Hybrid regime

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.[lower-alpha 2] Hybrid regimes are commonly found in developing countries with abundant natural resources such as petro-states.[19][8][20] Although these regimes experience civil unrest, they may be relatively stable and tenacious for decades at a time.[lower-alpha 2] There has been a rise in hybrid regimes since the end of the Cold War.[21][22]

Part of the Politics series
Politics
Primary topics
Political systems
Academic disciplines
Public administration
Policy
Government branches
Related topics
Subseries
icon Politics portal
Part of the Politics series
Basic forms of government
List of forms 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
icon Politics portal

The term hybrid regime arises from a polymorphic view of political regimes that opposes the dichotomy of autocracy or democracy.[23] 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 government point of view and the opposition in parliament votes the same way as the ruling party, among others),[24] from which it is concluded that democratic backsliding, a transition to authoritarianism is the most prevalent basis of hybrid regimes.[lower-alpha 2][25][26] Some scholars also contend that hybrid regimes may imitate a full dictatorship.[27][28]

History
Map showing liberalization of countries after the Cold War.

The third wave of democratization from the 1970s onward has led to the emergence of hybrid regimes that are neither fully democratic nor fully authoritarian.[29][30] Neither the concept of illiberal democracy, nor the concept of electoral authoritarianism fully describes these hybrid regimes.[31][32]

Since the end of the Cold War, such regimes have become the most common among undemocratic.[33][34] 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".[35]

In relation to regimes that were previously called "transitional" in the 1980s, the term hybrid regime began to be used and was strengthened because according to Thomas Carothers the majority of "transitional countries" are neither completely dictatorial nor aspiring to democracy and by and large they can not be called transitional. They are located in the politically stable gray zone, changes in which may not take place for decades".[17] 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.[35]

Countries autocratizing (red) or democratizing (blue) substantially and significantly (2010–2020). Countries in grey are substantially unchanged.[36]

Hybrid regimes have evolved to lean more authoritarian while keeping some democratic traits.[37] 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.[38] After the third wave of democratization, some regimes became stuck in the transition to democracy causing the creation of weak democratic institutions.[39] 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.[40]

This has caused some scholars to believe that hybrid regimes are not poorly functioning democracies, but rather new forms of authoritarian regimes.[41] Defective democratic stability is an indicator to explain and measure these new forms of autocracies.[42] 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 which is a tool these kinds of leaders did not utilize beforehand.[43] 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.[44]

Definition

Scholars vary on the definition of hybrid regimes based on their primary academic discipline.[45] "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.[11]

In 1995 Terry Karl introduced the notion of “hybrid" regime, which was simply defined as:[46]

combining democratic and authoritarian elements

According to professor Matthijs Bogaards hybrid types are:[47]

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:[48]

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.

Professor Henry E. Hale defined hybrid regimes as;[30]

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;[30]

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:[49]

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

Indicators
Global trend report Bertelsmann Transformation Index 2022 [50]

According to Guillermo O'Donnell, Philippe C. Schmitter, Larry Diamond and Thomas Carothers, signs of a hybrid regime include:[17][51]

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

Transition types
Further information: Democratic transition

Autocratization
Since c. 2010, the number of countries autocratizing (blue) is higher than those democratizing (yellow)
Democratic backsliding[lower-alpha 3] is a process of regime change towards autocracy that makes the exercise of political power in a democracy more arbitrary and repressive.[58][59][60] This process typically restricts the space for public contestation and political participation in the process of government selection.[61][62] Democratic decline involves the weakening of democratic institutions, such as the peaceful transition of power or free and fair elections, or the violation of individual rights that underpin democracy, especially freedom of expression.[63][64]

Democratisation

Democratization, or democratisation, is the democratic transition to a more democratic political regime, including substantive political changes moving in a democratic direction.[65][66]

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.[67] 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.[68]

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

There are various democratic freedom indices produced by intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations that publish assessments of the worlds political systems, according to their own definitions.[69]

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 worlds population.[70]

"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."[69] The Democracy Index defines hybrid regimes with the following characteristics;[70]

  • 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 2021 Economist Intelligence Unit Democracy Index [70]

