Competitive Authoritarianism

When analysing different regimes of government, there is an inherent bias in favour of democracy. Democracy is seen as fair, just and favourable. It is important to recognise the different formations of government. If nothing more, by analysing other government systems it can increase your understanding of New Zealand and its position internationally.

“Competitive Authoritarianism” by Levitsky and Way concerns the three regimes of democracy, competitive authoritarianism and full authoritarianism. The variations of these regimes centre around the aspects of the status of core democratic institutions, the status of opposition and the level of uncertainty.

There were challenges to authoritarian regimes after the end of the cold war and subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union. However the result was not necessarily democracy. Although this was hoped for, it did not always eventuate. In a majority of African countries, the former Soviet Union and parts of Eastern Europe and Asia, new regimes were formed with a combination of electoral competition and degrees of authoritarianism. Regimes in Kenya, Cambodia, Malaysia, Nigeria, Mexico, Peru, Russia, Taiwan, Ukraine, Zimbabwe and Serbia were competitive due to the fact that opposition forces applied democratic institutions to contest forcefully for authority. This reflects hybrid regimes that existed as an utilisation of democratic methods regarding competition for power. With electoral manipulation and unbalanced media access the regimes fell short of being democratic. Although competition existed, it was far from fair. This is an illustration of the way in which different circumstances can have a contrasting affect on nations and their regimes.

Studies found that two determining factors contributed to whether nations would democratise or not. Countries that possessed a relatively strong link to first world countries were found to be more likely to become a democracy. Countries that retained a weaker link relied on the existing organisation of the state and government structures. As previously stated, regardless of the links, it was rare that the countries would become democracies.  This is perhaps an interesting indication of the importance of structure within a democracy and the acknowledgment of its importance by citizens and the state.

There is a distinction created between competitive and non-competitive authoritarianism. Non-competitive, also described as full, is a regime in which competition is non-existent. There is no viable opportunity for an opposition to contest for power to govern the nation. This power can be prevented economically, politically and socially. Competitive authoritarianism, as its name suggests, allows competition to exist. Opposition groups are therefore able to compete for executive power. However, although this opposition exists, it does not necessarily mean that it is meaningful. This is the distinction between authoritarianism and democracy. There is a violation of one of the significant attributes of democracy. For instance, perhaps the availability to interact with the media will be limited or there will be manipulation in regards to the voters’ list, ballot box stuffing or the falsification of results. Independent media are frequently threatened and those opposed to the regime are often arrested. Levitsky and Way discuss the way in which the “playing field” is uneven, incumbents are favoured and the opportunity for the opposition to compete and succeed in elections is seriously disadvantaged. The important aspects that often contribute to an uneven playing field include access to media, resources and the law. 

Not only did this reading clarify the idea of the hybrid regimes, it established the key attributes when determining a democracy. These include four key attributes of “free, fair, and competitive elections; full adult suffrage; broad protection of civil liberties, including freedom of speech, press, and association; and the absence of nonelected “tutelary” authorities” (Levitsky, Steven & Lucan Way, 2010). In order to understand the hybrid regimes, it is important to comprehend the features of democracy and how they influence government. The aim of “Competitive Authoritarianism” by Levitsky and Way was not only to provide a definition and understanding of the hybrid regimes, but to also analyse why some regimes democratised while others did not. It seems that there is a pressure among nations to form into a democracy. Democracy advocates equality with a principle of involving elected representatives in the development and creation of laws. The idea of democracy is that the nation is ruled by the people, for the people. Although many countries claim to be democratic, it is important to question whether they truly are in practice. In this respect, the hybrid regimes are useful in categorising different forms of governmental systems so as to understand the varying degrees of democracy. Countries with hybrid regimes experience pressure internationally to democratise. This is especially so if they possess a particular link with democratic countries, whether culturally or economically.

A criticism that could be noted in regards to the description of these hybrid regimes could include the arguably bias view through the lens of democratisation. These regimes are commonly described as flawed democracy and consist of negative connotations. However they should be detailed in terms of their individual aspects, not discussed in reference to democracy. Levitsky and Way claim that the characterisation is distorted due to the fact that it creates an expectation that hybrids should move in the democratic direction. Rather than suggesting that these hybrids should be democracies, it is more helpful to analyse the different regimes for the separate entities that they are, rather than their existence in relation to democracy. It is easy as a New Zealander, coming from a democratic society to possess this bias also. However it is important to analyse these different regimes without the preconceived attitudes of believing democracy to be superior, or else there will be no way of neutrally assessing the different regimes.

“Competitive Authoritarianism” by Levitsky and Way offers a non-biased approach to the concepts of hybrid regimes and political systems. It provides an understanding of systems that are outside of what is generally accepted by nations but was thought provoking in that it encouraged me to take off my biased, democratic rose tinted glasses of being a New Zealander and try to adapt to a new way of thinking or perceiving regimes. It is important to look at political systems from all angles and all perspectives. This reading encouraged me to do so and for that it was particularly engaging and insightful.

- 300262759