Hybrid regime


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 democratic one. 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. 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, 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.

Definition

Scholars vary on the definition of hybrid regimes based on their primary academic discipline. 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." Scholars also debate if these regimes are in transition or are inherently a stable political system.
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:

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. Neither the concept of illiberal democracy, nor the concept of electoral authoritarianism fully describes these hybrid regimes.
Since the end of the Cold War, such regimes have become the most common among undemocratic countries. 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".
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.

Indicators

According to Guillermo O'Donnell, Philippe C. Schmitter, Larry Diamond and Thomas Carothers, signs of a hybrid regime include:
  1. The presence of external attributes of democracy.
  2. A low degree of representation of the interests of citizens in the process of political decision-making.
  3. A low level of political participation.
  4. The declarative nature of political rights and freedoms.
  5. A low level of trust in political institutions by the citizenry.

    Transition types

Autocratization

Democratization

Measurement

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. However, because these various indices use different definitions and methodologies, they often disagree on which countries should be classified as hybrid regimes.

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.
"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:
  • 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
File:Economist Intelligence Unit Democracy Index 2024.svg|alt=|right|thumb|upright=1.6|The 2024 Economist Intelligence Unit Democracy Index
Full democracies
Flawed democracies
Hybrid regimes
Authoritarian regimes
As of 2024 the countries considered hybrid regimes by the "Democracy Index" are:
According to the "Global State of Democracy Report" by International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, there are twenty hybrid regimes. "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." IDEA defined hybrid regimes as:
As of 2021 the countries considered hybrid regimes by the "Global State of Democracy Report" are:
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 and 15 indicators of civil liberties." Freedom House classifies transitional or hybrid regimes as:
In 2024, Freedom House classified 11 of 29 countries analyzed as "Transitional or Hybrid Regimes":
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.
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. Democratic elements can simultaneously serve authoritarian purposes and contribute to democratization.

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