As of 2021 the countries considered hybrid regimes by the "Democracy Index" are:[70]

Global State of Democracy

According to the "Global State of Democracy Report" by International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) there are 20 hybrid regimes.[71] "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."[69] IDEA defined hybrid regimes as;[72]

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:[73]

V-Dem Institute

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

According to the V-Dem Institute:[76]

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

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

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

"Freedom House assign scores to countries and territories across the globe on 10 indicators of political rights (e.g., whether there is a realistic opportunity for opposition parties to gain power through elections) and 15 indicators of civil liberties (e.g., whether there is a free and independent media)."[69] 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
Further information: List of countries by system of government and List of forms of government
Countries in green claim to be a type of democracy while countries in red do not. Only Saudi Arabia, Oman, the UAE, Qatar, Brunei, Afghanistan, and the Vatican do not claim to be democratic.

According to Yale professor Juan José Linz there a 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.[lower-alpha 2][lower-alpha 1][79][17][80][81][1]

Academics generally refer to a full dictatorship as either a form of authoritarianism or totalitarianism over a "hybrid system".[82][80][83] Authoritarian governments that conduct elections are in many scholars view not hybrids, but are successful well-institutionalized stable authoritarian regimes.[lower-alpha 2][84][85][86] Democratic elements can simultaneously serve authoritarian purposes and contribute to democratization.[87]

Electoral authoritarianism

Electoral authoritarianism means that democratic institutions are imitative and, due to numerous systematic violations of liberal democratic norms, in fact adhere to authoritarian methods.[88] Electoral authoritarianism can be competitive and hegemonic, and the latter does not necessarily mean election irregularities.[35] A. Schedler calls electoral authoritarianism a new form of authoritarian regime, not a hybrid regime or illiberal democracy.[35] Moreover, a purely authoritarian regime does not need elections as a source of legitimacy[89] while non-alternative elections, appointed at the request of the ruler, are not a sufficient condition for considering the regime conducting them to be hybrid.[88]

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

Illiberal democracy

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

The rulers of an illiberal democracy may ignore or bypass constitutional limits on their power.[94] While liberal democracies protect individual rights and freedoms, illiberal democracies do not.[95] Elections in an illiberal democracy are often manipulated or rigged, being used to legitimize and consolidate the incumbent rather than to choose the country's leaders and policies.[96]

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

Dominant-party system

A dominant-party system, or one-party dominant system, is a political occurrence in which a single political party continuously dominates election results over running opposition groups or parties.[104] Any ruling party staying in power for more than one consecutive term may be considered a dominant party (also referred to as a predominant or hegemonic party).[105] Some dominant parties were called the natural governing party, given their length of time in power.[106][107][108]

Dominant parties, and their domination of a state, develop out of one-sided electoral and party constellations within a multi-party system (particularly under presidential systems of governance), and as such differ from states under a one-party system, which are intricately organized around a specific party. Sometimes the term "de facto one-party state" is used to describe dominant-party systems which, unlike a one-party system, allows (at least nominally) democratic multiparty elections, but the existing practices or balance of political power effectively prevent the opposition from winning power, thus resembling a one-party state. Dominant-party systems differ from the political dynamics of other dominant multi-party constellations such as consociationalism, grand coalitions and two-party systems, which are characterized and sustained by narrow or balanced competition and cooperation.

Delegative democracy

In political science, delegative democracy is a mode of governance close to Caesarism, Bonapartism or caudillismo with a strong leader in a newly created otherwise democratic government. The concept arose from Argentinian political scientist Guillermo O'Donnell, who notes that representative democracy as it exists is usually linked solely to highly developed capitalist countries. However, newly installed democracies do not seem to be on a path of becoming fully representative democracies.[109] O'Donnell calls the former delegative democracies, for they are not fully consolidated democracies but may be enduring.

