Social:Hybrid regime

From HandWiki
Short description: Regime combining autocratic and democratic features

Template:Merging from

Not to be confused with Anocracy or Mixed government.
Part of a series on
Politics
Ballot box
Primary topics
Political systems
Academic disciplines
Public administration
Policy
Civil society
Organs of government
Related topics
Subseries
Politics Portal
Part of the Politics series
Basic forms of government
Power structure
Separation
Federalism
Integration
Administrative division
Power source
Democracy
(rule by the people)
Oligarchy
(rule by few)
Autocracy
(rule by one)
Anarchism
(rule by none)
Power ideology
Monarchy vs. republic
(socio-political ideologies)
Authoritarian vs. libertarian
(socio-economic ideologies)
Global vs. local
(geo-cultural ideologies)
Politics portal

A hybrid regime[lower-alpha 1] 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).[lower-alpha 2] Hybrid regimes are categorized as having a combination of autocratic features with democratic ones and can simultaneously hold political repressions and regular elections. According to some definitions and measures, hybrid regimes are commonly found in developing countries with abundant natural resources such as petro-states.[10][8][11] 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.[12][13]

The term hybrid regime arises from a polymorphic view of political regimes that oppose the dichotomy of autocracy or democracy.[14] 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).[15] While most maintain a veneer of democracy to appease international standards, some scholars contend these regimes deliberately imitate a full dictatorship to project strength and suppress internal dissent.[16][17]

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.[18] Democratic backsliding is the primary cause of the growth of hybrid regime typologies.[19]

Definition

Scholars vary on the definition of hybrid regimes based on their primary academic discipline.[20] According to Christoph Mohamad-Klotzbach, "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.[21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] In 1995, Terry Karl introduced the notion of "hybrid" regime, which was simply defined as "combining democratic and authoritarian elements".[29] According to professor Matthijs Bogaards hybrid types are:[30]

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:[31]

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:[32]

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:[33]

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:[34]

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

Countries autocratizing (red) or democratizing (blue) substantially and significantly (2010–2020). Countries in grey are substantially unchanged.[35]

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.[36] Neither the concept of illiberal democracy, nor the concept of electoral authoritarianism fully describes these hybrid regimes.[37][38]

Since the end of the Cold War, such regimes have become the most common among undemocratic countries.[39][40] 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".[41] 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:

the majority of “transitional countries” are neither completely dictatorial nor aspiring to democracy, and by and large they cannot be called transitional. They are located in the politically stable gray zone, changes in which may not take place for decades. 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.[42]

Hybrid regimes have evolved to lean more authoritarian while keeping some democratic traits.[43] 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.[44] After the third wave of democratization, some regimes became stuck in the transition to democracy, causing the creation of weak democratic institutions.[45] 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.[46]

These developments have caused some scholars to believe that hybrid regimes are not poorly functioning democracies, but rather new forms of authoritarian regimes.[47] Defective democratic stability is an indicator to explain and measure these new forms of autocracies.[48] 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.[49] As of the 2020s, '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.[50]

Indicators

Global trend report Bertelsmann Transformation Index 2022[51]

According to Guillermo O'Donnell, Philippe C. Schmitter, Larry Diamond and Thomas Carothers, signs of a hybrid regime include:[27][52]

  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

Since c. 2010, the number of countries autocratizing (blue) is higher than those democratizing (yellow).
This section is an excerpt from Democratic backsliding[ edit ]

Democratization

This section is an excerpt from Democratization[ edit ]

Measurement

Main article: Social:Democracy indices
There are various democratic freedom indices produced by academic researchers, and intergovernmental non-governmental organizations that publish assessments of the worlds political systems, according to their own definitions, and many of them include measures of hybrid regimes.[53][18] However, because these various indices use different definitions and methodologies, they often disagree on which countries should be classified as hybrid regimes.[18]

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.[54] 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."[53] The Democracy Index defines hybrid regimes with the following characteristics:[54]

