2018/01/01 by Christopher D. Carothers · 1 citation
Social Sciences · #Political Conflict and Governance #Religion and Society Interactions #Social Policy and Reform Studies
paper · doi:10.1353/jod.2018.0068
openalex publication_date 2018/01/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/08/01
After many countries that had embarked upon transitions in the 1980s and 1990s failed to become consolidated democracies, political scientists highlighted the widespread emergence of hybrid regimes, which combine authoritarian and democratic features. Scholars argued such regimes were stable, with some positing that quasi-democratic institutions actually strengthened authoritarianism. But an examination of competitive authoritarianism (CA)—the most prominent of these hybrid types—suggests instability is the norm. Of 35 regimes identified as having been CA between 1990 and 1995, most have either democratized or been replaced by new autocracies. Furthermore, quasi-democratic institutions often contributed to CA’s breakdown. In short, hybrid regimes have not become a new form of stable nondemocratic rule.