For a representative democracy to exist, there must be an important interaction effect. The successful cases have featured a decisive coalition of broadly supported political leaders who take great care in creating and strengthening democratic political institutions.[109] By contrast, the delegative form is partially democratic, for the president has a free rein to act and justify his or her acts in the name of the people. The president can "govern as he sees fit" even if it does not resemble promises made while running for election. The president claims to represent the whole nation rather than just a political party, embodying even the Congress and the judiciary.[110]

O'Donnell's notion of delegative democracy has been criticized as being misleading, because he renders the delegative model that is core to many current democratic governments worldwide into a negative concept.[111]

Dictablanda

Dictablanda is a dictatorship in which civil liberties are allegedly preserved rather than destroyed. The word dictablanda is a pun on the Spanish word dictadura ("dictatorship"), replacing dura, which by itself is a word meaning "hard", with blanda, meaning "soft".

The term was first used in Spain in 1930 when Dámaso Berenguer replaced Miguel Primo de Rivera y Orbaneja as the head of the ruling dictatorial government and attempted to reduce tensions in the country by repealing some of the harsher measures that had been introduced by the latter. It was also used to refer to the latter years of Francisco Franco's Spanish State,[112] and to the hegemonic 70-year rule of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) in Mexico, or by Augusto Pinochet when he was asked about his regime and the accusations about his government.

Analogously, the same pun is made in Portuguese as ditabranda or ditamole. In February 2009, the Brazilian newspaper Folha de S.Paulo ran an editorial classifying the military dictatorship in Brazil (1964–1985) as a "ditabranda", creating controversy.[113]

Guided democracy

Guided democracy, also called managed democracy,[114] is a formally democratic government that functions as a de facto authoritarian government or, in some cases, as an autocratic government. Such hybrid regimes are legitimized by elections that are free and fair, but do not change the state's policies, motives, and goals.[115] The concept is also related to semi-democracy, also known as anocracy.

In a guided democracy, the government controls elections such that the people can exercise democratic rights without truly changing public policy. While they follow basic democratic principles, there can be major deviations towards authoritarianism. Under managed democracy, the state's continuous use of propaganda techniques prevents the electorate from having a significant impact on policy.[116]

After World War II, the term was used in Indonesia for the approach to government under the Sukarno administration from 1959 to 1966. It is today widely employed in Russia, where it was introduced into common practice by Kremlin theorists, in particular Gleb Pavlovsky.[117]

Liberal autocracy
A liberal autocracy is a non-democratic government that follows the principles of liberalism.[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 the Austro-Hungarian Empire.[120] According to Fareed Zakaria, a more recent example is Hong Kong until 1 July 1997, which was ruled by the British Crown. He says that until 1991 "it had never held a meaningful election, but its government epitomized constitutional liberalism, protecting its citizens' basic rights and administering a fair court system and bureaucracy".[121]

Semi-democracy
Anocracy, or semi-democracy,[122] is a form of government that is loosely defined as part democracy and part dictatorship,[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 and authoritarian elements.[127][128] Scholars distinguish anocracies from autocracies and democracies in their capability to maintain authority, political dynamics, and policy agendas.[129] Similarly, the 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] The United States of America are considered by some scholars to be an anocracy.[131]

Defective democracy
Defective democracies is a concept that was proposed by the political scientists Wolfgang Merkel, Hans-Jürgen Puhle and Aurel S. Croissant at the beginning of the 21st century to subtilize the distinctions between totalitarian, authoritarian, and democratic political systems.[132][133] It is based on the concept of embedded democracy. While there are four forms of defective democracy, how each nation reaches the point of defectiveness varies.[134] One recurring theme is the geographical location of the nation, which includes the effects of the influence of surrounding nations in the region. Other causes for defective democracies include their path of modernization, level of modernization, economic trends, social capital, civil society, political institutions, and education.

