Explanatory Post #1

Assigned Reading:

Levitsky, Steven and Lucan Way 2010. – Hybrid Regimes.

General Summary:

The article first of all defines the concept competitive authoritarianism and how the type of regime came about. “Competitive authoritarian regimes are civilian regimes in which formal democratic institutions exist and are widely viewed as the primary means of gaining power, but in which incumbents’ abuse of the state places them at a significant advantage vis-à-vis their opponents” (Levitsky, Steven & Lucan Way, 2010). The article also studies five regions, spanning countries in the Americas, Eastern Europe, Asia, the former Soviet Union, and Africa. The study found that there were two determining factors to whether an authoritarian country will democratise or not, and those countries that had a strong link to first world countries such as the United States were more likely to democratise than those that had a weak link. Furthermore, in countries with a weak link, instead relied on whether their state and government structures were well organised or not. Either way, the countries rarely democratised, however, where structures were disorganised, economies remained unstable. Levitsky, Steven and Lucan Way define democracy and give four key attributes as a minimum; “free and fair elections are held; full adult suffrage; broad protection of civil liberties, including freedom of speech, press, and association; and the absence of nonelected authorities, for example, militaries, monarchies, or religious bodies” (Diamond, 2001). It then goes on to differentiate between competitive and full authoritarian regimes, describing full authoritarianism as “a regime in which no viable channels exist for opposition to contest legally for executive power” (Levitsky et al, 2010). The article then brings in the media and explains the lack of access to media in authoritarian regimes. “In competitive authoritarian regimes, the state controls all television and most – if not all – radio broadcasting” (Levitsky et al, 2010). The study focuses only on competitive authoritarian regimes; however, it still explains authoritarianism in its general form briefly, making clear that dictatorships and authoritarian governments use their influential power to restrict their citizens’ freedoms.

Author’s Story (as to why these claims are believed to be true):

Goal of article is not just to define hybrid regimes, but to examine why some hybrid regimes democratised and some did not. Its aim is to challenge the claim that countries with hybrid regimes are usually going to democratise. It seems the reason that this claim is believed to be true is because countries with hybrid regimes are constantly being pressured by already developed democracies, to democratise, especially ones with a strong link with democratic states. Also, many of the countries with hybrid regimes are authoritarian, which is a term that has negative connotations, and is seen externally (by other countries) to be undesirable. People therefore believe that hybrid regimes are a transition to democracy and are created because of pressure from other countries to move with the times and away from the undesirable state of authoritarianism. Hybrid regimes, by the general consensus, were seen as incomplete or flawed regimes, which, in most countries’ views, needed to be democratised in order to create relative stability and equality.

Existence of Patterns in Conclusions:

Controversial or Widely Accepted?

The article comes to many conclusions, one of them being the very thin line between competitive and full authoritarian regimes. One main difference is “whether opposition parties can use democratic elections to compete seriously for power” (Levitsky et al., 2010). This conclusion is shared by other authors and scholars, such as Enrique Peruzzotti. After doing extensive research, the existence of this particular conclusion is almost owned by Levitsky, as he, and (mainly) only he seems to be credited with the idea. There is only one other author with a similar view, and that is Peruzzotti. In his paper ‘Elected Authoritarianism in South America: Argentina, Venezuela and Ecuador’, Peruzzotti similarly explains that “competitive authoritarian regimes are hybrid regimes in which formal democratic institutions are viewed as the primary means of gaining power, but in which incumbents abuse skews the playing field to such an extent that the opposition’s ability to compete is seriously compromised” (Peruzzotti, 2013). It seems therefore, that the conclusion Levitsky, Steven and Lucan Way made is somewhat shared, but the evidence suggests that Levitsky was the brain behind the idea.

Weaknesses:

Levitsky’s research did not have many weaknesses; however, I noticed that Levitsky, Steven and Lucan Way did not make it clear that there are some ambiguous cases such as “Ukraine, Nigeria and Indonesia and Turkey” (Diamond, 2001). Of course, we still struggle to classify ambiguous countries, as Diamond’s paper clearly states, which is perhaps why Levitsky’s article did not attempt to cover it.

Conclusion:

Levitsky, Steven and Lucan Way authored a very interesting article, from which I learnt a great deal. The article explained that competitive authoritarianism was a form of hybrid regime and that hybrid regimes are seen by the majority of countries to be regimes in transition to democracy, however, the authors made it very clear that this was not always the case, as only some of the countries with these hybrid regimes actually democratised. I did not find many weaknesses in the claims that the authors made, as evidence was given that the claims were widely accepted. The conclusion the authors came to, however, was not widely known, and seemed only to be credited to Levitsky, in other words, it sounds like it was his brainchild.

By Anouska Longuet
300186320

References

Diamond, L. (2001). Elections Without Democracy: Thinking about Hybrid Regimes.
Retrieved from
http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/bmoraski/Democratization/Diamond_JOD02.pdf

Levitsky, S., Steven, & Lucan Way. (2010). Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes after the Cold War. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3-36.

Peruzzotti, E. (2013). Elected Authoritarianism in South America: Argentina, Venezuela and Ecuador.
Retrieved from
https://umshare.miami.edu/web/wda/hemisphericpolicy/Task_Force_Papers/PERUZZOTTI%20-%20The%20Future%20of%20Democracy%20and%20Emergin%20Markets%20in%20Latin%20America%20Task%20Force.pdf