Product Code Database
A hybrid regime is a type of political system often created as a result of an incomplete democratic transition from an authoritarian regime to a Democracy one (or vice versa). Hybrid regimes are categorized as having a combination of autocratic features with democratic ones and can simultaneously hold political repressions and regular . According to some definitions and measures, hybrid regimes are commonly found in developing countries with abundant natural resources such as . Although these regimes experience civil unrest, they may be relatively stable and tenacious for decades at a time. There has been a rise in hybrid regimes since the end of the Cold War.
The term hybrid regime arises from a polymorphic view of political regimes that oppose the dichotomy of autocracy or democracy. Modern scholarly analysis of hybrid regimes focuses attention on the decorative nature of democratic institutions (elections do not lead to a change of power, different media broadcast the government point of view and the opposition in parliament votes the same way as the ruling party, among others), from which it is concluded that democratic backsliding, a transition to authoritarianism is the most prevalent basis of hybrid regimes. Some scholars also contend that hybrid regimes may imitate a full dictatorship.
Overall, there is no consensus among researchers about how hybrid regimes should be defined or measured. Accordingly, there is much disagreement about which countries are considered to be hybrid regimes, and any description of what typical hybrid regimes look like needs to be seen in the context of specific definitions and measures.
In 1995 Terry Karl introduced the notion of "hybrid" regime, which was simply defined as "combining democratic and authoritarian elements".
According to professor Matthijs Bogaards hybrid types are:
Pippa Norris defined hybrid regimes as:
Henry E. Hale defined hybrid regimes as;
Leonardo Morlino defined hybrid regimes as;
Professor Jeffrey C. Isaac defined hybrid regimes as:
Since the end of the Cold War, such regimes have become the most common among undemocratic countries.Andreas Schedler, ed. (2006). Electoral Authoritarianism: The Dynamics of Unfree Competition. Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner. At the end of the process of transformation of authoritarian regimes, limited elections appear in one way or another when liberalization occurs. Liberal democracy has always been assumed while in practice this process basically froze "halfway".Yonatan L. Morse (January 2012). "Review: The Era of Electoral Authoritarianism". World Politics 64(1). pp. 161—198. .
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:
Hybrid regimes have evolved to lean more authoritarian while keeping some democratic traits. 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. After the third wave of democratization, some regimes became stuck in the transition to democracy, causing the creation of weak democratic institutions. 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.
These developments have caused some scholars to believe that hybrid regimes are not poorly functioning democracies, but rather new forms of authoritarian regimes. Defective democratic stability is an indicator to explain and measure these new forms of autocracies. 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. 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.
"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." The Democracy Index defines hybrid regimes with the following characteristics:
Full democracies
Flawed democracies
Hybrid regimes
Authoritarian regimes
]] As of 2024 the countries considered hybrid regimes by the "Democracy Index" are:
As of 2021 the countries considered hybrid regimes by the "Global State of Democracy Report" are:International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (2025). 9789176714782 ISBN 9789176714782
|upright=1.6]] According to the V-Dem Democracy Indices compiled by the V-Dem Institute at the University of Gothenburg there are 65 hybrid regimes. V-Dem's "Regimes of the World" indicators identify four political regimes: closed autocracies, electoral autocracies, electoral democracies, and liberal democracies.
According to the V-Dem Institute:
]] Freedom House measures the level of political and economic governance in 29 countries from Central Europe to Central Asia.
"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)." Freedom House classifies transitional or hybrid regimes as:
In 2024, Freedom House classified 11 of 29 countries analyzed as "Transitional or Hybrid Regimes":
Academics generally refer to a full dictatorship as either a form of authoritarianism or totalitarianism over a "hybrid system". Authoritarian governments that conduct elections are in many scholars view not hybrids, but are successful well-institutionalized stable authoritarian regimes. 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 Democratic elements can simultaneously serve authoritarian purposes and contribute to democratization.
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).
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 Democracy, which has been attributed to the recent phenomenon of democratic backsliding.
"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 ( Lehoucq 2003 , Schedler 2002 ) and manipulate the economy ( L. Blaydes 2006, Magaloni 2006) in order to win the election and stay in power.
|
|