Embedded democracy
Embedded democracy is a form of government in which democratic governance is secured by democratic partial regimes.[135][136][137] The term "embedded democracy" was coined by political scientists Wolfgang Merkel, Hans-Jürgen Puhle, and Aurel Croissant, who identified "five interdependent partial regimes" necessary for an embedded democracy: electoral regime, political participation, civil rights, horizontal accountability, and the power of the elected representatives to govern.[138] The five internal regimes work together to check the power of the government, while external regimes also help to secure and stabilize embedded democracies.[139] Together, all the regimes ensure that an embedded democracy is guided by the three fundamental principles of freedom, equality, and control.[140][141]

See also

Notes
  1. Scholars uses a variety of terms to encompass the "greyzones" between full autocracies and full democracies:[1] such as competitive authoritarianism or semi-authoritarianism or hybrid authoritarianism or electoral authoritarianism or liberal autocracy or delegative democracy or illiberal democracy or guided democracy or semi-democracy or deficient democracy or defective democracy or hybrid democracy.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]
  2. "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][18]
  3. Other names include autocratization, democratic decline,[52] de-democratization,[53] democratic erosion,[54] democratic decay,[55] democratic recession,[56] democratic regression,[52] and democratic deconsolidation.[57]

References
  1. Gagné, 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.com. Archived from the original on 2023-04-06. Retrieved 2022-12-27.
  3. "Hybrid Concepts and the Concept of Hybridity". European Consortium for Political Research. 2019-09-07. Archived from the original on 2023-04-06. Retrieved 2022-11-18.
  4. 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. JSTOR 41349660. S2CID 232400805. Archived from the original on 2022-11-16. 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.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
  6. Tlemcani, Rachid (2007-05-29). "Electoral Authoritarianism". Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Archived from the original on 2023-04-06. Retrieved 2022-11-16.
  7. "What is Hybrid Democracy?". Digital Society School. 2022-05-19. Archived from the original on 2023-04-05. Retrieved 2022-11-16.
  8. 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. JSTOR 40389063. Archived from the original on 2022-11-16. Retrieved 2022-11-18.
  9. "Index". Dem-Dec. 2017-09-23. Archived from the original on 2022-11-21. Retrieved 2022-11-21.
  10. Sönmez, Hakan (2020-09-30). "Democratic Backsliding or Stabilization?". Politikon: The IAPSS Journal of Political Science. International Association for Political Science Students. 46: 54–78. doi:10.22151/politikon.46.3. ISSN 2414-6633. S2CID 224846248.
  11. Ekman, Joakim (2009). "Political Participation and Regime Stability: A Framework for Analyzing Hybrid Regimes". International Political Science Review. SAGE Publications. 30 (1): 7–31. doi:10.1177/0192512108097054. ISSN 0192-5121. S2CID 145077481.
  12. Baker, A. (2021). Shaping the Developing World: The West, the South, and the Natural World. SAGE Publications. p. 202. ISBN 978-1-0718-0709-5. Archived from the original on 2023-04-23. Retrieved 2023-04-23.
  13. "Why Parties and Elections in Dictatorships?". How Dictatorships Work. Cambridge University Press. 2018. pp. 129–153. doi:10.1017/9781316336182.006. ISBN 9781316336182.
  14. Riaz, Ali (2019). "What is a Hybrid Regime?". Voting in a Hybrid Regime. Politics of South Asia. Singapore: Springer Singapore. pp. 9–19. doi:10.1007/978-981-13-7956-7_2. ISBN 978-981-13-7955-0. ISSN 2523-8345. S2CID 198088445.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. Подлесный, Д. В. (2016). Политология: Учебное пособие [Political Science: Textbook] (in Russian). Kharkiv: ХГУ НУА. pp. 62–65/164. Archived from the original on 2023-04-22. Retrieved 2019-08-13.
  18. Schulmann, Ekaterina (15 August 2014). "Царство политической имитации" [The kingdom of political imitation]. vedomosti.ru. Archived from the original on 2019-07-30. Retrieved 2019-08-13.
