Jump to content

Hybrid regime

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Part of thePolitics series
Politics
Primary topics
Political systems
Academic disciplines
Public administration
Policy
Government branches
Related topics
Subseries
iconPolitics portal
Part of thePolitics series
Basic forms ofgovernment

List of forms of government

List of countries by system of government
Source of power
Democracy(rule by many)
Oligarchy(rule by few)
Autocracy(rule by one)
Anarchy(rule by none)
Power ideology
(socio-political ideologies)
(socio-economic ideologies)
  • Religious
  • Secular
(geo-cultural ideologies)
Power structure
Unitarism
Client state
Federalism
International relations
Related
iconPolitics portal

Ahybrid regime[a]is a type ofpolitical systemoften created as a result of an incompletedemocratic transitionfrom anauthoritarianregime to ademocraticone (or vice versa).[b]Hybrid regimes are categorized as having a combination ofautocraticfeatures with democratic ones and can simultaneously holdpolitical repressionsand regularelections.[b]Hybrid regimes are commonly found indeveloping countrieswith abundant natural resources such aspetro-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 theCold War.[20][21]

The termhybrid regimearises from a polymorphic view of political regimes that opposes the dichotomy ofautocracyordemocracy.[22]Modern scholarly analysis of hybrid regimes focuses attention on the decorative nature ofdemocratic institutions(elections do not lead to a change of power, different media broadcast the government point of view and the opposition inparliamentvotes the same way as the ruling party, among others),[23]from which it is concluded thatdemocratic 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 fulldictatorship.[25][26]

Definition[edit]

Scholars vary on the definition of hybrid regimes based on their primaryacademic 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 1995Terry Karlintroduced the notion of "hybrid" regime, which was simply defined as "combining democratic and authoritarian elements".[28]

According to professorMatthijs Bogaardshybrid 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 Norrisdefined 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. Haledefined 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 Morlinodefined 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

ProfessorJeffrey C. Isaacdefined 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[edit]

Countriesautocratizing(red) ordemocratizing(blue) substantially and significantly (2010–2020). Countries in grey are substantially unchanged.[34]

Thethird wave of democratizationfrom the 1970s onward has led to the emergence of hybrid regimes that are neither fully democratic nor fully authoritarian.[35]Neither the concept ofilliberal democracy,nor the concept of electoral authoritarianism fully describes these hybrid regimes.[36][37]

Since the end of theCold War,such regimes have become the most common among undemocratic countries.[38][39]At the end of the process of transformation of authoritarian regimes, limited elections appear in one way or another whenliberalizationoccurs. Liberal democracy has always been assumed while in practice this process basically froze "halfway".[40]

In relation to regimes that were previously called "transitional" in the 1980s, the termhybrid regimebegan to be used and was strengthened according toThomas Carothersbecause the majority of "transitional countries" are neither completelydictatorialnor 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.[40]

Hybrid regimes have evolved to lean more authoritarian while keeping some democratic traits.[41]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.[42]After thethird 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 ofauthoritarian 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 astrongmanleader 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[edit]

Global trend reportBertelsmann Transformation Index2022[49]

According toGuillermo O'Donnell,Philippe C. Schmitter,Larry DiamondandThomas 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 exampletrade 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[edit]

Further information:Democratic transition

Autocratization[edit]

Sincec. 2010,thenumber of countries autocratizing(blue) is higher than thosedemocratizing(yellow)
Democratic backsliding[c]is a process ofregime changetowardautocracythat makes the exercise of political power by the public more arbitrary andrepressive.[57][58][59]This process typically restricts the space forpublic contestationandpolitical participationin the process of government selection.[60][61]Democratic decline involves the weakening of democratic institutions, such as thepeaceful transition of powerorfree and fair elections,or the violation of individual rights that underpin democracies, especiallyfreedom of expression.[62][63]Democratic backsliding is the opposite ofdemocratization.

Democratisation[edit]

Democratization,or democratisation, is the structural government transition from anauthoritarian government to a more democraticpoliticalregime,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[edit]

Main article:Democracy indices
Further information:Democratic backsliding by country

There are various democratic freedom indices produced byintergovernmentalandnon-governmental organizationsthat publish assessments of the worlds political systems, according to their own definitions.[68]

Democracy Index[edit]

Democracy index types

According to theDemocracy Indexcompiled by theEconomist Intelligence Unitthere 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
The 2021Economist Intelligence UnitDemocracy Index[69]

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

Global State of Democracy Report[edit]

According to the "Global State of Democracy Report" byInternational Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance(IDEA), there are twenty 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[edit]

Map ofV-Dem Electoral Democracy Indexin 2023[73]

According to theV-Dem Democracy Indicescompiled by theV-Dem Instituteat theUniversity of Gothenburgthere 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[edit]

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

Freedom Housemeasures the level of political and economic governance in 29 countries fromCentral EuropetoCentral 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[edit]

Further information:List of countries by system of governmentandList of forms of government
Countries in greenclaimto be a type ofdemocracywhile countries in red do not. OnlySaudi Arabia,Oman,theUAE,Qatar,Brunei,Afghanistan,and theVaticando not claim to be democratic.

