Democratic transition

From The Right Wiki
(Redirected from Democratic transitions)
Jump to navigationJump to search
File:Number of countries experiencing autocratization and democratization, 1900–2000.jpg
Since c. 2010, the number of countries autocratizing (blue) is higher than those democratizing (yellow).

A democratic transition describes a phase in a country's political system as a result of an ongoing change from an authoritarian regime to a democratic one.[1][2][3] The process is known as democratisation, political changes moving in a democratic direction.[4] Democratization waves have been linked to sudden shifts in the distribution of power among the great powers, which created openings and incentives to introduce sweeping domestic reforms.[5][6] Although transitional regimes experience more civil unrest,[7][8] they may be considered stable in a transitional phase for decades at a time.[9][10][11] Since the end of the Cold War transitional regimes have become the most common form of government.[12][13] Scholarly analysis of the decorative nature of democratic institutions concludes that the opposite democratic backsliding (autocratization), a transition to authoritarianism is the most prevalent basis of modern hybrid regimes.[14][15][16]

Typology

Autocratization

File:Countries democratizing or autocratizing substantially and significantly 2010–2020.svg
Countries autocratizing (red) or democratizing (blue) substantially and significantly (2010–2020), according to V-Dem Institute. Countries in grey are substantially unchanged.[17]

Democratic backsliding[lower-alpha 1] is a process of regime change toward autocracy in which the exercise of political power becomes more arbitrary and repressive.[24][25][26] The process typically restricts the space for public contest and political participation in the process of government selection.[27][28] 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 democracies, especially freedom of expression.[29][30] Democratic backsliding is the opposite of democratization. Proposed causes of democratic backsliding include economic inequality, rampant culture wars, culturally conservative reactions to societal changes, populist or personalist politics, and external influence from great power politics. During crises, backsliding can occur when leaders impose autocratic rules during states of emergency that are either disproportionate to the severity of the crisis or remain in place after the situation has improved.[31]

During the Cold War, democratic backsliding occurred most frequently through coups. Since the end of the Cold War, democratic backsliding has occurred more frequently through the election of personalist leaders or parties who subsequently dismantle democratic institutions.[32] During the third wave of democratization in the late twentieth century, many new, weakly institutionalized democracies were established; these regimes have been most vulnerable to democratic backsliding.[33][30] The third wave of autocratization has been ongoing since 2010, when the number of liberal democracies was at an all-time high.[34][35]

Democratisation

File:Global effect of 1989-1991 Revolutions.png
Map showing democratization of countries after the Cold War

Democratization, or democratisation, is the structural government transition from an authoritarian government to a more democratic political regime, including substantive political changes moving in a democratic direction.[36][37] 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.[38] 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.[39]

The opposite process is known as democratic backsliding or autocratization.

Factors

Decolonization

File:Descolonización - Decolonization.png
Map of the year each country achieved independence.

Decolonization is the undoing of colonialism, the latter being the process whereby imperial nations establish and dominate foreign territories, often overseas.[40] The meanings and applications of the term are disputed. Some scholars of decolonization focus especially on independence movements in the colonies and the collapse of global colonial empires.[41][42] As a movement to establish independence for colonized territories from their respective metropoles, decolonization began in 1775 in North America. Major waves of decolonization occurred in the aftermath of the First World War and most prominently after the Second World War.

Critical scholars extend the meaning beyond independence or equal rights for colonized peoples to include broader economic, cultural and psychological aspects of the colonial experience.[43][44] Extending the meaning of decolonization beyond political independence has been disputed and received criticism.[45][46][47]

Democratic globalization

Democratic globalization is a social movement towards an institutional system of global democracy.[48] One of its proponents is the British political thinker David Held. In the last decade, Held published a dozen books regarding the spread of democracy from territorially defined nation states to a system of global governance that encapsulates the entire world. For some, democratic mundialisation (from the French term mondialisation) is a variant of democratic globalisation stressing the need for the direct election of world leaders and members of global institutions by citizens worldwide; for others, it is just another name for democratic globalisation.[49]

These proponents state that democratic globalisation's purpose is to:

Democracy promotion

Democracy promotion, also referred to as democracy building, can be domestic policy to increase the quality of already existing democracy or a strand of foreign policy adopted by governments and international organizations that seek to support the spread of democracy as a system of government. In practice, it entails consolidating and building democratic institutions

