lobs another shot at marketplace of ideas". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 2009-11-10.
  117. JSTOR 20048858
    . Retrieved 2023-06-03.
  118. ^ Zakaria, Fareed (November/December 1997). "The Rise of Illiberal Democracy". Foreign Affairs. Archived 15 October 2005 at the Wayback Machine
  119. .
  120. . Retrieved 2023-06-03.
  121. . Retrieved 20 May 2013.
  122. ^ .
  123. ^ .
  124. .
  125. .
  126. ^ Montesquieu. "2–3". Spirit of the Laws. Vol. II.
  127. .
  128. ^ Marshall, Monty G.; Gurr, Ted Robert (2003). Peace and conflict 2003: A global survey of armed conflicts, self-determination movements, and democracy (PDF) (Report). College Park: Center for International Development and Conflict Management, University of Maryland.
  129. ^ Marshall, Monty G.; Cole, Benjamin R. (23 July 2014). "Global Report 2014 - Conflict, Governance, and State Fragility" (PDF). Center for Systemic Peace.
  130. ISSN 2663-5704
    .
  131. .
  132. .
  133. ^ Merkel, Wolfgang (December 2004). "Embedded and Defective Democracies" (PDF). Democratization. 11 (5). Retrieved 6 November 2014.
  134. ^ Buhllman, Mark; Merkel, Wolfgang; Wessels, Bernhard (April 2008). "The Quality of Democracy: Democracy Barometer for Established Democracies". Hertie School of Governance - Working Papers.
  135. S2CID 218522553
    .
  136. ^ Merkel (2004) p.33
  137. ^ Merkel (2004) p.36-27
  138. ^ Merkel (2004) p.43-45
  139. ^ Buhllman et al. (2008) p.7
  140. ISSN 1086-3214
    .
  141. .
  142. .
  143. .
  144. .
  145. .
  146. .
  147. ^ (Levitsky & Way, 2020).
  148. ^ (Bakke and Sitter, 2019.)
  149. ^ (Bakke, and Sitter, 2022).
  150. ^ (Bakke, and Sitter, 2022)(Levitsky & Way, 2020).
  151. ^ (Esen & Gumuscu 2016).
  152. ^ (Castalado 2018).
  153. ^ (Esen & Gumuscu 2016).

Further reading

Contemporary analysts

Research history

The researchers conducted a comparative analysis of political regimes around the world (

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 Archived 2019-08-08 at the Wayback Machine) 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 Archived 2019-07-30 at the Wayback Machine), institutionalize electoral frauds (Lehoucq 2003 Archived 2022-03-13 at the Wayback Machine, Schedler 2002 Archived 2019-08-26 at the Wayback Machine) and manipulate the economy (L. Blaydes Archived 2023-04-04 at the Wayback Machine 2006, Magaloni 2006) in order to win the election and stay in power.

External links