According toYaleprofessorJuan José Linz,there are three main types ofpolitical systemstoday:democracies,totalitarian regimesand, sitting between these two,authoritarian regimeswith many different terms that describe specific types of hybrid regimes.[b][a][79][16][80][81][1]

Academics generally refer to a fulldictatorshipas either a form ofauthoritarianismortotalitarianismover 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[edit]

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.[40]A. Schedler calls electoral authoritarianism a new form of authoritarian regime, not a hybrid regime orilliberal democracy.[40]Moreover, a purely authoritarian regime does not need elections as a source oflegitimacy[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[edit]

Electoral autocracyis a hybrid regime, in which democratic institutions are imitative and adhere toauthoritarianmethods. 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[edit]

The term "illiberal democracy"describes agoverning systemthat 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 bypassconstitutional 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 juristAndrás Sajó,illiberal democracy should be counted as a type of democracy because it is "democratic in aplebiscitariansense ",[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 aselectoral authoritarianism,[100]competitive authoritarianism,[101]orsoft authoritarianism.[102][103]

Dominant-party system[edit]

Adominant-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 adominant party(also referred to as apredominantorhegemonicparty).[105]Some dominant parties were called thenatural governing party,given their length of time in power.[106][107][108]

Delegative democracy[edit]

In political science,delegative democracyis a mode of governance close toCaesarism,Bonapartismorcaudillismowith a strong leader in a newly created otherwise democratic government. The concept arose from Argentinian political scientistGuillermo 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 thedelegative modelthat is core to many current democratic governments worldwide into a negative concept.[111]

Dictablanda[edit]

Dictablandais adictatorshipin whichcivil libertiesare allegedly preserved rather than destroyed. The worddictablandais apunon the Spanish worddictadura( "dictatorship" ), replacingdura,which by itself is a word meaning 'hard', withblanda,meaning 'soft'.

The term was first used inSpainin 1930 whenDámaso BerenguerreplacedMiguel Primo de Rivera y Orbanejaas the head of the ruling dictatorial government, and attempted to reduce tensions in the country by repealing some of the harsher measures that Primo de Rivera had introduced. It was also used to refer to the later years ofFrancisco Franco'sSpanish State,[112]and to the hegemonic 70-year rule of theInstitutional Revolutionary Party(PRI) inMexico.[113]Augusto Pinochetused the term when he was asked about his regime and the accusations about his government.[citation needed]

Analogously, the same pun is made inPortugueseasditabrandaorditamole.In February 2009, the Brazilian newspaperFolha de S.Pauloran a controversial editorial classifying themilitary dictatorship in Brazil(1964–1985) as aditabranda.[114]

Guided democracy[edit]

Guided democracy,also called managed democracy,[115]is a formallydemocraticgovernmentthat functions as ade factoauthoritarian governmentor, in some cases, as anautocratic government.Suchhybrid regimesare legitimized by elections, but do not change thestate'spolicies, motives, and goals.[116]The concept is also related tosemi-democracy,also known asanocracy.

In a guided democracy, the government controls elections such that the people can exercise democratic rights without truly changing public policy. While they follow basicdemocraticprinciples, there can be major deviations towardsauthoritarianism.Under managed democracy, the state's continuous use ofpropaganda techniquesprevents the electorate from having a significant impact on policy.[117]

Liberal autocracy[edit]

Aliberal autocracyis anon-democraticgovernment that follows the principles ofliberalism.[118]Until the 20th century, most countries in Western Europe were "liberal autocracies, or at best,semi-democracies".[119]One example of a "classic liberal autocracy" was theAustro-Hungarian Empire.[120]According toFareed Zakaria,a more recent example isHong Konguntil 1 July 1997, which was ruled by theBritish Crown.He says that until 1991 "it had never held a meaningful election, but its government epitomizedconstitutional liberalism,protecting its citizens' basic rights and administering a fair court system and bureaucracy ".[121]

Semi-democracy[edit]

Anocracy,or semi-democracy,[122]is aform of governmentthat is loosely defined as partdemocracyand partdictatorship,[123][124]or as a "regime that mixes democratic with autocratic features".[124]Another definition classifies anocracy as "a regime that permits some means of participation through opposition group behavior but that has incomplete development of mechanisms to redress grievances."[125][126]The term "semi-democratic" is reserved for stable regimes that combine democratic andauthoritarianelements.[127][128]Scholars distinguish anocracies fromautocraciesand democracies in their capability to maintain authority, political dynamics, and policy agendas.[129]Anocratic regimes have democratic institutions that allow for nominal amounts of competition.[123]Such regimes are particularly susceptible to outbreaks of armed conflict and unexpected or adverse changes in leadership.[130]

Defective democracy[edit]

Defective democracy(or flawed democracy) is a concept that was proposed by the political scientists Wolfgang Merkel,Hans-Jürgen PuhleandAurel S. Croissantat the beginning of the 21st century to subtilize the distinctions betweentotalitarian,authoritarian,anddemocraticpolitical systems.[131][132]It is based on the concept ofembedded democracy.While there are four forms of defective democracy, how each nation reaches the point of defectiveness varies.[133]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[edit]

