class 3 - non-democratic and hybrid regimes

Question 1

four reasons why it’s important to look at these regimes

Answer 1

1. historically, non-democratic regimes have been the norm
2. still many non-democratic regimes (~40%)
3. democratic and non-democratic regimes are not evenly/equally spread across the globe (it’s centralized in certain regions)
4. attempts to undermine democracy

Question 2

definitional features non-democratic regimes

Answer 2

Rulers (political leaders):

1. are selected in non-competitive process (sometimes there are elections, but they aren’t really meaningful)
2. are not accountable to the citizens
3. are not subject to the rule of law and other constitutional constraints (misleading: there often is a constitution, but often is little more than a piece of paper)

On each continent you can find non-democratic regimes:
e.g. Nazi-Germany, Qadafi Syria, Belarus, China, Russia, Burundi, Iran, Nicaragua, Cuba, Kazachstan, North Korea, Laos

Question 3

different types of non-democratic regimes
- does it matter?

Answer 3

Yes it matters:

1. it matters to the citizens that life in the regimes, that may not dislike or oppose the regime (it matters to citizens in what type of regime they are, some are worse than others)
2. according to many scholars, it makes a great deal of difference for the chance different types of regimes have of democratization

2 is the important one

Question 4

stages of Democratization Process

Answer 4

!not in the textbook!

1. Liberalization = loosening of grip the regime has on its society
   e.g. Perestrojka of Gorbatsjov
   *often seen before autocracies break down
2. Transition = old regime breaks down + democracy begins
   often negotiation between outgoing elite and opposition/ the new democratic regime
   e.g. 1990-1992 South Africa: ANC/Mandela transition to democracy
3. Democratic Consolidation: democratic rules/norms, become accepted by both elite and citizens. democracy becomes the only game in town
   indicator: new government elite is replaced after elections (meaning: two succesfull/peaceful elections/power)

Question 5

1. liberalization

Answer 5

loosening of grip the regime has on its society (often elites do this, they see it doesn’t work, try to liberalize it and popularize it in this way)

e.g. Perestrojka of Gorbatsjov

*often seen before autocracies break down

• signals to opposition that the regime is no longer willing/capable of threatening/fighting the opposition -> opposition is emboldened (meer lef)

Question 6

different types of non-democratic regimes

Answer 6

• totalitarian
• authoritarian
• sultanistic

categorization made by Juan Linz
*focus on society functions, is mobilized by leaders to support them

!almost no regimes perfectly fit in one of these categories (exc. SU) + they often evolve in other categories!

(!! is diff than the book, they see all non-democratic regimes as authoritarian + they pay a lot of attention to the leadership)

Question 7

Juan Linz categorization based on

Answer 7

1. Degree of Societal Pluralism = how diverse a society is tolerated by the regime
2. Type of Political Mobilization = the means by which the regime entices support from the population (how does it make it likely that people support the regime)
3. Type of Leadership = what is the source for their legitimacy/authority
   *textbook only focuses on leadership

based on this he distincts:

• totalitarian regimes
• authoritarian regimes
• sultanistic regimes

Question 8

totalitarian regimes

Answer 8

e.g. North-Korea, Nazi-Germany, USSR

Degree of Pluralism

• don’t tolerate opposition (are eliminated: killed, jailed, banned, very little social groups are allowed to function)
• usually one large party with monopoly on power + uses big systematic ideology to justify its action against opposition

Type of Mobilization

• intense/permanent mobilization: people have to be involved, systematically try to enthusise people for the regime
• often an organization specially to mobilize the people

Types of Leadership

• no/undefined limits
• cult of personality
• leadership often from within large parties/systems: the leaders don’t stand on/by themselves

!!totalitarian regimes are a thing of the past, we don’t really have real-life examples anymore, maybe North Korea is the last remaining

!destroys all free society, there is no civil-society to work with if there were a new regime (hard to establish democracy)

Question 9

authoritarian regimes

Answer 9

Argentina

!most non-democratic regimes now are authoritarian

Degree of Pluralism

• little autonomy is tolerated (e.g churches)
• are often unideological (don’t use it to justify themselves)

Type of Mobilization

• as long as the regime functions, they don’t mobilize, they almost demobilize (we leave you alone, you let us be) = opposite from totalitarian regimes

Types of Leadership

• not unconstrained leadership
• not so oppressive as totalitarian regimes

Question 10

sultanistic regimes

Answer 10

Turkmenistan (elected for life),
Zaire (Joseph-Desire Mobutu, 1965-1997)
- renamed himself: the all-powerful warrior…..