  19. 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. Archived from the original on December 9, 2022. Retrieved Nov 27, 2022.
  20. 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. S2CID 158234306.
  21. 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. S2CID 6711009.
  22. "Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes After the Cold War". Department of Political Science. Archived from the original on 2023-04-06. Retrieved 2022-11-16.
  23. "Hybrid Regimes". obo. Archived from the original on 2019-07-29. Retrieved 2019-08-13.
  24. 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. S2CID 158943827.
  25. "Home - IDEA Global State of Democracy Report". International IDEA. Archived from the original on April 4, 2023. Retrieved Nov 26, 2022.
  26. Hameed, Dr. Muntasser Majeed (Jun 30, 2022). "Hybrid regimes: An Overview". IPRI Journal. Islamabad Policy Research Institute - IPRI. 22 (1): 1–24. doi:10.31945/iprij.220101. ISSN 1684-9787. S2CID 251173436.
  27. 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.
  28. Brooker, P. (2013). Non-Democratic Regimes. Comparative Government and Politics. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 222. ISBN 978-1-137-38253-5. Archived from the original on December 9, 2022. Retrieved Nov 27, 2022.
  29. 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. Retrieved Nov 16, 2022.
  30. Hameed, Dr. Muntasser Majeed (2022-06-30). "Hybrid regimes: An Overview". IPRI Journal. Islamabad Policy Research Institute - IPRI. 22 (1): 1–24. doi:10.31945/iprij.220101. ISSN 1684-9787. S2CID 251173436.
  31. Matthijs Bogaards. 2009. «How to Classify Hybrid Regimes? Defective Democracy and Electoral Authoritarianism.» Democratization, 16 (2): 399—423.;
  32. Gagné, Jean-François (2019-05-02). "Hybrid Regimes". obo. Archived from the original on 2019-07-29. Retrieved 2022-11-19.
  33. Leonardo Morlino; Dirk Berg-Schlosser; Bertrand Badie (6 March 2017). Political Science: A Global Perspective. SAGE. pp. 112–. ISBN 978-1-5264-1303-1. OCLC 1124515503. Archived from the original on 16 November 2022. Retrieved 16 November 2022.
  34. Andreas Schedler. ed., 2006. Electoral Authoritarianism: The Dynamics of Unfree Competition, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner;
  35. YONATAN L. MORSE Review: The Era of Electoral Authoritarianism Archived 2021-07-29 at the Wayback Machine; World Politics; Vol. 64, No. 1 (January 2012), pp. 161—198 (38 pages)
  36. Newton, Kenneth; Deth, Jan W. van (2021). Foundations of comparative politics : democracies of the modern world. Cambridge, United Kingdom. ISBN 978-1-108-92494-8. OCLC 1156414956.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  37. Authoritarianism: What Everyone Needs to Know®. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. 2018-09-04. ISBN 978-0-19-088020-0. Archived from the original on 2023-03-03. Retrieved 2023-03-03.
  38. "Foundations of Comparative Politics 4th edition | 9781108831826, 9781108934909". VitalSource. Archived from the original on 2023-03-02. Retrieved 2023-03-03.
  39. 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. S2CID 55589140.
  40. Stroh, Alexander; Elischer, Sebastian; Erdmann, Gero (2012). Origins and Outcomes of Electoral Institutions in African Hybrid Regimes: A Comparative Perspective (Report). German Institute of Global and Area Studies (GIGA). Archived from the original on 2023-03-03. Retrieved 2023-03-03.
  41. 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. JSTOR 20445173. S2CID 145077481. Archived from the original on 2022-11-19. Retrieved 2023-03-03.
  42. Schmotz, Alexander (2019). "Hybrid Regimes". academic.oup.com. pp. 521–525. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198829911.003.0053. ISBN 978-0-19-882991-1. Archived from the original on 2023-04-22. Retrieved 2023-03-03.
  43. 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. JSTOR 23024939. Archived from the original on 2023-03-24. Retrieved 2023-03-03.
  44. 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. ISSN 1755-7747. S2CID 154947839. Archived from the original on 2023-03-03. Retrieved 2023-03-03.
  45. Cassani, Andrea (Sep 3, 2013). "Hybrid what? Partial consensus and persistent divergences in the analysis of hybrid regimes". International Political Science Review. SAGE Publications. 35 (5): 542–558. doi:10.1177/0192512113495756. ISSN 0192-5121. S2CID 144881011.