  • 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 2024 Economist Intelligence Unit Democracy Index[54]

As of 2024 the countries considered hybrid regimes by the "Democracy Index" are:

  • Romania
  • Papua New Guinea
  • Senegal
  • Paraguay
  • Malawi
  • Zambia
  • Peru
  • Fiji
  • Bhutan
  • Liberia
  • Armenia
  • Hong Kong
  • Honduras
  • Madagascar
  • Mexico
  • Georgia
  • Ecuador
  • Tanzania
  • Bosnia and Herzegovina
  • Kenya
  • Morocco
  • Ukraine
  • Tunisia
  • El Salvador
  • Nepal
  • Guatemala
  • Uganda
  • Gambia
  • Bangladesh
  • Benin
  • Sierra Leone
  • Bolivia
  • Turkey
  • Ivory Coast
  • Nigeria
  • Angola

Global State of Democracy Report

According to the "Global State of Democracy Report" by International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA), there are twenty hybrid regimes.[55] "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."[53] IDEA defined hybrid regimes as:[56]

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:[57]

  • 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

File:V-Dem Electoral Democracy Index 2025 Robinson World.svg
Map of V-Dem Electoral Democracy Index in 2024[58]

The V-Dem Democracy Indices compiled by the V-Dem Institute at the University of Gothenburg classify all political regimes worldwide into four primary types. The two intermediate categories, electoral autocracies and electoral democracies, lie in between the most democratic (liberal democracy) and most autocratic (closed autocracy).[59] In 2016, there were 118 countries in the electoral democracy and autocracy categories,[60]: 76–77  and in 2021 there were 115. The 115 countries in 2021 consisted of about 60% of the world's population.[61]: 985 

Freedom House

Freedom House ratings for European Union and surrounding states, in 2019[62]
  Free
  Partly free
  Not free

Freedom House measures the level of political and economic governance in 29 countries from Central Europe to Central Asia.[63] 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)."[53] Freedom House classifies transitional or hybrid regimes as:[63]

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 2024, Freedom House classified 11 of 29 countries analyzed as "Transitional or Hybrid Regimes":[63]

  • Armenia
  • Georgia
  • Albania
  • Bosnia and Herzegovina
  • Kosovo
  • Ukraine
  • Hungary
  • Moldova
  • Serbia
  • North Macedonia
  • Montenegro

Typology

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

According to Yale professor Juan José Linz, there are 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.[64][27][65][66][1]

Academics generally refer to a full dictatorship as either a form of authoritarianism or totalitarianism over a "hybrid system".[67][65][68] Authoritarian governments that conduct elections are in many scholars view not hybrids, but are successful well-institutionalized stable authoritarian regimes.[69][70][71] Democratic elements can simultaneously serve authoritarian purposes and contribute to democratization.[72]

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.[73] Electoral authoritarianism can be competitive and hegemonic, and the latter does not necessarily mean election irregularities.[41] A. Schedler calls electoral authoritarianism a new form of authoritarian regime, not a hybrid regime or illiberal democracy.[41] Moreover, a purely authoritarian regime does not need elections as a source of legitimacy[74] 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.[73]

This section is an excerpt from Electoral autocracy[ edit ]

Illiberal democracy

This section is an excerpt from Illiberal democracy[ edit ]

Dominant-party system

This section is an excerpt from Dominant-party system[ edit ]

Delegative democracy

This section is an excerpt from Delegative democracy[ edit ]

Dictablanda

This section is an excerpt from Dictablanda[ edit ]

Guided democracy

This section is an excerpt from Guided democracy[ edit ]

Liberal autocracy

This section is an excerpt from Liberal autocracy[ edit ]

Semi-democracy

This section is an excerpt from Anocracy[ edit ]

Defective democracy

This section is an excerpt from Defective democracy[ edit ]

Embedded democracy

This section is an excerpt from Embedded democracy[ edit ]

