Global Facilitation Network for Security Sector Reform (GFN-SSR)

Political Participation and Regime Stability: A Framework for Analyzing Hybrid Regimes

 Printable version

A number of countries that have moved away from outright authoritarianism have transformed not into democracies but into regimes combining democratic and non-democratic characteristics. What impact do political culture and levels of political participation have on the stability of these hybrid regimes? This article from the International Political Science Review examines the cases of Tanzania, Russia and Venezuela and develops a framework for analysing hybrid regimes. It finds that hybrid regimes’ stability is related to incumbents’ ability to circumvent the opposition and a lack of interplay between citizens and opposition parties.

A number of political arenas are crucial for the stability of hybrid regimes: the electoral arena, executive-legislative relations and the judicial arena. In hybrid regimes, elections serve as a source of legitimacy and may be bitterly contested, even if tainted by manipulation and abuse of state power. Parliaments in hybrid regimes may be weak, but, unlike legislatures in outright authoritarian regimes, can still function as potential platforms for the opposition. In the judicial arena, hybrid regimes combine formal judicial independence with incomplete executive control. A further crucial and sometimes overlooked dimension to consider when analysing the stability of hybrid regimes is the public.

States that fit the hybrid regime profile can be identified based on the following characteristics:

• elections which are not too flawed and which have the potential to make a difference;
• significant levels of corruption, particularly in the judicial and electoral arenas;
• a lack of vital components of democratic quality, such as checks and balances and government accountability;
• a problematic press freedom situation, typically including incumbents’ desire to control the media, particularly television;
• a poor civil liberties situation, including limits on freedom of expression and the freedom to form organisations and trade unions; and
• a problematic rule of law situation, including a lack of judicial independence.

• Tanzania’s political culture is distinguished by an unhealthy political consensus. The importance of opposition parties is not acknowledged and freedom-of-speech restrictions are accepted. This poses a serious obstacle for an effective opposition.
• In Russia, there is widespread indifference towards politics. Russians feel they cannot influence politics and cynically accept strong-man rule. Vladimir Putin was able to profit from such sentiments and control elections.
• The case of Venezuela differs from those of Russia and Tanzania. While there is widespread disillusionment with politics, there is at least the potential for public participation and opposition. Of the three regimes, Venezuela’s is the least stable.
• Post-authoritarian and post-communist hybrid regimes tend to have ‘subjective’ political cultures. They can base their authority on elections in which the media is tilted towards the incumbent.
• In post-democratic hybrid regimes the political culture is closer to a ‘participant’ culture. Incumbents therefore have to use tactics other than electoral manipulation, such as tactical public spending and voter intimidation.

Access full text