International democracy promotion typically takes three forms: assistance, monitoring, and conditionality.[50] In financial terms, democracy promotion grew from 2% of aid in 1990 to nearly 20% in 2005.[51] More controversially and rare, it can also take the form of military intervention.[52][53]

Outcomes

Democratic consolidation

Democratic consolidation is the process by which a new democracy matures, in a way that it becomes unlikely to revert to authoritarianism without an external shock, and is regarded as the only available system of government within a country.[54][55] A country can be described as consolidated when the current democratic system becomes “the only game in town”,[56] meaning no one in the country is trying to act outside of the set institutions.[57] This is the case when no significant political group seriously attempts to overthrow the democratic regime, the democratic system is regarded as the most appropriate way to govern by the vast majority of the public, and all political actors are accustomed to the fact that conflicts are resolved through established political and constitutional rules.[58][59]

Since 1992 the number of democratic countries has been greater than the number of dictatorships, and this number continues to grow as countries go through the process of consolidation.[60] The notion of democratic consolidation is contested because it is not clear that there is anything substantive that happens to new democracies that secures their continuation, beyond those factors that simply make it 'more likely' that they continue as democracies. Many scholars have attempted to explain the factors that are responsible for democracies consolidating, which has led to the emergence of different ‘consolidation theories’ in political science. Unconsolidated democracies often suffer from formalized but intermittent elections and clientelism.[61]

Stalled transition

Hybrid regime

A hybrid regime[lower-alpha 2] 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 3] 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 3] Hybrid regimes are commonly found in developing countries with abundant natural resources such as petro-states.[79][69][80] Although these regimes experience civil unrest, they may be relatively stable and tenacious for decades at a time.[lower-alpha 3] There has been a rise in hybrid regimes since the end of the Cold War.[81][82]

The term hybrid regime arises from a polymorphic view of political regimes that opposes the dichotomy of autocracy or democracy.[83] Modern scholarly analysis of hybrid regimes focuses attention on the decorative nature of democratic institutions (elections do not lead to a change of power, different media broadcast the government point of view and the opposition in parliament votes the same way as the ruling party, among others),[84] from which it is concluded that democratic backsliding, a transition to authoritarianism is the most prevalent basis of hybrid regimes.[lower-alpha 3][85] Some scholars also contend that hybrid regimes may imitate a full dictatorship.[86][87]

Measurement

File:BTI 2022 DEM.jpg
Global trend report Bertelsmann Transformation Index 2022[88]

See also

Notes

  1. Other names include autocratization, democratic decline,[18] de-democratization,[19] democratic erosion,[20] democratic decay,[21] democratic recession,[22] democratic regression,[18] and democratic deconsolidation.[23]
  2. Scholars use a variety of terms to encompass the "grey zones" between full autocracies and full democracies.[62] Such terms include: competitive authoritarianism, semi-authoritarianism, hybrid authoritarianism, electoral authoritarianism, liberal autocracy, delegative democracy, illiberal democracy, guided democracy, semi-democracy, deficient democracy, defective democracy, and hybrid democracy.[63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70]
  3. 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 "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."[64] Scholars also debate if these regimes are in transition or are inherently a stable political system.[71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78]