Competitive authoritarian regimes

Competitive authoritarianism is a subtype of authoritarianism and of the wider hybrid regime type. This regime type was defined to encapsulate states that contain formal democratic institutions that rulers view as the principal means of obtaining and exercising legitimate political authority against a real opposition and other semblances of democratic political society, in which officials violate election freedom and fairness in order to retain power. The officials interfere with opposition organisations, failing to respect minimum conventional standards of democracy.[75][76][77][78]

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).[76] In the post-Soviet era, continuing into the 2010s, the number of competitive authoritarian regimes increased.[79][77]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ Scholars use a variety of terms to encompass the "grey zones" between full autocracies and full democracies.[1] Such terms include: competitive authoritarianism, semi-authoritarianism, hybrid authoritarianism, electoral authoritarianism, liberal autocracy, delegative democracy, illiberal democracy, guided democracy, semi-democracy, deficient democracy, defective democracy, and hybrid democracy.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]
  2. ↑ Debates over what can be called "hybrid" still exist, see Hybrid regime § Definition.

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Gagné, Jean-François (Mar 10, 2015), "Hybrid Regimes", Oxford Bibliographies in Political Science, Oxford University Press (OUP), doi:10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0167, ISBN 978-0-19-785914-8 
  2. ↑ Plattner, Marc F. (1969-12-31). "Is Democracy in Decline?". https://kipdf.com/is-democracy-in-decline_5ac6f5411723ddcc8fb724a7.html. 
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 "Hybrid Concepts and the Concept of Hybridity". 2019-09-07. https://ecpr.eu/Events/Event/SectionDetails/833. 
  4. ↑ 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. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41349660. Retrieved 2022-11-16. 
  5. ↑ 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. 
  6. ↑ Tlemcani, Rachid (2007-05-29). "Electoral Authoritarianism". https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2007/05/electoral-authoritarianism?lang=en. 
  7. ↑ "What is Hybrid Democracy?". 2022-05-19. https://digitalsocietyschool.org/insight/what-is-hybrid-democracy/. 
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 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. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40389063. Retrieved 2022-11-18. 
  9. ↑ "Index". 2017-09-23. https://www.democratic-decay.org/index. 
  10. ↑ 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. https://books.google.com/books?id=3rNACwAAQBAJ&pg=PA212. Retrieved Nov 27, 2022. 
  11. ↑ 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. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/705723/summary. 
  12. ↑ 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. 
  13. ↑ "Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes After the Cold War". https://politics.utoronto.ca/publication/competitive-authoritarianism-hybrid-regimes-after-the-cold-war/. 
  14. ↑ "Hybrid Regimes". https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199756223/obo-9780199756223-0167.xml. 
  15. ↑ 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. 
  16. ↑ 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. 
  17. ↑ Brooker, P. (2013). Non-Democratic Regimes. Comparative Government and Politics. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 222. ISBN 978-1-137-38253-5. https://books.google.com/books?id=Xo9KEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA222. Retrieved Nov 27, 2022. 