Embedded democracyis a form ofgovernmentin which democratic governance is secured by democratic partial regimes.[134][135][136]The term "embedded democracy" was coined by political scientists Wolfgang Merkel,Hans-Jürgen Puhle,andAurel 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.[137]The five internal regimes work together to check the power of the government, while external regimes also help to secure and stabilize embedded democracies.[138]Together, all the regimes ensure that an embedded democracy is guided by the three fundamental principles of freedom, equality, and control.[139][140]

Competitive authoritarian regimes[edit]

Competitive Authoritarian Regimes (or Competitive Authoritarianism) is a subtype ofAuthoritarianismand 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 fordemocracy.[141][142][143][144]

Three main instruments are used within Competitive Authoritarian Regimes to maintainpolitical 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).[145]

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 steadfastdemocratic regimes,which has been attributed to the recent phenomenon ofdemocratic backsliding.[146][147]

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^abScholars uses a variety of terms to encompass the "greyzones" between fullautocraciesand fulldemocracies:[1]such ascompetitive authoritarianismorsemi-authoritarianismorhybrid authoritarianismorelectoral authoritarianismorliberal autocracyordelegative democracyorilliberal democracyorguided democracyorsemi-democracyordeficient democracyordefective democracyorhybrid democracy.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]
  2. ^abcdef"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[edit]