References

  1. 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.
  2. Munck, G.L. (2001). "Democratic Transitions". International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. Elsevier. pp. 3425–3428. doi:10.1016/b0-08-043076-7/01135-9. ISBN 9780080430768.
  3. Cassani, Andrea; Tomini, Luca (2019). "Authoritarian resurgence: towards a unified analytical framework". Italian Political Science Review/Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica. 49 (2). Cambridge University Press (CUP): 115–120. doi:10.1017/ipo.2019.14. hdl:2434/666535. ISSN 0048-8402. S2CID 199298876.
  4. Huntington, Samuel P. (2009). "How Countries Democratize". Political Science Quarterly. 124 (1). [The Academy of Political Science, Wiley]: 31–69. doi:10.1002/j.1538-165X.2009.tb00641.x. ISSN 0032-3195. JSTOR 25655609. Retrieved 2023-04-17.
  5. Gunitsky, Seva (2014). "From Shocks to Waves: Hegemonic Transitions and Democratization in the Twentieth Century". International Organization. 68 (3): 561–597. doi:10.1017/S0020818314000113. ISSN 0020-8183. S2CID 232254486.
  6. Gunitsky, Seva (2017). Aftershocks. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-17233-0.
  7. Cook, Scott J; Savun, Burcu (2016). "New democracies and the risk of civil conflict". Journal of Peace Research. 53 (6). SAGE Publications: 745–757. doi:10.1177/0022343316660756. ISSN 0022-3433. S2CID 114918000.
  8. Crocker, C.A.; Hampson, F.O.; Aall, P. (2016). Managing Conflict in a World Adrift. McGill-Queen's University Press. p. 156. ISBN 978-1-928096-48-1. Retrieved 2023-04-23.
  9. Sönmez, Hakan (2020-09-30). "Democratic Backsliding or Stabilization?". Politikon: The IAPSS Journal of Political Science. 46. International Association for Political Science Students: 54–78. doi:10.22151/politikon.46.3. ISSN 2414-6633.
  10. Geddes, Barbara (1999). "What Do We Know About Democratization After Twenty Years?". Annual Review of Political Science. 2 (1). Annual Reviews: 115–144. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.2.1.115. ISSN 1094-2939.
  11. Törnberg, Anton (2018). "Combining transition studies and social movement theory: towards a new research agenda". Theory and Society. 47 (3). Springer Science and Business Media LLC: 381–408. doi:10.1007/s11186-018-9318-6. ISSN 0304-2421. S2CID 255015393.
  12. 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.
  13. Brownlee, Jason (2009). "Portents of Pluralism: How Hybrid Regimes Affect Democratic Transitions". American Journal of Political Science. 53 (3). [Midwest Political Science Association, Wiley]: 515–532. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00384.x. ISSN 0092-5853. JSTOR 25548135.
  14. "Home - IDEA Global State of Democracy Report". International IDEA. Retrieved Nov 26, 2022.
  15. Hameed, Dr. Muntasser Majeed (Jun 30, 2022). "Hybrid regimes: An Overview". IPRI Journal. 22 (1). Islamabad Policy Research Institute - IPRI: 1–24. doi:10.31945/iprij.220101. ISSN 1684-9787. S2CID 251173436.
  16. Caballero-Anthony, M. (2009). Political Change, Democratic Transitions and Security in Southeast Asia. Routledge Security in Asia Pacific Series. Taylor & Francis. p. 7. ISBN 978-1-135-26840-4. Retrieved 2023-04-27.
  17. Nazifa Alizada, Rowan Cole, Lisa Gastaldi, Sandra Grahn, Sebastian Hellmeier, Palina Kolvani, Jean Lachapelle, Anna Lührmann, Seraphine F. Maerz, Shreeya Pillai, and Staffan I. Lindberg. 2021. Autocratization Turns Viral. Democracy Report 2021. University of Gothenburg: V-Dem Institute. https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/74/8c/748c68ad-f224-4cd7-87f9-8794add5c60f/dr_2021_updated.pdf Archived 14 September 2021 at the Wayback Machine
  18. 18.0 18.1 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.
  19. 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
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. 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.
  26. 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
  27. 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.
  28. 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.
  29. Lindberg, Staffan I. "The Nature of Democratic Backsliding in Europe". Carnegie Europe. Archived from the original on 13 April 2021. Retrieved 2021-01-27.
  30. 30.0 30.1 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.
  31. "Pandemic Backsliding". www.v-dem.net. V-Dem. Archived from the original on 21 December 2020. Retrieved 23 January 2021.