  18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 18.2 Schmid, Jonas Willibald (2025). "Electoral autocracies, hybrid regimes, and multiparty autocracies: same, same but different?". Democratization 32 (6): 1565–1588. doi:10.1080/13510347.2025.2476183. ISSN 1351-0347. 
  19. ↑ Gagné, Jean-François; Mahé, Anne-Laure (2020). "Hybrid Regimes". The SAGE Handbook of Political Science. doi:10.4135/9781529714333.n50. ISBN 978-1-5297-1433-3. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529714333.n50. 
  20. ↑ Cassani, Andrea (September 3, 2013). "Hybrid what? Partial consensus and persistent divergences in the analysis of hybrid regimes". International Political Science Review (SAGE) 35 (5): 542–558. doi:10.1177/0192512113495756. ISSN 0192-5121. 
  21. ↑ Ekman, Joakim (2009). "Political Participation and Regime Stability: A Framework for Analyzing Hybrid Regimes". International Political Science Review 30 (1): 7–31. doi:10.1177/0192512108097054. ISSN 0192-5121. 
  22. ↑ Baker, A. (2021). Shaping the Developing World: The West, the South, and the Natural World. SAGE. p. 202. ISBN 978-1-0718-0709-5. https://books.google.com/books?id=EPwWEAAAQBAJ&pg=PT202. Retrieved 2023-04-23. 
  23. ↑ "Why Parties and Elections in Dictatorships?". How Dictatorships Work. Cambridge University Press. 2018. pp. 129–153. doi:10.1017/9781316336182.006. ISBN 9781316336182. 
  24. ↑ Riaz, Ali (2019). "What is a Hybrid Regime?". Voting in a Hybrid Regime. Politics of South Asia. Singapore: Springer. pp. 9–19. doi:10.1007/978-981-13-7956-7_2. ISBN 978-981-13-7955-0. 
  25. ↑ 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. 
  26. ↑ 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. 
  27. ↑ 27.0 27.1 27.2 Подлесный, Д. В. (2016) (in ru). Политология: Учебное пособие. Kharkiv: ХГУ НУА. pp. 62–65/164. https://books.google.com/books?id=2Sc8DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA62. Retrieved 2019-08-13. 
  28. ↑ Schulmann, Ekaterina (15 August 2014). "Царство политической имитации". Ведомости. https://www.vedomosti.ru/opinion/articles/2014/08/15/carstvo-imitacii. 
  29. ↑ Colomer, J. M.; Beale, A. L. (2020). Democracy and Globalization: Anger, Fear, and Hope. Taylor & Francis. p. 180. ISBN 978-1-000-05363-0. https://books.google.com/books?id=9AfpDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT180. Retrieved 2022-12-27. 
  30. ↑ Bogaards, Matthijs (2009). "How to classify hybrid regimes? Defective democracy and electoral authoritarianism". Democratization 16 (2): 399–423. doi:10.1080/13510340902777800. ISSN 1351-0347. 
  31. ↑ Norris, Pippa (2017). "Is Western Democracy Backsliding? Diagnosing the Risks". SSRN Electronic Journal (Rochester, New York: Elsevier). doi:10.2139/ssrn.2933655. ISSN 1556-5068. https://research.hks.harvard.edu/publications/getFile.aspx?Id=1514. Retrieved 2022-12-09. 
  32. ↑ Hale, Henry E. (2010). "Eurasian Polities as Hybrid Regimes: The Case of Putin's Russia". Journal of Eurasian Studies (SAGE Publications) 1 (1): 33–41. doi:10.1016/j.euras.2009.11.001. ISSN 1879-3665. 
  33. ↑ Hameed, Dr. Muntasser Majeed (2022-06-30). "Hybrid regimes: An Overview". IPRI Journal 22 (1): 1–24. doi:10.31945/iprij.220101. 
  34. ↑ Isaac, J. C. (1998). Democracy in Dark Times. Cornell University Press. p. 199. ISBN 978-0-8014-8454-4. 
  35. ↑ Newton, Kenneth; van Deth, Jan W. (2021). Foundations of comparative politics: democracies of the modern world. Cambridge, United Kingdom. ISBN 978-1-108-92494-8. OCLC 1156414956. 
  36. ↑ 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. https://books.google.com/books?id=IMjyTFG04JYC. Retrieved November 16, 2022. 
  37. ↑ Matthijs Bogaards. 2009. *How to Classify Hybrid Regimes? Defective Democracy and Electoral Authoritarianism". Democratization 16 (2): 399–423.
  38. ↑ Gagné, Jean-François (2019-05-02). "Hybrid Regimes". https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199756223/obo-9780199756223-0167.xml. 