  1. ^abGagné, Jean-François (Mar 10, 2015),Hybrid Regimes,Oxford University Press (OUP),doi:10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0167
  2. ^Plattner, Marc F. (1969-12-31)."Is Democracy in Decline?".kipdf.Archivedfrom the original on 2023-04-06.Retrieved2022-12-27.
  3. ^abc"Hybrid Concepts and the Concept of Hybridity".European Consortium for Political Research.2019-09-07.Archivedfrom the original on 2023-04-06.Retrieved2022-11-18.
  4. ^Urribarri, Raul A. Sanchez (2011)."Courts between Democracy and Hybrid Authoritarianism: Evidence from the Venezuelan Supreme Court".Law & Social Inquiry.36(4). Wiley: 854–884.doi:10.1111/j.1747-4469.2011.01253.x.ISSN0897-6546.JSTOR41349660.S2CID232400805.Archivedfrom the original on 2022-11-16.Retrieved2022-11-16.
  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.ISBN9781412969017.{{cite book}}:CS1 maint: location (link)
  6. ^Tlemcani, Rachid (2007-05-29)."Electoral Authoritarianism".Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.Archivedfrom the original on 2023-04-06.Retrieved2022-11-16.
  7. ^"What is Hybrid Democracy?".Digital Society School.2022-05-19.Archivedfrom the original on 2023-04-05.Retrieved2022-11-16.
  8. ^abZinecker, Heidrun (2009)."Regime-Hybridity in Developing Countries: Achievements and Limitations of New Research on Transitions".International Studies Review.11(2). [Oxford University Press, Wiley, The International Studies Association]: 302–331.doi:10.1111/j.1468-2486.2009.00850.x.ISSN1521-9488.JSTOR40389063.Archivedfrom the original on 2022-11-16.Retrieved2022-11-18.
  9. ^"Index".Dem-Dec.2017-09-23.Archivedfrom the original on 2022-11-21.Retrieved2022-11-21.
  10. ^abEkman, 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.ISSN0192-5121.S2CID145077481.
  11. ^Baker, A. (2021).Shaping the Developing World: The West, the South, and the Natural World.SAGE. p. 202.ISBN978-1-0718-0709-5.Archivedfrom the original on 2023-04-23.Retrieved2023-04-23.
  12. ^"Why Parties and Elections in Dictatorships?".How Dictatorships Work.Cambridge University Press. 2018. pp. 129–153.doi:10.1017/9781316336182.006.ISBN9781316336182.
  13. ^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.ISBN978-981-13-7955-0.ISSN2523-8345.S2CID198088445.
  14. ^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.ISBN978-0-19-882991-1.
  15. ^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.ISBN978-0-19-957253-3.
  16. ^abcdПодлесный, Д. В. (2016).Политология: Учебное пособие[Political Science: Textbook] (in Russian). Kharkiv: ХГУ НУА. pp. 62–65/164.Archivedfrom the original on 2023-04-22.Retrieved2019-08-13.
  17. ^Schulmann, Ekaterina (15 August 2014)."Царство политической имитации"[The kingdom of political imitation].Ведомости.Archivedfrom the original on 2019-07-30.Retrieved2019-08-13.
  18. ^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.ISBN978-1-317-70018-0.Archivedfrom the original on December 9, 2022.RetrievedNov 27,2022.
  19. ^Carothers, Christopher (2018)."The Surprising Instability of Competitive Authoritarianism".Journal of Democracy.29(4): 129–135.doi:10.1353/jod.2018.0068.ISSN1086-3214.S2CID158234306.
  20. ^Levitsky, Steven; Way, Lucan (2002). "The Rise of Competitive Authoritarianism".Journal of Democracy.13(2). Project Muse: 51–65.doi:10.1353/jod.2002.0026.ISSN1086-3214.S2CID6711009.
  21. ^"Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes After the Cold War".Department of Political Science.Archivedfrom the original on 2023-04-06.Retrieved2022-11-16.
  22. ^"Hybrid Regimes".obo.Archivedfrom the original on 2019-07-29.Retrieved2019-08-13.
  23. ^Mufti, Mariam (Jun 22, 2018)."What Do We Know about Hybrid Regimes after Two Decades of Scholarship?".Politics and Governance.6(2). Cogitatio: 112–119.doi:10.17645/pag.v6i2.1400.ISSN2183-2463.S2CID158943827.
  24. ^"Home - IDEA Global State of Democracy Report".International IDEA.Archivedfrom the original on April 4, 2023.RetrievedNov 26,2022.
  25. ^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.ISBN978-0-19-968032-0.
  26. ^Brooker, P. (2013).Non-Democratic Regimes.Comparative Government and Politics. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 222.ISBN978-1-137-38253-5.Archivedfrom the original on December 9, 2022.RetrievedNov 27,2022.
  27. ^Cassani, Andrea (September 3, 2013). "Hybrid what? Partial consensus and persistent divergences in the analysis of hybrid regimes".International Political Science Review.35(5). SAGE: 542–558.doi:10.1177/0192512113495756.ISSN0192-5121.S2CID144881011.
  28. ^Colomer, J. M.; Beale, A. L. (2020).Democracy and Globalization: Anger, Fear, and Hope.Taylor & Francis. p. 180.ISBN978-1-000-05363-0.Archivedfrom the original on 2023-04-04.Retrieved2022-12-27.
  29. ^Bogaards, Matthijs (2009). "How to classify hybrid regimes? Defective democracy and electoral authoritarianism".Democratization.16(2): 399–423.doi:10.1080/13510340902777800.ISSN1351-0347.S2CID145315763.
  30. ^Norris, Pippa (2017)."Is Western Democracy Backsliding? Diagnosing the Risks".SSRN Electronic Journal.Elsevier.doi:10.2139/ssrn.2933655.ISSN1556-5068.S2CID157117940.Archivedfrom the original on 2023-04-04.Retrieved2022-12-09.