  32. Frantz, Erica; Kendall-Taylor, Andrea; Kendall-Taylor, Senior Fellow and Director of the Transatlantic Security Program Andrea; Wright, Joe (2024). The Origins of Elected Strongmen: How Personalist Parties Destroy Democracy from Within. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-888807-9.
  33. Bermeo, Nancy (January 2016). "On Democratic Backsliding" (PDF). Journal of Democracy. 27 (1): 5–19. doi:10.1353/jod.2016.0012. ISSN 1086-3214. S2CID 155798358. Archived (PDF) from the original on 29 March 2021. Retrieved 26 April 2019.
  34. Maerz, Seraphine F.; Lührmann, Anna; Hellmeier, Sebastian; Grahn, Sandra; Lindberg, Staffan I. (2020-05-18). "State of the world 2019: autocratization surges – resistance grows". Democratization. 27 (6): 909–927. doi:10.1080/13510347.2020.1758670. ISSN 1351-0347.
  35. Boese, Vanessa A.; Lundstedt, Martin; Morrison, Kelly; Sato, Yuko; Lindberg, Staffan I. (2022). "State of the world 2021: autocratization changing its nature?". Democratization. 29 (6): 983–1013. doi:10.1080/13510347.2022.2069751. ISSN 1351-0347. S2CID 249031421.
  36. 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.
  37. 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 (106). doi:10.1057/s41599-020-00596-7.
  38. 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. ISSN 1521-9488. JSTOR 3699697.
  39. 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. ISSN 1065-9129. JSTOR 20721505. S2CID 154168435.
  40. Note however discussion of (for example) the Russian and Nazi empires below.
  41. Hack, Karl (2008). International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. Detroit: Macmillan Reference. pp. 255–257. ISBN 978-0028659657.
  42. John Lynch, ed. Latin American Revolutions, 1808–1826: Old and New World Origins (1995).
  43. Betts, Raymond F. (2012). "Decolonization a brief history of the word". Beyond Empire and Nation. Brill. pp. 23–37. doi:10.1163/9789004260443_004. ISBN 978-90-04-26044-3. JSTOR 10.1163/j.ctt1w8h2zm.5.
  44. Corntassel, Jeff (2012-09-08). "Re-envisioning resurgence: Indigenous pathways to decolonization and sustainable self-determination". Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society. 1 (1). ISSN 1929-8692.
  45. Táíwò, Olúfẹ́mi (2022). Against decolonisation: taking African agency seriously. African arguments. London: Hurst & Company. ISBN 978-1-78738-692-1.[page needed]
  46. Kurzwelly, Jonatan; Wilckens, Malin S (2023). "Calcified identities: Persisting essentialism in academic collections of human remains". Anthropological Theory. 23 (1): 100–122. doi:10.1177/14634996221133872. S2CID 254352277.
  47. Naicker, Veeran (2023). "The problem of epistemological critique in contemporary Decolonial theory". Social Dynamics. 49 (2): 220–241. doi:10.1080/02533952.2023.2226497. S2CID 259828705.
  48. Rosow, S.J.; George, J. (2014). Globalization and Democracy. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. p. 2. ISBN 978-1-4422-1810-9. Retrieved 2023-04-23.
  49. Fisher, Stephen (2016-01-01). "Democratic Support and Globalization". Globalization and Domestic Politics. Oxford University Press. pp. 209–234. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198757986.003.0011. ISBN 978-0-19-875798-6.
  50. Donno, Daniela (2024), "International Democracy Promotion", The Oxford Handbook of Authoritarian Politics, Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198871996.013.28, ISBN 978-0-19-887199-6
  51. Matanock, Aila M. (2020). "How International Actors Help Enforce Domestic Deals". Annual Review of Political Science. 23 (1): 357–383. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-050718-033504. ISSN 1094-2939.
  52. Mesquita, Bruce Bueno de (Spring 2004). "Why Gun-Barrel Democracy Doesn't Work". Hoover Digest. 2. Archived from the original on 2008-07-05. Also see this page.
  53. Meernik, James (1996). "United States Military Intervention and the Promotion of Democracy". Journal of Peace Research. 33 (4): 391–402. doi:10.1177/0022343396033004002. S2CID 51897214.
  54. Schedler, Andreas (1998). "What is Democratic Consolidation?". Journal of Democracy. 9 (2). Project Muse: 91–107. doi:10.1353/jod.1998.0030. ISSN 1086-3214.
  55. Encarnacion, Omar G.; Gunther, Richard; Diamandourous, P. Nikiforos; Puhle, Hans-Jurgen; Mainwaring, Scott; Scully, Timothy; Buchanan, Paul G.; Jelin, Elizabeth; Hershberg, Eric; Morlino, Leonardo (2000). "Beyond Transitions: The Politics of Democratic Consolidation". Comparative Politics. 32 (4). JSTOR: 479. doi:10.2307/422390. ISSN 0010-4159. JSTOR 422390.