  39. ↑ Morlino, Leonardo; Berg-Schlosser, Dirk; Badie, Bertrand (6 March 2017). Political Science: A Global Perspective. SAGE. pp. 112ff. ISBN 978-1-5264-1303-1. OCLC 1124515503. https://books.google.com/books?id=qhcjDgAAQBAJ&pg=PA112. Retrieved 16 November 2022. 
  40. ↑ Andreas Schedler, ed. (2006). Electoral Authoritarianism: The Dynamics of Unfree Competition. Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner.
  41. ↑ 41.0 41.1 41.2 Yonatan L. Morse (January 2012). "Review: The Era of Electoral Authoritarianism". World Politics 64(1). pp. 161—198. .
  42. ↑ Dam, Caspar ten (Feb 17, 2017). "Democratic Transition, Transformation and Development in times of War and Peace: Conceptualisations and Observations". pp. 5–18. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314114407. 
  43. ↑ Authoritarianism: What Everyone Needs to Know. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. 2018-09-04. ISBN 978-0-19-088020-0. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/authoritarianism-9780190880200?cc=us&lang=en&. Retrieved 2023-03-03. 
  44. ↑ "Foundations of Comparative Politics" (in en). https://www.vitalsource.com/products/foundations-of-comparative-politics-kenneth-newton-jan-w-van-v9781108934909. 
  45. ↑ 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/10220460802217934. 
  46. ↑ 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). https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep07499. Retrieved 2023-03-03. 
  47. ↑ Ekman, Joakim (2009). "Political Participation and Regime Stability: A Framework for Analyzing Hybrid Regimes". International Political Science Review 30 (1): 7–31. doi:10.1177/0192512108097054. ISSN 0192-5121. 
  48. ↑ Schmotz, Alexander (2019). "Hybrid Regimes". The Handbook of Political, Social, and Economic Transformation. pp. 521–525. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198829911.003.0053. ISBN 978-0-19-882991-1. https://academic.oup.com/book/7722/chapter/152849448. Retrieved 2023-03-03. 
  49. ↑ Treisman, Daniel (2011). "Presidential Popularity in a Hybrid Regime: Russia under Yeltsin and Putin". American Journal of Political Science 55 (3): 590–609. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00500.x. ISSN 0092-5853. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23024939. Retrieved 2023-03-03. 
  50. ↑ Morlino, Leonardo (July 2009). "Are there hybrid regimes? Or are they just an optical illusion?" (in en). European Political Science Review 1 (2): 273–296. doi:10.1017/S1755773909000198. ISSN 1755-7747. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-political-science-review/article/abs/are-there-hybrid-regimes-or-are-they-just-an-optical-illusion/9579E8628A2F0AD84889973B3577735D. Retrieved 2023-03-03. 
  51. ↑ "Global Dashboard". https://bti-project.org/en/reports/global-dashboard?&cb=00000. 
  52. ↑ "Nations in Transit Methodology". 2021-12-31. https://freedomhouse.org/reports/nations-transit/nations-transit-methodology. 
  53. ↑ 53.0 53.1 53.2 53.3 Greenwood, Shannon (2022-12-06). "Appendix A: Classifying democracies". https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2022/12/06/online-civic-engagement-spring-2022-appendix-a-classifying-democracies/. 
  54. ↑ 54.0 54.1 54.2 "Democracy Index 2024". https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/democracy-index-2024/. 
  55. ↑ "The Global State of Democracy". 2021-11-22. https://www.idea.int/democracytracker/publications. 
  56. ↑ "FAQs – The Global State of Democracy Indices". 2021-12-31. https://www.idea.int/gsod-indices/faqs#How%20current%20are%20the%20data?. 
  57. ↑ 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. 
  58. ↑ "Democracy Report 2025, 25 Years of Autocratization – Democracy Trumped?". https://v-dem.net/documents/54/v-dem_dr_2025_lowres_v1.pdf. 
  59. ↑ "V-Dem Codebook". https://www.v-dem.net/documents/70/codebook_v16.pdf. 
