Against the Tide? Are Hybrid Regimes More than Sand Castles?
Most of the burgeoning literature on hybrid regimes focuses on the description of different types of hybrid regimes such as electoral authoritarianism, competitive authoritarianism, semi-authoritarianism, defective democracies, etc. As a class of phenomena, hybrid regimes are today largely depicted as the most salient political feature in developing countries, a durable form of political regime and a post-cold war phenomenon that can be observed in all regions. It is argued that these assertions are not, from an empirical standpoint, systematically examined.To be sure, this paper is not about testing causal mechanisms and logistic regressions. It is about why we should deepen the study of hybrid regimes and what kind of questions we should ask ourselves, leaving the answer for further research. It adopts a descriptive and critical position and, in doing so, it does not offer any hypotheses.That being said, the following questions need to be examined upfront. Is there a rise in the number of hybrid regimes? If yes, when did it start? Are hybrid regimes stable? If they are, how long do they last and what is their political trajectory? What has been the experience of stability of hybrid regimes before 1991? And are hybrid regimes more common and stable in some regions? Using Freedom House classification of political regimes in 133 developing countries between 1972 and 2009, we can say with confidence that hybrid regimes have been a salient feature in developing countries since the beginning of the Third Wave of Democratization. As many as 66 countries have experienced a hybrid period for at least 10 years and very few of these regimes have actually evolved toward a stable democratic regime, at least for now. Most of these regimes emerged before 1991 and survived the fall of the Berlin Wall. Finally, hybrid regimes have been more durable in Asia compare to other regions, and Africa and Eurasia have seen the bulk of new stable hybrid regimes since 1991