Degree of Pluralism

• some pluralism, but subject to despotic intervention

Type of Mobilization

• no extensive mobilization

Types of Leadership

• highly personalistic leadership: leaders are important to understand how these regimes function
• leaders are feared, loyalty is based on fear or material incentives
• leadership is dynastic: usually resolves around families or clans

Question 11

Joseph-Desire Mobutu

Answer 11

Zaire 1965-1997

• renamed himself: the all-powerful warrior who will go from conquest to conquest, leaving fire in his wake
• establishes ‘Mobutism’ as an official state ideology, stressing African traditions

Question 12

hybrid regimes

Answer 12

= civilian regimes in which formal democratic institutions exist, but they are NOT democratic because the playing field is heavily skewed in favor of incumbents

• Levitsky and Way

(competitive or electoral authoritarian regimes)

Question 13

2 key features hybrid regimes

Answer 13

1. elections but no alternation in power (media etc. in favour of government-> opposition has little/no chance)
2. limited restraint in exercise of power (rule of law is applied selectively)

Question 14

How widespread are hybrid regimes?

are they worthy of a separate category?

Answer 14

YES: since 2005 more and more states are categorized as hybrid regimes

International IDEA: now ~25% (Freedom House: non-democratic and hybrid regimes equally big)

!!it is a third wave of autocratization phenomena (starting in 2005)

Question 15

examples hybrid regimes

Answer 15

• Hungary, Victor Orban (elected in 2010, since then installing a hybrid regime, survived 3 elections)
  = first and only country in the EU that is ‘partly free’ according to the Freedom House
• Turkey, Erdogan (elected 2010, trying to undermine te court, installing censorship, 2017 attempted coup let to further empowering of Erdogan: became executive president)

!on every continent at least 1 hybrid regime can be found: e.g. Malawi, Moldova, Honduras

Question 16

hybrid regiems mechanisms of rule

Answer 16

(made by the lecturer, not in book)

1. strategic constitutional & administrative manipulations
2. politicization of the state and its institutions
3. patronage and clientelism

he believes regimes also work in this order to sustain themselves, it is a sequence in the mechanisms

Question 17

1. strategic constitutional & administrative manipulations

• mechanism of hybrid regimes

Answer 17

deliberate change of constitutional and administrative rules to weaken checks and balances on the executive power

makes it difficult for the opposition to oppose the regime

e.g. media freedom, rules regarding registration and financing of political parties

e.g. Orban so many seats he can change the constitution (7/8): started with the composition of the constitutional court (2010: abolish rule in which judges have to be appointed together with the opposition (opposition has no say) -> smaller amount of judges -> judges can stay longer in the court)
= guideline for autocratic rulers
+ Orban made it difficult for universities to function in Hungary through administrative (e.g. CEU: central european university, was moved to Vienna)

Question 18

2. politicization of the state and its institutions

mechanisms of rule hybrid regimes

Answer 18

= process whereby you use your dominant position in the gov to change the composition of the states’ bureaucracy and its institutions (e.g. ministries, CEOs state-owned companies)

e.g. turnover of state secretaries in Hungary: under Orban all of them were changed (until then, at least some were kept in place)

Question 19

3. patronage and clientelism

mechanisms of hybrid regimes

Answer 19

= a process whereby rulers/elites offer voters and others parts of elites some sort of material incentives to support the regime
- a type of exchange where you use your access to state assets to gain support

e.g. vote buying: offering voters something in order to get their votes

!can take very elaborate form: it becomes part of the system, it’s not just vote buying, but systematic exchange between rulers and voters in order to gain support for the government
- e.g. favorable rulers for certain companies

patron-client pyramid: patron ->client/brokers (e.g. judges, bureaucrats, local governments) ->client

Question 20

2 general points hybrid regimes

Answer 20

1.gradual and relatively non-violent emergence

• ! there is oppression, BUT there is far less of that than in non-democratic regime types
• they arrive in a relatively non-violent form and in a gradual manner: hollowing out of democratic procedures (VERY OFTEN LEGAL AND POLITICALLY DEFENDABLE)
• good news = international pressures that contemporary regimes face, it seems that if you want to be an autocrat now, it is ‘‘better/easier’’ to be hybrid than fully autocratic
• bad news = IOs often treat them to tolerantly/leaniant, e.g. Hungary regime was tolerated by the EU, now it is nearly impossible to end it

!specifically post-third wave democratization phenomenon!

2.hybrid regimes are relatively stable

• defined as something in between democratic and non-democratic, suggests that they are unstable: will either become fully non-democratic regimes or democratic regimes
• bad news: they tend to exist for long times (e.g. oldest one was Singapore (40 years))
• good news: there is some competition -> under favourable circumstances hybrid regimes can collapse (they are internally and externally challenged),
  e.g. 2004, 2014 Ukrain revolution, Bolsonario out-elected, Poland defeat Poland law and justice party (was a hybrid regime in making)

Question 21

conclusions

Answer 21

1. not all non-democratic regimes are the same
2. hybrid regimes as new form of autocratic rule (becoming an increasingly important category)