  60. ↑ Lührmann, Anna; Tannenberg, Marcus; Lindberg, Staffan I. (March 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. https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/download/1214/714. 
  61. ↑ 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 29 (6): 983–1013. doi:10.1080/13510347.2022.2069751. ISSN 1351-0347. 
  62. ↑ Freedom House (2019-02-06). "Democracy in Retreat". Freedom in the World. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2019. 
  63. ↑ 63.0 63.1 63.2 "Countries and Territories". https://freedomhouse.org/countries/nations-transit/scores. 
  64. ↑ Dobratz, B.A. (2015). Power, Politics, and Society: An Introduction to Political Sociology. Taylor & Francis. p. 47. ISBN 978-1-317-34529-9. https://books.google.com/books?id=RoK9CgAAQBAJ&pg=PA47. Retrieved Apr 30, 2023. 
  65. ↑ 65.0 65.1 Juan José Linz (2000). Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes. Lynne Rienner Publisher. pp. 143. ISBN 978-1-55587-890-0. OCLC 1172052725. https://books.google.com/books?id=8cYk_ABfMJIC&pg=PA143. Retrieved 2022-11-19. 
  66. ↑ Jonathan Michie, ed (3 February 2014). Reader's Guide to the Social Sciences. Routledge. p. 95. ISBN 978-1-135-93226-8. https://books.google.com/books?id=ip_IAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA95. Retrieved 19 November 2022. 
  67. ↑ Allan Todd; Sally Waller (10 September 2015). History for the IB Diploma Paper 2 AuthoritariaAuthoritarian States (20th Century). Cambridge University Press. pp. 10–. ISBN 978-1-107-55889-2. https://books.google.com/books?id=y_pfCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA10. Retrieved 19 November 2022. 
  68. ↑ 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. https://www.jstor.org/stable/157386. Retrieved 2022-11-19. 
  69. ↑ 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. 
  70. ↑ Levitsky and Way 2002 ; T. Karl 1995 ; L. Diamond 1999 ; A. Schedler 2002
  71. ↑ Barbara Geddes — Why Parties and Elections in Authoritarian Regimes?; Department of Political Science; March 2006
  72. ↑ 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. 
  73. ↑ 73.0 73.1 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 
  74. ↑ Гудков, Лев (2009). "Природа "Путинизма"". Вестник Общественного Мнения. Данные. Анализ. Дискуссии. 3: 13. https://cyberleninka.ru/article/v/priroda-putinizma. Retrieved 2019-08-13. 
  75. ↑ Levitsky, Steven; Way, Lucan A. (April 2002). "Elections Without Democracy: The Rise of Competitive Authoritarianism". Journal of Democracy 13 (2): 51–65. doi:10.1353/jod.2002.0026. ISSN 1086-3214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/jod.2002.0026. 
  76. ↑ 76.0 76.1 Levitsky, Steven; Way, Lucan A. (2010-08-16). Competitive Authoritarianism. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511781353. ISBN 978-0-521-88252-1. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511781353. 
  77. ↑ 77.0 77.1 Levitsky, Steven; Way, Lucan (2020). "The New Competitive Authoritarianism". Journal of Democracy 31 (1): 51–65. doi:10.1353/jod.2020.0004. ISSN 1086-3214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/jod.2020.0004. 
  78. ↑ Diamond, Larry (April 2002). "Elections Without Democracy: Thinking About Hybrid Regimes". Journal of Democracy 13 (2): 21–35. doi:10.1353/jod.2002.0025. ISSN 1086-3214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/jod.2002.0025. 
  79. ↑ Mufti, Mariam (2018-06-22). "What Do We Know about Hybrid Regimes after Two Decades of Scholarship?". Politics and Governance 6 (2): 112–119. doi:10.17645/pag.v6i2.1400. ISSN 2183-2463. 

Sources

Further reading

Contemporary analysts

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, Magaloni 2006) in order to win the election and stay in power.



Retrieved from "https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Social:Hybrid_regime&oldid=4574623"