  46. Colomer, J.M.; Beale, A.L. (2020). Democracy and Globalization: Anger, Fear, and Hope. Taylor & Francis. p. 180. ISBN 978-1-000-05363-0. Archived from the original on 2023-04-04. Retrieved 2022-12-27.
  47. Bogaards, Matthijs (2009). "How to classify hybrid regimes? Defective democracy and electoral authoritarianism". Democratization. Informa UK Limited. 16 (2): 399–423. doi:10.1080/13510340902777800. ISSN 1351-0347. S2CID 145315763.
  48. Norris, Pippa (2017). "Is Western Democracy Backsliding? Diagnosing the Risks". SSRN Electronic Journal. Elsevier BV. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2933655. ISSN 1556-5068. S2CID 157117940. Archived from the original on 2023-04-04. Retrieved 2022-12-09.
  49. Isaac, J.C. (1998). Democracy in Dark Times. Cornell University Press. p. 199. ISBN 978-0-8014-8454-4.
  50. "Global Dashboard". BTI 2022. Archived from the original on April 17, 2023. Retrieved Apr 17, 2023.
  51. "Nations in Transit Methodology". Freedom House. 2021-12-31. Archived from the original on 2023-03-18. Retrieved 2022-11-19.
  52. Mietzner, 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. S2CID 225475139.
  53. Mudde, Cas and Kaltwasser, Cristóbal Rovira (2017) Populism: a Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. pp.86-96. ISBN 978-0-19-023487-4
  54. 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. S2CID 234870008.
  55. 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. S2CID 159354232.
  56. 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.
  57. 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. S2CID 228959708.
  58. 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. PMID 32883862. S2CID 221472047.
  59. 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. S2CID 225378571. Archived (PDF) from the original on 6 February 2023. Retrieved 7 November 2022.
  60. 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. S2CID 150992660. The decline of democratic regime attributes – autocratization
  61. Cassani, Andrea; Tomini, Luca (2019). "What Autocratization Is". Autocratization in post-Cold War Political Regimes. Springer International Publishing. pp. 15–35. ISBN 978-3-030-03125-1.
  62. 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 a 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.
  63. Lindberg, Staffan I. "The Nature of Democratic Backsliding in Europe". Carnegie Europe. Archived from the original on 13 April 2021. Retrieved 2021-01-27.
  64. 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. ISSN 1022-0461. S2CID 55589140. Archived from the original on 21 January 2020. Retrieved 27 January 2021.
  65. 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. ISBN 978-3-319-74336-3. S2CID 240235199.
  66. 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.
  67. Schmitz, Hans Peter (2004). "Domestic and Transnational Perspectives on Democratization". International Studies Review. [International Studies Association, Wiley]. 6 (3): 403–426. doi:10.1111/j.1521-9488.2004.00423.x. ISSN 1521-9488. JSTOR 3699697.
  68. Bogaards, Matthijs (2010). "Measures of Democratization: From Degree to Type to War". Political Research Quarterly. [University of Utah, Sage Publications, Inc.] 63 (2): 475–488. doi:10.1177/1065912909358578. ISSN 1065-9129. JSTOR 20721505. S2CID 154168435.
  69. Greenwood, Shannon (2022-12-06). "Appendix A: Classifying democracies". Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project. Archived from the original on 2023-03-05. Retrieved 2022-12-27.
  70. "Democracy Index 2021: the China challenge". Economist Intelligence Unit. Feb 15, 2022. Archived from the original on November 8, 2022. Retrieved Nov 18, 2022.
  71. "The Global State of Democracy". Publications. 2021-11-22. Archived from the original on 2023-03-08. Retrieved 2022-12-27.
  72. "FAQs - The Global State of Democracy Indices". International IDEA. 2021-12-31. Archived from the original on 2023-04-04. Retrieved 2022-12-27.
  73. 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.
  74. "V-Dem Codebook v11" (PDF). March 2021. Archived from the original (PDF) on 30 October 2022. Retrieved 21 April 2023.
  75. Lührmann, Anna; Tannenberg, Marcus; Lindberg, Staffan I. (Mar 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.