  31. ^Hale, Henry E. (2010). "Eurasian Polities as Hybrid Regimes: The Case of Putin's Russia".Journal of Eurasian Studies.1(1). SAGE Publications: 33–41.doi:10.1016/j.euras.2009.11.001.ISSN1879-3665.
  32. ^Hameed, Dr. Muntasser Majeed (2022-06-30)."Hybrid regimes: An Overview".IPRI Journal.22(1): 1–24.doi:10.31945/iprij.220101.
  33. ^Isaac, J. C. (1998).Democracy in Dark Times.Cornell University Press. p. 199.ISBN978-0-8014-8454-4.
  34. ^Newton, Kenneth; van Deth, Jan W. (2021).Foundations of comparative politics: democracies of the modern world.Cambridge, United Kingdom.ISBN978-1-108-92494-8.OCLC1156414956.{{cite book}}:CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  35. ^Huntington, S. P. (2012).The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late 20th Century.The Julian J. Rothbaum Distinguished Lecture Series. University of Oklahoma Press.ISBN978-0-8061-8604-7.RetrievedNovember 16,2022.
  36. ^Matthijs Bogaards. 2009. *How to Classify Hybrid Regimes? Defective Democracy and Electoral Authoritarianism ".Democratization16 (2): 399–423.
  37. ^Gagné, Jean-François (2019-05-02)."Hybrid Regimes".obo.Archivedfrom the original on 2019-07-29.Retrieved2022-11-19.
  38. ^Morlino, Leonardo; Berg-Schlosser, Dirk; Badie, Bertrand (6 March 2017).Political Science: A Global Perspective.SAGE. pp. 112ff.ISBN978-1-5264-1303-1.OCLC1124515503.Archivedfrom the original on 16 November 2022.Retrieved16 November2022.
  39. ^Andreas Schedler, ed. (2006).Electoral Authoritarianism: The Dynamics of Unfree Competition.Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner.
  40. ^abcdYonatan L. Morse (January 2012)."Review: The Era of Electoral Authoritarianism".World Politics64(1). pp. 161—198.Archived2021-07-29 at theWayback Machine.
  41. ^Authoritarianism: What Everyone Needs to Know.Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. 2018-09-04.ISBN978-0-19-088020-0.Archivedfrom the original on 2023-03-03.Retrieved2023-03-03.
  42. ^"Foundations of Comparative Politics".VitalSource(4th ed.).ISBN9781108831826.Archivedfrom the original on 2023-03-02.Retrieved2023-03-03.
  43. ^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.ISSN1022-0461.S2CID55589140.
  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).Archivedfrom the original on 2023-03-03.Retrieved2023-03-03.
  45. ^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.ISSN0192-5121.JSTOR20445173.S2CID145077481.
  46. ^Schmotz, Alexander (2019)."Hybrid Regimes".The Handbook of Political, Social, and Economic Transformation.pp. 521–525.doi:10.1093/oso/9780198829911.003.0053.ISBN978-0-19-882991-1.Archivedfrom the original on 2023-04-22.Retrieved2023-03-03.{{cite book}}:|website=ignored (help)
  47. ^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.ISSN0092-5853.JSTOR23024939.Archivedfrom the original on 2023-03-24.Retrieved2023-03-03.
  48. ^Morlino, Leonardo (July 2009)."Are there hybrid regimes? Or are they just an optical illusion?".European Political Science Review.1(2): 273–296.doi:10.1017/S1755773909000198.ISSN1755-7747.S2CID154947839.Archivedfrom the original on 2023-03-03.Retrieved2023-03-03.
  49. ^"Global Dashboard".BTI 2022.Archivedfrom the original on April 17, 2023.RetrievedApril 17,2023.
  50. ^"Nations in Transit Methodology".Freedom House.2021-12-31.Archivedfrom the original on 2023-03-18.Retrieved2022-11-19.
  51. ^abMietzner, Marcus (2021). "Sources of resistance to democratic decline: Indonesian civil society and its trials".Democratization.28(1): 161–178.doi:10.1080/13510347.2020.1796649.S2CID225475139.
  52. ^Mudde, CasandKaltwasser, Cristóbal Rovira(2017)Populism: a Very Short Introduction.New York: Oxford University Press. pp.86-96.ISBN978-0-19-023487-4
  53. ^Laebens, Melis G.; Lührmann, Anna (2021). "What halts democratic erosion? The changing role of accountability".Democratization.28(5): 908–928.doi:10.1080/13510347.2021.1897109.S2CID234870008.
  54. ^Daly, Tom Gerald (2019). "Democratic Decay: Conceptualising an Emerging Research Field".Hague Journal on the Rule of Law.11:9–36.doi:10.1007/s40803-019-00086-2.S2CID159354232.
  55. ^Huq, Aziz Z (2021). "How (not) to explain a democratic recession".International Journal of Constitutional Law.19(2): 723–737.doi:10.1093/icon/moab058.
  56. ^Chull Shin, Doh (2021). "Democratic deconsolidation in East Asia: exploring system realignments in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan".Democratization.28(1): 142–160.doi:10.1080/13510347.2020.1826438.S2CID228959708.
  57. ^Hyde, Susan D. (2020). "Democracy's backsliding in the international environment".Science.369(6508): 1192–1196.Bibcode:2020Sci...369.1192H.doi:10.1126/science.abb2434.PMID32883862.S2CID221472047.
  58. ^Skaaning, Svend-Erik (2020)."Waves of autocratization and democratization: a critical note on conceptualization and measurement"(PDF).Democratization.27(8): 1533–1542.doi:10.1080/13510347.2020.1799194.S2CID225378571.Archived(PDF)from the original on 6 February 2023.Retrieved7 November2022.
  59. ^Lührmann, Anna; Lindberg, Staffan I. (2019)."A third wave of autocratization is here: what is new about it?".Democratization.26(7): 1095–1113.doi:10.1080/13510347.2019.1582029.S2CID150992660.The decline of democratic regime attributes – autocratization
