Beyond Authoritarianism: The Conceptualization of Hybrid Regimes

Abstract

This paper appraises the state of the field on hybrid regimes by depicting the tensions and blurred boundaries of democracy and authoritarianism "with adjectives." An alternative conceptualization and ordering of regimes are subsequently introduced using a configurative approach. Rather than place regimes on a linear continuum from authoritarianism to democracy, it highlights the multi-dimensional arrangements possible for the construction of regime types. The configurative approach also provides an analytically useful way to measure and integrate hybrid regimes into our classificatory schemes. As a result, it helps alleviate the conceptual confusion in the literature and contributes to a discussion of hybrid regimes beyond the framework of authoritarianism. The paper concludes by presenting a list of all hybrid regimes in the world between 1990 and 2009 identified with this method.Keywords Authoritarianism . Hybrid regimes . Regime classification . Concept building and measurement "The boundary between democratic and nondemocratic is sometimes a blurred and imperfect one, and beyond it lies a much broader range of variation in political systems." Diamond, Linz and Lipset (1988) Democracy in Developing CountriesThe imperfect conceptual boundary between democratic and nondemocratic regimes has been the focus of much scholarly attention and debate at the turn of the St Comp Int Dev (2011) 46:270-297

What Do We Know about Hybrid Regimes after Two Decades of Scholarship?

“…Similarly, Gilbert and Mohseni (2011) have also found that by redefining of the electoral regime they discovered additional regime dimensions-competitiveness and competition-that are important for classification. They explain that "democracies are competitive regimes with fair competition, whereas authoritarian regimes are uncompetitive regimes with unfair competitions.…”

“…Hybrid regimes are variably understood as diminished subtypes of democracy (Merkel, 2004;Puhle, 2005;Zakaria, 1997); diminished subtypes of authoritarianism (Schedler, 2006); transitional "situations" that are expected to revert back to either democracy or authoritarianism (Armony & Schamis, 2005;Linz, 1973); a residual category of regimes that fit neither democracy nor authoritarianism (Bogaards, 2009;Gilbert & Mohseni, 2011); or as clear-cut instances of authoritarianism (Ezrow & Frantz, 2011;Gandhi, 2008).…”

“…The proposal to treat hybrid regimes as a residual category and to study them on their own terms instead of being anchored to either democracy or authoritarianism resulted in the proposal of fresh typologies that have attempted to advance the comparative analysis of political regimes (Gilbert & Mohseni, 2011;Wigell, 2008). Scholars also attempted to create intermediate types between democracy and authoritarianism.…”

“…The greatest stride made in regime classification has been made by L. Gilbert & P. Mohseni (2011) who proposed a multi-dimensional conception of hybridity utilizing a configurative approach (Geddes, 1999;Linz, 2000) for the categorization of hybrid regimes. This approach is particularly suitable because it can capture the complexity posed by hybrid regimes, by combining multiple attributes (competitiveness, tutelary interference and civil liberties) as the defining characteristics of the regime.…”

“…Scholars have since then established that hybrid regimes should try to avoid the teleological bias of earlier studies that categorized hybrid regimes as diminished sub-types of either democracy or authoritarianism (Bogaards, 2009;Gilbert & Mohseni, 2011;Morlino, 2009). We have now also learnt that hybrid regimes are not transitional phases but in fact political regimes that manifest a combination of both authoritarian and democratic tendencies that ought to be examined in comparison to each other and not against the standards of democracy.…”