  56. Linz, Juan J. (Juan Jose); Stepan, Alfred C. (1996). "Toward Consolidated Democracies". Journal of Democracy. 7 (2). Project Muse: 14–33. doi:10.1353/jod.1996.0031. ISSN 1086-3214.
  57. Przeworski, Adam (1992). Democracy and the market : political and economic reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-41225-0. OCLC 476230396.
  58. Linz, J. J., & Stepan, A. C. (April 1996). "Toward consolidated democracies". Journal of Democracy. 7 (2): 14–33. doi:10.1353/jod.1996.0031. S2CID 154644233 – via Project MUSE.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  59. Cook, Scott J; Savun, Burcu (2016). "New democracies and the risk of civil conflict: The lasting legacy or military rule". Journal of Peace Research. 53 (6). Sage Publications, Ltd.: 745–757. doi:10.1177/0022343316660756. eISSN 1460-3578. ISSN 0022-3433. JSTOR 44510457. Retrieved 2023-04-23.
  60. Clark, William Roberts, 1962- (31 August 2018). Foundations of comparative politics. CQ Press. ISBN 978-1-5063-6074-4. OCLC 1240711766.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  61. O'Donnell, Guillermo A. (April 1996). "Illusions about Consolidation". Journal of Democracy. 7 (2): 34–51. doi:10.1353/jod.1996.0034. S2CID 153457880 – via Project Muse.
  62. Gagné, Jean-François (Mar 10, 2015), Hybrid Regimes, Oxford University Press (OUP), doi:10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0167
  63. Plattner, Marc F. (1969-12-31). "Is Democracy in Decline?". kipdf.com. Archived from the original on 2023-04-06. Retrieved 2022-12-27.
  64. 64.0 64.1 "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.
  65. 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. ISSN 0897-6546. JSTOR 41349660. S2CID 232400805. Archived from the original on 2022-11-16. Retrieved 2022-11-16.
  66. 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)
  67. Tlemcani, Rachid (2007-05-29). "Electoral Authoritarianism". Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Archived from the original on 2023-04-06. Retrieved 2022-11-16.
  68. "What is Hybrid Democracy?". Digital Society School. 2022-05-19. Archived from the original on 2023-04-05. Retrieved 2022-11-16.
  69. 69.0 69.1 Zinecker, 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. ISSN 1521-9488. JSTOR 40389063. Archived from the original on 2022-11-16. Retrieved 2022-11-18.
  70. "Index". Dem-Dec. 2017-09-23. Archived from the original on 2022-11-21. Retrieved 2022-11-21.
  71. 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. S2CID 145077481.
  72. Baker, A. (2021). Shaping the Developing World: The West, the South, and the Natural World. SAGE. p. 202. ISBN 978-1-0718-0709-5. Archived from the original on 2023-04-23. Retrieved 2023-04-23.
  73. "Why Parties and Elections in Dictatorships?". How Dictatorships Work. Cambridge University Press. 2018. pp. 129–153. doi:10.1017/9781316336182.006. ISBN 9781316336182.
  74. Riaz, Ali (2019). "What is a Hybrid Regime?". Voting in a Hybrid Regime. Politics of South Asia. Singapore: Springer. pp. 9–19. doi:10.1007/978-981-13-7956-7_2. ISBN 978-981-13-7955-0. ISSN 2523-8345. S2CID 198088445.
  75. 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.
  76. 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.
  77. Подлесный, Д. В. (2016). Политология: Учебное пособие [Political Science: Textbook] (in русский). Kharkiv: ХГУ НУА. pp. 62–65/164. Archived from the original on 2023-04-22. Retrieved 2019-08-13.
  78. Schulmann, Ekaterina (15 August 2014). "Царство политической имитации" [The kingdom of political imitation]. Ведомости. Archived from the original on 2019-07-30. Retrieved 2019-08-13.
  79. 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.
  80. 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.
  81. 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. ISSN 1086-3214. S2CID 6711009.
  82. "Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes After the Cold War". Department of Political Science. Archived from the original on 2023-04-06. Retrieved 2022-11-16.
  83. "Hybrid Regimes". obo. Archived from the original on 2019-07-29. Retrieved 2019-08-13.
  84. 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. ISSN 2183-2463. S2CID 158943827.
  85. "Home - IDEA Global State of Democracy Report". International IDEA. Archived from the original on April 4, 2023. Retrieved Nov 26, 2022.
  86. 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.
  87. 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.
  88. "Global Dashboard". BTI 2022. Retrieved Apr 17, 2023.

Further reading

External links