  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. Informa UK Limited. 29 (6): 983–1013. doi:10.1080/13510347.2022.2069751. ISSN 1351-0347. S2CID 249031421.
  77. Freedom House (2019-02-06). "Democracy in Retreat". Freedom in the World. Archived from the original on 2019-02-05. Retrieved 2019-02-06.
  78. "Countries and Territories". Freedom House. Archived from the original on March 26, 2023. Retrieved Nov 25, 2022.
  79. Dobratz, B.A. (2015). Power, Politics, and Society: An Introduction to Political Sociology. Taylor & Francis. p. 47. ISBN 978-1-317-34529-9. Archived from the original on April 30, 2023. Retrieved Apr 30, 2023.
  80. Juan José Linz (2000). Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes. Lynne Rienner Publisher. p. 143. ISBN 978-1-55587-890-0. OCLC 1172052725. Archived from the original on 2023-04-22. Retrieved 2022-11-19.
  81. Jonathan Michie, ed. (3 February 2014). Reader's Guide to the Social Sciences. Routledge. p. 95. ISBN 978-1-135-93226-8. Archived from the original on 22 April 2023. Retrieved 19 November 2022.
  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–. ISBN 978-1-107-55889-2. Archived from the original on 22 April 2023. Retrieved 19 November 2022.
  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. JSTOR 157386. S2CID 144333167. Archived from the original on 2023-03-08. Retrieved 2022-11-19.
  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. ISBN 9781412919760.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
  85. Levitsky and Way 2002 Archived 2022-12-30 at the Wayback Machine; T. Karl 1995 Archived 2021-03-01 at the Wayback Machine; L. Diamond 1999 Archived 2023-01-31 at the Wayback Machine; A. Schedler 2002 Archived 2022-12-30 at the Wayback Machine
  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. Annual Reviews. 17 (1): 313–326. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-052013-115248. ISSN 1094-2939.
  88. 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
  89. Гудков, Лев (2009). "Природа "Путинизма"" [The nature of "Putinism"]. Вестник общественного мнения. Данные. Анализ. Дискуссии. 3: 13. Archived from the original on 2019-08-13. Retrieved 2019-08-13.
  90. Morse, Yonatan L. (January 2012). "Review: THE ERA OF ELECTORAL AUTHORITARIANISM". World Politics. 64 (1): 161–198. doi:10.1017/S0043887111000281. JSTOR 41428375. S2CID 154433302.
  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. S2CID 225285163.
  93. Self, Darin (2022-09-26). "Illiberal Democracies and Democratic Backsliding". obo. Retrieved 2023-04-26.
  94. Mounk, Yascha (2020-03-18). The People Vs. Democracy - Why Our Freedom Is in Danger and How to Save It. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-24502-0.
  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. ISBN 978-1-000-47945-4.
  99. Sajó 2021, p. 24.
  100. Schedler, Andreas (2006). Electoral Authoritarianism: The Dynamics of Unfree Competition. Lynne Rienner Publishers. ISBN 978-1-58826-415-2.
  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. S2CID 143630796.
  103. Christie, Kenneth (1998). "Illiberal Democracy, Modernisation and Southeast Asia". Theoria: A Journal of Social and Political Theory (91): 102–118. ISSN 0040-5817. JSTOR 41802094.
  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. Retrieved 5 December 2022.
  107. "The Wonder Boy". Hoover: An Extraordinary Life in Extraordinary Times. Knopf Doubleday. 2017. p. 338. ISBN 9780307743879. 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. Retrieved 5 December 2022.
  109. O'Donnell, Guillermo (January 1994). "Delegative Democracy". Journal of Democracy. 5 (1): 55–69. doi:10.1353/jod.1994.0010. S2CID 8558740.
  110. O'Donnell, Guillermo (1992). Delegative Democracy?. University of Notre Dame: Kellogg Institute for International Studies.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  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. ISSN 1430-6387.
  112. Jackson, Gabriel (Spring 1976). "The Franco Era in Historical Perspective". The Centennial Review. 20 (2): 103–127. JSTOR 23738276.
  113. Ribeiro, Igor (February 25, 2009). "A "ditabranda" da Folha" (in Portuguese). Portal Imprensa. Archived from the original on 2012-02-01.
