How to classify hybrid regimes? Defective democracy and electoral authoritarianism

Abstract

The ‘third wave’ of democratization has resulted in the proliferation of regimes that are neither fully democratic nor classic authoritarian. To capture the nature of these hybrid regimes, the democratization literature has come up with a wide variety of adjectives as descriptors of different forms of democracy and authoritarianism. This article reviews two of the most systematic recent approaches, centring on the concepts of ‘defective democracy’ and ‘electoral authoritarianism’. An important limitation of both approaches is that each covers only one side of the spectrum. Where they meet in the middle, confusion arises. As a remedy, the article suggests to embed the concepts of defective democracy and electoral authoritarianism in a ‘double-root strategy’ that maps the full range of contemporary regimes from both sides of the political spectrum.

Keywords:

• democracy
• authoritarianism hybrid regime
• typology

Notes

Huntington, Third Wave; Diamond, ‘Is the Third Wave Over?’.

Diamond, ‘Thinking About Hybrid Regimes’, 25.

McFaul, ‘Fourth Wave of Democracy and Dictatorship’; Epstein et al., ‘Democratic Transitions’.

Collier and Levitsky, ‘Democracy with Adjectives’.

O'Donnell, ‘Delegative Democracy’; Zakaria, ‘Illiberal Democracy’.

Ottaway, Democracy Challenged; Levitsky and Way, ‘Rise of Competitive Authoritarianism’; Brumberg, ‘Trap of Liberalized Autocracy’.

Guliyev, ‘Post-Soviet Azerbaijan’.

Diamond, ‘Thinking About Hybrid Regimes’; Walle, ‘Africa's Range of Regimes’.

Huntington, Third Wave; Diamond, ‘Is the Third Wave Over?’.

Collier and Levitsky, ‘Democracy with Adjectives’.

Lauth, Demokratie und Demokratiemessung.

Merkel et al., Band 1: Theorie; Merkel et al., Regionalanalysen.

Schedler, Electoral Authoritarianism.

Lauth, ‘Dimensionen der Demokratie’. All translations from German are by the author.

Lauth, Demokratie und Demokratiemessung, 22.

Dahl, Democracy and its Critics.

Lauth, ‘Die Kontrolldimension’; Schedler, Diamond and Plattner, Self-Restraining State.

In contrast, Storm assesses the state of democracy through the presence of what she sees as its three ‘core elements’, speaking of ‘one element democracy’, ‘two element democracy’, etc. Because each element is sufficient but not necessary for democracy, a country can be democratic when it has civil liberties without meaningful elections. Storm, ‘Elemental Definition of Democracy’.

Lauth, Demokratie und Demokratiemessung, 330–50.

Ibid., 339.

For an analysis of democratic deficiencies in the USA, see Lauth, ‘Deficient Democracies’. For other efforts to assess the quality of democracy, see: Beetham and Weir, Political Power and Democratic Control; Diamond and Morlino, Assessing the Quality of Democracy.

Lauth, Demokratie und Demokratiemessung, 117.

Merkel, ‘Defekte Demokratien’.

Croissant, Transition zur defekten Demokratie; Merkel et al., Band 1: Theorie; Merkel et al., Regionalanalysen; Croissant and Merkel ‘Consolidated or Defective Democracy?’.

Puhle adds minority rights and protection as an eleventh criterion, falling under the rubric of rule of law. Puhle, ‘Probleme demokratischer Konsolidierung’.

Merkel et al., Band 1: Theorie, p. 15. Keman's conceptualization and operationalization of what he terms ‘defected democracies' is much looser. Keman, ‘Polyarchy & Defected Democracy’.

Merkel, ‘“Eingebettete” und defekte Demokratien’; Merkel, ‘Embedded and Defective Democracies’.

Krennerich, ‘Weder Fisch noch Fleisch?’; Merkel et al., Band 1: Theorie, 66–7.

Krennerich, ‘Weder Fisch noch Fleisch?’; Rüb, ‘Hybride Regime’.

Johnson, ‘Pluralist Authoritarianism’; Merkel et al., Band 1: Theorie, 239–40.

Berg-Schlosser, ‘Messungen und Indices’; Munck and Verkuilen, ‘Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy’.

Rüb, ‘Hybride Regime’, 102; Heinemann-Grüde, Review of Defekte Demokratien: Band 1: Theorie by Merkel et al.; Mainwaring, Brinks and Pérez-Liñán, ‘Classifying Political Regimes’, 41.

O'Donnell, ‘Delegative Democracy’; Larkins, ‘Judiciary and Delegative Democracy’; Ziegler, ‘Transitioning from Delegative Democracy’; Panizza, ‘Beyond “Delegative Democracy”’; Peruzzotti, ‘New Argentine Democracy’; Zakaria, ‘Illiberal Democracy’; Karatnykcy, ‘Decline of Illiberal Democracy’; Valenzuela, ‘Democratic Consolidation’. Merkal et al.'s type of ‘exclusive democracy’ is broader than Remmer's concept of ‘exclusionary democracy’, but more narrow than Lawoti's notion of ‘exclusionary democratization’. Remmer, ‘Exclusionary Democracy’; Lawoti, ‘Exclusionary Democratization in Nepal’.

Merkel et al., Band 1: Theorie; The findings are likely to be somewhat different for Africa. See Bogaards, ‘Demokratie in Afrika südlich der Sahara’.

Croissant, Transition zur defekten Demokratie; Merkel et al., Regionalanalysen.

Beichelt, ‘Autocracy and Democracy’.

Merkel et al., Regionalanalysen, 365, 380; Henderson, ‘Slovak Republic’.

