A hybrid regime 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). Hybrid regimes are categorized as having a combination of autocratic features with democratic ones and can simultaneously hold political repressions and regular elections.
According to some definitions and measures, hybrid regimes are commonly found in developing countries with abundant natural resources such as petro-states.
Scholars disagree about the durability of hybrid regimes. Some describe them as a persistent "gray zone" rather than a stage in a transition to democracy, while quantitative studies find that regimes combining democratic and autocratic features are less durable than either democracies or autocracies and more prone to civil war. Most competitive authoritarian regimes identified in the early 1990s subsequently either democratized or were replaced by new autocracies.
There has been a rise in hybrid regimes since the end of the Cold War.
The term hybrid regime arises from a polymorphic view of political regimes that oppose the dichotomy of autocracy or democracy. 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). While most maintain a veneer of democracy to appease international standards, some scholars contend these regimes deliberately imitate a full dictatorship to project strength and suppress internal dissent.
Overall, there is no consensus among researchers about how hybrid regimes should be defined or measured. Accordingly, there is much disagreement about which countries are considered to be hybrid regimes, and any description of what typical hybrid regimes look like needs to be seen in the context of specific definitions and measures. Democratic backsliding is the primary cause of the growth of hybrid regime typologies.
Definition Scholars vary on the definition of hybrid regimes based on their primary academic discipline. According to Christoph Mohamad-Klotzbach, "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." Scholars also debate if these regimes are in transition or are inherently a stable political system. In 1995, Terry Karl introduced the notion of a "hybrid" regime, which was simply defined as "combining democratic and authoritarian elements". According to Professor Matthijs Bogaards, hybrid types are:
Pippa Norris defined hybrid regimes as:
Henry E. Hale defined hybrid regimes as:
Leonardo Morlino defined hybrid regimes as:
Professor Jeffrey C. Isaac defined hybrid regimes as:
History
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. Neither the concept of illiberal democracy nor the concept of electoral authoritarianism fully describes these hybrid regimes.Matthijs Bogaards. 2009. *How to Classify Hybrid Regimes? Defective Democracy and Electoral Authoritarianism". Democratization 16 (2): 399–423.
Since the end of the Cold War, such regimes gradually outnumbered the classical dictatorships.Andreas Schedler, ed. (2006). Electoral Authoritarianism: The Dynamics of Unfree Competition. Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner. Authoritarian regimes change, and when countries liberalize, limited elections tend to follow, sooner or later. "Liberal democracy" is often purported when, in fact, this process basically froze "halfway."Yonatan L. Morse (January 2012). "Review: The Era of Electoral Authoritarianism". World Politics 64(1). pp. 161—198. . In relation to regimes that were previously called "transitional" in the 1980s, the term hybrid regime began to be used. According to Thomas Carothers:
Hybrid regimes have evolved to lean more authoritarian while keeping some democratic traits. 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. After the third wave of democratization, some regimes became stuck in the transition to democracy, causing the creation of weak democratic institutions. 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.
These developments have caused some scholars to believe that hybrid regimes are not poorly functioning democracies, but rather new forms of authoritarian regimes. Defective democratic stability is an indicator to explain and measure these new forms of autocracies. 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, creating a tool not utilized previously. As of the 2020s, '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.
Indicators
According to Guillermo O'Donnell, Philippe C. Schmitter, Larry Diamond, and Thomas Carothers, signs of a hybrid regime include: The presence of external attributes of democracy (elections, multi-party system, legal opposition). A 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). A low level of political participation. The declarative nature of political rights and freedoms (formally, there is in fact difficult implementation). A low level of trust in political institutions by its citizenry.
Transition types
Autocratization
Democratization
Measurement
There are various democratic freedom indices produced by academic researchers and intergovernmental non-governmental organizations that publish assessments of the world's political systems, according to their own definitions, and many of them include measures of hybrid regimes. However, because these various indices use different definitions and methods, they often disagree on which countries should be classified as hybrid regimes.
Democracy Index
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 world's population. 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." The Democracy Index defines hybrid regimes with the following characteristics:
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
As of 2024, the countries considered hybrid regimes by the "Democracy Index" are:
Romania Papua New Guinea Senegal Paraguay Malawi Zambia Peru Fiji Bhutan Liberia Armenia Hong Kong Honduras Madagascar Mexico Georgia Ecuador Tanzania Bosnia and Herzegovina Kenya Morocco Ukraine Tunisia El Salvador Nepal Guatemala Uganda Gambia Bangladesh Benin Sierra Leone Bolivia Turkey Ivory Coast Nigeria Angola
Global State of Democracy Report According to the "Global State of Democracy Report" by International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA), there are twenty hybrid regimes. International IDEA compiles data from 12 different sources, including expert surveys and observational data, which includes the extent to which voting rights are inclusive. IDEA defined hybrid regimes as:
As of 2021 the countries considered hybrid regimes by the "Global State of Democracy Report" are:
Angola Benin Côte d'Ivoire Democratic Republic of the Congo Ethiopia Gabon Jordan Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Libya Mauritania Morocco Mozambique Nigeria Serbia Singapore Tanzania Togo Tunisia Turkey
V-Dem Democracy Indices
The V-Dem Democracy Indices compiled by the V-Dem Institute at the University of Gothenburg classify all political regimes worldwide into four primary types. The two intermediate categories, electoral autocracies and electoral democracies, lie in between the most democratic (liberal democracy) and most autocratic (closed autocracy). In 2016, there were 118 countries in the electoral democracy and autocracy categories, and in 2021 there were 115. The 115 countries in 2021 consisted of about 60% of the world's population.
Freedom House
Freedom House measures the level of political and economic governance in 29 countries from Central Europe to Central Asia. Freedom House assigns "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)." Freedom House classifies transitional or hybrid regimes as:
In 2024, Freedom House classified 11 of 29 countries analyzed as "Transitional or Hybrid Regimes":
Armenia Georgia Albania Bosnia and Herzegovina Kosovo Ukraine Hungary Moldova Serbia North Macedonia Montenegro
Characteristics Human rights The instability of anocratic regimes causes human rights violations to be significantly higher within anocracies than democratic regimes. According to Maplecroft's 2014 Human Rights Risk Atlas, eight of the top ten worst human-rights-violating countries are anocracies. In addition, the report categorized every current anocracy as "at risk" or at "extreme risk" of human rights offenses.
The high correlation between anocratic regimes and human rights abuses denotes the nonlinear progression in a country's transition from an autocracy to a democracy. Generally, human rights violations substantially decrease when a certain threshold of full democracy is reached. However, human rights abuses tend to remain the same or even to increase as countries move from an autocratic to an anocratic regime.
During the revolutions of the Arab Spring, Libya, Egypt, and Yemen, all of the countries made relative progress towards more democratic regimes. With many of the authoritarian practices of their governments remaining, those states currently fall under the category of anocracies. They are also listed as some of the most extreme human-rights-violating countries in the world. The violations include torture, police brutality, slavery, discrimination, unfair trials, and restricted freedom of expression. Research has shown that political protests, such as those that occurred during the Arab Spring, generally lead to an increase in human right violations, as the existing government tries to retain power and influence over governmental opposition. Therefore, transitioning governments tend to have high levels of human rights abuses.