  60. ^Cassani, Andrea; Tomini, Luca (2019). "What Autocratization Is".Autocratization in post-Cold War Political Regimes.Springer International Publishing. pp. 15–35.ISBN978-3-030-03125-1.
  61. ^Walder, D.; Lust, E. (2018)."Unwelcome Change: Coming to Terms with Democratic Backsliding".Annual Review of Political Science.21(1): 93–113.doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-050517-114628.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.
  62. ^Lindberg, Staffan I."The Nature of Democratic Backsliding in Europe".Carnegie Europe.Archivedfrom the original on 13 April 2021.Retrieved2021-01-27.
  63. ^Rocha Menocal, Alina; Fritz, Verena; Rakner, Lise (June 2008)."Hybrid regimes and the challenges of deepening and sustaining democracy in developing countries1".South African Journal of International Affairs.15(1): 29–40.doi:10.1080/10220460802217934.ISSN1022-0461.S2CID55589140.Archivedfrom the original on 21 January 2020.
  64. ^Arugay, Aries A. (2021). "Democratic Transitions".The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Global Security Studies.Cham: Springer International Publishing. pp. 1–7.doi:10.1007/978-3-319-74336-3_190-1.ISBN978-3-319-74336-3.S2CID240235199.
  65. ^Lindenfors, Patrik; Wilson, Matthew; Lindberg, Staffan I. (2020)."The Matthew effect in political science: head start and key reforms important for democratization".Humanities and Social Sciences Communications.7(1): 1–4.doi:10.1057/s41599-020-00596-7.
  66. ^Schmitz, Hans Peter (2004)."Domestic and Transnational Perspectives on Democratization".International Studies Review.6(3). [International Studies Association, Wiley]: 403–426.doi:10.1111/j.1521-9488.2004.00423.x.ISSN1521-9488.JSTOR3699697.
  67. ^Bogaards, Matthijs (2010)."Measures of Democratization: From Degree to Type to War".Political Research Quarterly.63(2). [University of Utah, Sage Publications, Inc.]: 475–488.doi:10.1177/1065912909358578.ISSN1065-9129.JSTOR20721505.S2CID154168435.
  68. ^abcdGreenwood, Shannon (2022-12-06)."Appendix A: Classifying democracies".Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project.Archivedfrom the original on 2023-03-05.Retrieved2022-12-27.
  69. ^abcd"Democracy Index 2021: the China challenge".Economist Intelligence Unit.Feb 15, 2022.Archivedfrom the original on November 8, 2022.RetrievedNovember 18,2022.
  70. ^"The Global State of Democracy".Publications.2021-11-22.Archivedfrom the original on 2023-03-08.Retrieved2022-12-27.
  71. ^"FAQs – The Global State of Democracy Indices".International IDEA.2021-12-31.Archivedfrom the original on 2023-04-04.Retrieved2022-12-27.
  72. ^International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (2021).The Global State of Democracy 2021: Building resilience in a Pandemic Era.ISBN978-91-7671-478-2.OCLC1288461480.
  73. ^Democracy Report 2023, Table 3, V-Dem Institute, 2023
  74. ^"V-Dem Codebook v11"(PDF).March 2021. Archived fromthe original(PDF)on 30 October 2022.Retrieved21 April2023.
  75. ^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.6(1). Cogitatio: 60–77.doi:10.17645/pag.v6i1.1214.ISSN2183-2463.
  76. ^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.ISSN1351-0347.S2CID249031421.
  77. ^Freedom House(2019-02-06)."Democracy in Retreat".Freedom in the World.Archivedfrom the original on 2019-02-05.Retrieved2019-02-06.
  78. ^abc"Countries and Territories".Freedom House.Archivedfrom the original on March 26, 2023.RetrievedNov 25,2022.
  79. ^Dobratz, B.A. (2015).Power, Politics, and Society: An Introduction to Political Sociology.Taylor & Francis. p. 47.ISBN978-1-317-34529-9.Archivedfrom the original on April 30, 2023.RetrievedApr 30,2023.
  80. ^abJuan José Linz(2000).Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes.Lynne Rienner Publisher. p. 143.ISBN978-1-55587-890-0.OCLC1172052725.Archivedfrom the original on 2023-04-22.Retrieved2022-11-19.
  81. ^Jonathan Michie, ed. (3 February 2014).Reader's Guide to the Social Sciences.Routledge. p. 95.ISBN978-1-135-93226-8.Archivedfrom the original on 22 April 2023.Retrieved19 November2022.
  82. ^Allan Todd; Sally Waller (10 September 2015). Allan Todd; Sally Waller (eds.).History for the IB Diploma Paper 2 AuthoritariaAuthoritarian States (20th Century).Cambridge University Press. pp. 10–.ISBN978-1-107-55889-2.Archivedfrom the original on 22 April 2023.Retrieved19 November2022.
  83. ^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.JSTOR157386.S2CID144333167.Archivedfrom the original on 2023-03-08.Retrieved2022-11-19.
  84. ^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.ISBN9781412919760.{{cite book}}:CS1 maint: location (link)
  85. ^Levitsky and Way 2002Archived2022-12-30 at theWayback Machine;T. Karl 1995Archived2021-03-01 at theWayback Machine;L. Diamond 1999Archived2023-01-31 at theWayback Machine;A. Schedler 2002Archived2022-12-30 at theWayback Machine
  86. ^Barbara Geddes— Why Parties and Elections in Authoritarian Regimes?; Department of Political Science; March 2006
  87. ^Brancati, Dawn (May 11, 2014). "Democratic Authoritarianism: Origins and Effects".Annual Review of Political Science.17(1). Annual Reviews: 313–326.doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-052013-115248.ISSN1094-2939.