  114. Rohmann, C (2000) A World of Ideas : The Dictionary of Important Ideas and Thinkers, Ballantine Books ISBN 978-0-345-43706-8
  115. Wolin, Sheldon S. (2008). Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-13566-3. Archived from the original on 2016-04-20. Retrieved 2012-03-11. p. 47
  116. Wolin, Sheldon S. (2008). Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-13566-3. Archived from the original on 2016-04-20. Retrieved 2012-03-11. p. 60
  117. Weir, Fred (October 1, 2003). "Kremlin lobs another shot at marketplace of ideas". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 2009-11-10.
  118. Plattner, Marc F. (1998). "Liberalism and Democracy: Can't Have One without the Other". Foreign Affairs. Council on Foreign Relations. 77 (2): 171–180. ISSN 0015-7120. JSTOR 20048858. Retrieved 2023-06-03.
  119. Zakaria, Fareed (November/December 1997). "The Rise of Illiberal Democracy". Foreign Affairs. Archived 15 October 2005 at the Wayback Machine
  120. Myers, Sondra (2002). The Democracy Reader. IDEA. p. 174. ISBN 978-0-9702130-3-7.
  121. Zakaria, Fareed (1997). "The Rise of Illiberal Democracy". Foreign Affairs. Council on Foreign Relations. 76 (6): 22–43. ISSN 0015-7120. JSTOR 20048274. Retrieved 2023-06-03.
  122. Quigley, Carroll (1983). Weapons systems and political stability: a history. University Press of America. p. 307. ISBN 978-0-8191-2947-5. Retrieved 20 May 2013.
  123. Gandhi, Jennifer; Vreeland, James (June 2008). "Political Institutions and Civil War: Unpacking Anocracy". Journal of Conflict Solutions. 52 (3): 401–425. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.584.1330. doi:10.1177/0022002708315594. S2CID 42071287.
  124. Fearon, James; Laitan, David (February 2003). "Ethnicity, Insurgency, and Civil War". American Political Science Review. 97: 75–90. doi:10.1017/S0003055403000534. S2CID 8303905.
  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. S2CID 154960398.
  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. S2CID 143823486.
  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. ISBN 978-0-226-22482-4.
  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. https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/wjdt_665385/2649_665393/202303/t20230320_11044481.html
  132. Романюк, О. І. (2017-11-24). "WHAT IS «DEFECTIVE DEMOCRACIES» AND WHAT THEY ARE". The Bulletin of Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University. Series: Philosophy, Philosophies of Law, Political Science, Sociology. Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University. 2 (33): 114–122. doi:10.21564/2075-7190.33.109732. ISSN 2663-5704.
  133. 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. ISBN 978-0-19-882991-1.
  134. Merkel, Wolfgang (2004-01-01). "Embedded and defective democracies". Democratization. Informa UK Limited. 11 (5): 33–58. doi:10.1080/13510340412331304598. hdl:10419/251950. ISSN 1351-0347. S2CID 149654333.
  135. Merkel, Wolfgang (December 2004). "Embedded and Defective Democracies" (PDF). Democratization. 11 (5). Retrieved 6 November 2014.
  136. Buhllman, Mark; Merkel, Wolfgang; Wessels, Bernhard (April 2008). "The Quality of Democracy: Democracy Barometer for Established Democracies". Hertie School of Governance - Working Papers.
  137. Merkel, Wolfgang; Croissant, Aurel (December 2004). "Conclusion: Good and Defective Democracies". Democratization. 11 (5): 199–213. doi:10.1080/13510340412331304651. S2CID 218522553.
  138. Merkel (2004) p.33
  139. Merkel (2004) p.36-27
  140. Merkel (2004) p.43-45
  141. Buhllman et al. (2008) p.7

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 Archived 2023-04-04 at the Wayback Machine), 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 Archived 2019-08-08 at the Wayback Machine) and "electoral authoritarianism" (Schedler, 2006) as well as how officials who came to power in an undemocratic way form election rules (Lust-Okar and Jamal, 2002 Archived 2019-07-30 at the Wayback Machine), institutionalize electoral frauds (Lehoucq 2003 Archived 2022-03-13 at the Wayback Machine, Schedler 2002 Archived 2019-08-26 at the Wayback Machine) and manipulate the economy (L. Blaydes Archived 2023-04-04 at the Wayback Machine 2006, Magaloni 2006) in order to win the election and stay in power.

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.