Merkel et al., Regionalanalysen, 468.

McMann, Economic Autonomy and Democracy, 176.

See: Freedom House, http://www.freedomhouse.org; Polity IV Project, http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/polity4.htm

Merkel et al., Regionalanalysen, 476.

Croissant, ‘Legislative Powers’.

Carbone, ‘Do All Good Things Go Together?’.

Linz, Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes; Maćków, ‘Systemen der gescheiterten Demokratisierung’.

Levitsky and Way, ‘Rise of Competitive Authoritarianism’.

Diamond, ‘Thinking About Hybrid Regimes’.

Ottaway, Democracy Challenged .

Wigell's type of ‘electoral-autocratic regimes’ deviates from this consensus as it captures regimes that organize democratic elections, but fall short on civil liberties. Such regimes are commonly referred to as illiberal democracies. Wigell, ‘Mapping “Hybrid Regimes”’.

Brownlee, Authoritarianism.

Schedler, ‘Logic of Electoral Authoritarianism’, 3.

Ibid.

Ibid.

Ibid.

For example, Albania 1996–2000, Bangladesh 2002–2006, Nigeria 1999–2005, and Guatemala 2002–2006.

Clark, ‘Armed Arbiters’; Lindberg, ‘Tragic Protest’.

Thompson and Kuntz, ‘After Defeat’.

Snyder, ‘Beyond Electoral Authoritarianism’; Wiest, ‘Beschränkter Pluralismus’.

Dahl, Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition.

Croissant and Thiery, ‘Von defekten und anderen Demokratien’, 18.

Merkel and Croissant, ‘Formale und informale Institutionen’, 7; Merkel and Croissant, ‘Defective Democracies’, 33.

Böckenförde, Recht, Staat, Freiheit.

Lauth, Demokratie und Demokratiemessung, 101. See also O'Donnell, ‘Democracy, Law, and Comparative Politics’.

Merkel and Croissant, ‘Good and Defective Democracies’, 201.

Köllner, Review of Croissant, Transition zur defekten Demokratie.

Rose and Shin, ‘Democratization Backwards’.

Snyder, ‘Beyond Electoral Authoritarianism’, 224.

Snyder, ‘Scaling Down’, 101.

O'Donnell, ‘On the State, Democratization’.

Lauth, ‘Dimensionen der Demokratie’, 44; Merkel et al., Theorie, 58–9.

Lauth, Demokratie und Demokratiemessung, 338.

Lauth briefly discusses ‘brown areas’ in the context of informal institutions. Ibid., 215–6.

Merkel et al., Band 1: Theorie, 71.

Ibid., 95.

Muno and Thiery, ‘Defekte Demokratien in Südamerika’.

Croissant, Transition zur defekten Demokratie.

Gibson, ‘Boundary Control’.

Snyder, ‘Scaling Down’, 228–9.

The framework is being further developed to measure the quality of established democracies. See Bühlmann, Merkel and Weßels, Quality of Democracy.

Merkel and Croissant, ‘Formale und informale Institutionen’; Merkel and Croissant, ‘Defective Democracies’; Croissant and Thiery, ‘Von defekten und anderen Demokratien’.

Puhle treats defects in political participation rights as evidence of a particular type of illiberal democracy, simply called ‘illiberal democracy (1)’ versus ‘illiberal democracy (2)’ for defects in the rule of law. Puhle, ‘Probleme demokratischer Konsolidierung’, 131.

Croissant, Transition zur defekten Demokratie, 127–33.

Wigell, for example, identifies four democratic subtypes. However, little is gained from introducing yet another typology and terminology. In fact, much may be lost when delegative democracy is relabelled as ‘electoral democracy’ and democracy with reserved domains as ‘constitutional democracy’. Wigell, ‘Mapping “Hybrid Regimes’.

Merkel, ‘Totalitäre Regimes’; Croissant and Thiery, ‘Von defekten und anderen Demokratien’, 9–32.

Lijphart, Patterns of Democracy; Brooker, Non-Democratic Regimes.

Schedler, Electoral Authoritarianism, 4.

Case, ‘Manipulative Skills’; Croissant, Transition zur defekten Demokratie.

Schedler, Electoral Authoritarianism.

Munck, ‘Drawing Boundaries’.

Levitsky and Way, ‘Rise of Competitive Authoritarianism’; Way, ‘Competitive Authoritarianism in Ukraine’.

Merkel et al., Band 1: Theorie, 79–80.

Levitsky and Way, ‘Rise of Competitive Authoritarianism’, 55.

Merkel et al., Band 1: Theorie, 84–5.

Levitsky and Way, ‘Rise of Competitive Authoritarianism’, 57.

Ibid, p. 16.

Mangott, Zur Demokratisierung Russlands, 199–200.

Merkel et al., Regionalanalysen, 306; Beichelt, ‘Autocracy and Democracy’, 129. See also Gel'Man, ‘Post-Soviet Transitions’; White, ‘Rethinking Postcommunist Transition’.

Levitsky and Way, ‘Rise of Competitive Authoritarianism’.

Lauth, ‘Die empirische Messung demokratischer Grauzonen’. The ‘hybrid regimes’ in Central America described by Karl most likely would be classified as defective democracies rather than pure hybrids. Karl, ‘Hybrid Regimes’.

For example, it is not clear whether Diamond's category of ‘ambiguous regimes’ encompasses hybrid regimes, transitional regimes, or both. Diamond, ‘Thinking About Hybrid Regimes’.

Armony and Schamis, ‘Babel in Democratization Studies’, 114.

Schmitter, ‘Proto-Science of Consolidology’.