  88. ^abSchedler, Andreas (May 15, 2015), "Electoral Authoritarianism",Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences,Wiley, pp. 1–16,doi:10.1002/9781118900772.etrds0098,ISBN9781118900772
  89. ^Гудков, Лев (2009)."Природа" Путинизма ""[The nature of "Putinism" ].Вестник общественного мнения. Данные. Анализ. Дискуссии.3:13.Archivedfrom the original on 2019-08-13.Retrieved2019-08-13.
  90. ^Morse, Yonatan L. (January 2012)."Review: THE ERA OF ELECTORAL AUTHORITARIANISM".World Politics.64(1): 161–198.doi:10.1017/S0043887111000281.JSTOR41428375.S2CID154433302.
  91. ^Liboreiro, Jorge; Zsiros, Sandor (2022-09-16)."Hungary is no longer a full democracy but an 'electoral autocracy,' MEPs declare in new report".Euronews.
  92. ^Bonet, Lluis; Zamorano, Mariano Martín (2021). "Cultural policies in illiberal democracies: a conceptual framework based on the Polish and Hungarian governing experiences".International Journal of Cultural Policy.27(5): 559–573.doi:10.1080/10286632.2020.1806829.S2CID225285163.
  93. ^Self, Darin (2022-09-26)."Illiberal Democracies and Democratic Backsliding".obo.Retrieved2023-04-26.
  94. ^Mounk, Yascha (2020-03-18).The People Vs. Democracy - Why Our Freedom Is in Danger and How to Save It.Harvard University Press.ISBN978-0-674-24502-0.
  95. ^"Illiberal Democracy and the Struggle on the Right".Journal of Democracy.
  96. ^Nyyssönen, Heino; Metsälä, Jussi (24 September 2020)."Liberal Democracy and its Current Illiberal Critique: The Emperor's New Clothes?".Europe-Asia Studies.73(2): 273–290.doi:10.1080/09668136.2020.1815654.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.
  97. ^Sajó 2021,pp. 23–24.
  98. ^Wagrandl, Ulrich (2021)."A Theory of Illiberal Democracy".Routledge Handbook of Illiberalism.Routledge. p. 98.ISBN978-1-000-47945-4.
  99. ^Sajó 2021,p. 24.
  100. ^Schedler, Andreas (2006).Electoral Authoritarianism: The Dynamics of Unfree Competition.Lynne Rienner Publishers.ISBN978-1-58826-415-2.
  101. ^Diamond, Larry (April 2002)."Assessing the Quality of Democracy".Journal of Democracy.13(2): 51–65.
  102. ^DeVotta, Neil (2010)."From civil war to soft authoritarianism: Sri Lanka in comparative perspective".Global Change, Peace & Security.22(3): 331–343.doi:10.1080/14781158.2010.510268.S2CID143630796.
  103. ^Christie, Kenneth (1998)."Illiberal Democracy, Modernisation and Southeast Asia".Theoria: A Journal of Social and Political Theory(91): 102–118.ISSN0040-5817.JSTOR41802094.
  104. ^Ostroverkhov, A. A. (2017)."In Searching for Theory of One-Party Dominance: World Experience of Studying Dominant-Party Systems (II)".Politeia.87(4): 133–149 (p. 136).doi:10.30570/2078-5089-2017-87-4-133-149.
  105. ^Ostroverkhov, A. A. (2017)."In Searching for Theory of One-Party Dominance: World Experience of Studying Dominant-Party Systems (I)".Politeia.86(3): 136–153 (p. 148).doi:10.30570/2078-5089-2017-86-3-136-153.
  106. ^"Natural Governing Party".The Dictionary of Canadian Politics.Campbell Strategies. 2022.Retrieved5 December2022.
  107. ^"The Wonder Boy".Hoover: An Extraordinary Life in Extraordinary Times.Knopf Doubleday. 2017. p. 338.ISBN9780307743879.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.
  108. ^Chin, James (15 November 2022)."UMNO intends to return as Malaysia's natural governing party".Nikkei.Retrieved5 December2022.
  109. ^abO'Donnell, Guillermo (January 1994). "Delegative Democracy".Journal of Democracy.5(1): 55–69.doi:10.1353/jod.1994.0010.S2CID8558740.
  110. ^O'Donnell, Guillermo (1992).Delegative Democracy?.University of Notre Dame: Kellogg Institute for International Studies.
  111. ^Kestler, Thomas (2011)."Demokratische Dilemmata: Zum Verhältnis zwischen Repräsentation und Partizipation".Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft.21(3): 24.doi:10.5771/1430-6387-2011-3-391.ISSN1430-6387.
  112. ^Jackson, Gabriel (Spring 1976). "The Franco Era in Historical Perspective".The Centennial Review.20(2): 103–127.JSTOR23738276.
  113. ^Vaughan, Mary Kay (2018)."Mexico, 1940–1968 and Beyond: Perfect Dictatorship? Dictablanda? or PRI State Hegemony?"(PDF).Latin American Research Review.53(1): 170.ISSN0023-8791.JSTOR26744297.
  114. ^Ribeiro, Igor (February 25, 2009)."A 'ditabranda' daFolha"(in Portuguese). Portal Imprensa. Archived fromthe originalon 2012-02-01.
  115. ^Rohmann, Chris (2000) A World of Ideas: The Dictionary of Important Ideas and Thinkers,Ballantine BooksISBN978-0-345-43706-8
  116. ^Wolin, Sheldon S.(2008).Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism.Princeton: Princeton University Press.ISBN978-0-691-13566-3.p. 47
  117. ^Wolin, Sheldon S.(2008).Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism.Princeton: Princeton University Press.ISBN978-0-691-13566-3.p. 60
  118. ^Plattner, Marc F. (1998)."Liberalism and Democracy: Can't Have One without the Other".Foreign Affairs.77(2). Council on Foreign Relations: 171–180.ISSN0015-7120.JSTOR20048858.Retrieved2023-06-03.
  119. ^Zakaria, Fareed (November/December 1997)."The Rise of Illiberal Democracy".Foreign Affairs.Archived15 October 2005 at theWayback Machine
  120. ^Myers, Sondra (2002).The Democracy Reader.IDEA. p. 174.ISBN978-0-9702130-3-7.
  121. ^Zakaria, Fareed (1997)."The Rise of Illiberal Democracy".Foreign Affairs.76(6). Council on Foreign Relations: 22–43.ISSN0015-7120.JSTOR20048274.Retrieved2023-06-03.
  122. ^Quigley, Carroll (1983).Weapons systems and political stability: a history.University Press of America. p. 307.ISBN978-0-8191-2947-5.Retrieved20 May2013.
  123. ^abGandhi, Jennifer; Vreeland, James (June 2008). "Political Institutions and Civil War: Unpacking Anocracy".Journal of Conflict Solutions.52(3): 401–425.CiteSeerX10.1.1.584.1330.doi:10.1177/0022002708315594.S2CID42071287.
  124. ^abFearon, James; Laitan, David (February 2003). "Ethnicity, Insurgency, and Civil War".American Political Science Review.97:75–90.doi:10.1017/S0003055403000534.S2CID8303905.
  125. ^Regan, Patrick; Bell, Sam (December 2010). "Changing Lanes or Stuck in the Middle: Why Are Anocracies More Prone to Civil Wars?".Political Science Quarterly.63(4): 747–759.doi:10.1177/1065912909336274.S2CID154960398.
  126. ^Benson, Michelle; Kugler, Jackek (April 1998). "Power Parity, Democracy, and Severity of Internal Violence".Journal of Conflict Resolution.42(2): 196–209.doi:10.1177/0022002798042002004.S2CID143823486.
  127. ^Montesquieu. "2–3".Spirit of the Laws.Vol. II.
  128. ^Everdell, William R. (2000-04-15).The End of Kings: A History of Republics and Republicans.University of Chicago Press.ISBN978-0-226-22482-4.
  129. ^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.
  130. ^Marshall, Monty G.; Cole, Benjamin R. (23 July 2014)."Global Report 2014 - Conflict, Governance, and State Fragility"(PDF).Center for Systemic Peace.
  131. ^Романюк, О. І. (2017-11-24)."What Are 'Defective Democracies' and What They Are Like".The Bulletin of Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University. Series: Philosophy, Philosophies of Law, Political Science, Sociology.2(33). Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University: 114–122.doi:10.21564/2075-7190.33.109732.ISSN2663-5704.
  132. ^Croissant, Aurel; Merkel, Wolfgang (2019-02-13). "Defective Democracy".The Handbook of Political, Social, and Economic Transformation.Oxford University Press. pp. 437–446.doi:10.1093/oso/9780198829911.003.0041.ISBN978-0-19-882991-1.
  133. ^Merkel, Wolfgang (2004-01-01). "Embedded and defective democracies".Democratization.11(5). Informa UK Limited: 33–58.doi:10.1080/13510340412331304598.hdl:10419/251950.ISSN1351-0347.S2CID149654333.
  134. ^Merkel, Wolfgang (December 2004)."Embedded and Defective Democracies"(PDF).Democratization.11(5).Retrieved6 November2014.
  135. ^Buhllman, Mark; Merkel, Wolfgang; Wessels, Bernhard (April 2008). "The Quality of Democracy: Democracy Barometer for Established Democracies".Hertie School of Governance - Working Papers.
  136. ^Merkel, Wolfgang; Croissant, Aurel (December 2004). "Conclusion: Good and Defective Democracies".Democratization.11(5): 199–213.doi:10.1080/13510340412331304651.S2CID218522553.
  137. ^Merkel (2004) p.33
  138. ^Merkel (2004) p.36-27
  139. ^Merkel (2004) p.43-45
  140. ^Buhllman et al. (2008) p.7
  141. ^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.ISSN1086-3214.
  142. ^Levitsky, Steven; Way, Lucan A. (2010-08-16).Competitive Authoritarianism.Cambridge University Press.doi:10.1017/cbo9780511781353.ISBN978-0-521-88252-1.
  143. ^Levitsky, Steven; Way, Lucan (2020)."The New Competitive Authoritarianism".Journal of Democracy.31(1): 51–65.doi:10.1353/jod.2020.0004.ISSN1086-3214.
  144. ^Diamond, Larry (April 2002)."Elections Without Democracy: Thinking About Hybrid Regimes".Journal of Democracy.13(2): 21–35.doi:10.1353/jod.2002.0025.ISSN1086-3214.S2CID154815836.
  145. ^Levitsky, Steven; Way, Lucan A. (2010-08-16).Competitive Authoritarianism.Cambridge University Press.doi:10.1017/cbo9780511781353.ISBN978-0-521-88252-1.
  146. ^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.ISSN2183-2463.
  147. ^Levitsky, Steven; Way, Lucan (2020)."The New Competitive Authoritarianism".Journal of Democracy.31(1): 51–65.doi:10.1353/jod.2020.0004.ISSN1086-3214.

Further reading[edit]

Contemporary analysts[edit]

Research history[edit]

The researchers conducted a comparative analysis of political regimes around the world (Samuel Finer1970), indeveloping countries(Almond and Coleman, 1960Archived2023-04-04 at theWayback Machine), amongLatin America(Collier 1979) andWest Africaregimes (Zolberg, 1966). Types of non-democratic regimes are described (Linz, 2000, originally published in 1975andPerlmutter, 1981). Huntington and Moore (Huntington and Moore, 1970) discuss theone-party systemissue 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 2002Archived2019-08-08 at theWayback 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, 2002Archived2019-07-30 at theWayback Machine), institutionalizeelectoral frauds(Lehoucq 2003Archived2022-03-13 at theWayback Machine,Schedler 2002Archived2019-08-26 at theWayback Machine) and manipulate the economy (L. BlaydesArchived2023-04-04 at theWayback Machine2006,Magaloni 2006) in order to win the election and stay in power.

External links[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hybrid_regime&oldid=1232757465"