POL1005S Lecture 4: Spectrum Measures and Hybrid Regimes
POL1005S Lecture 4: Spectrum Measures and Hybrid Regimes
1. From Binary Classifications to Spectrum Measures
Previously: Comparative politics primarily utilized a binary approach, classifying countries as EITHER democratic OR authoritarian. This approach focused on the "history of democratization," including "trends and waves," and sought "explanations for democratization," particularly the link between "development and democracy."
(Referenced: ourworldindata.org/democratic-rights)
Shift in Approach: The binary classification, central to comparative politics 20 years ago for studying "transitions" from authoritarianism to democracy, has been largely supplanted.
Current Approaches: Modern scholarship emphasizes "spectrum measures" and new "hybrid regime types."
Examples of hybrid regimes include "competitive authoritarianism" and "electoral autocracy."
Key New Focus: A significant area of study now is "backsliding and regression" of democracy.
2. Spectrum Measures: The V-Dem Project
V-Dem (Varieties of Democracy) Project: Measures democracy based on multiple core principles, providing a more nuanced view than a simple binary.
Core Principles of Democracy:
Electoral Democracy (Key principle): Focuses on "free and fair elections."
Liberal Democracy: Emphasizes "rule of law" and "civil liberties."
Participatory Democracy: Highlights citizens' engagement through "local democratic institutions," "civil society organizations," and "direct democracy."
Deliberative Democracy: Concerns decisions made in the "public interest" rather than for "narrow interest groups."
Egalitarian Democracy: Ensures "equal access to resources, power, and freedoms across various groups within a society."
Measurement Methodology:
Each core principle is broken down into its "constituent components," which are measured separately to derive an overall score.
Components include: Free and fair elections, civil liberties, judicial independence, executive constraints, gender equality, media freedom, and civil society.
Each component is further "disaggregated into specific indicators" (over 450 indicators annually from 1789 for all countries).
(Referenced: V-Dem site and report on Vula; ourworldindata.org/democracies-measurement)
Other Spectrum Indices: Similar approaches are seen in indices from "Freedom House" and "The Economist."
3. Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) Democracy Index (2022)
Basis: Expert assessments and an index compiled by the Economist Intelligence Unit in 2022.
Combined Information: Incorporates various factors assessing:
The extent to which citizens can choose political leaders in free and fair elections.
Enjoyment of civil liberties.
Citizen preference for democracy over other political systems.
Citizen capacity and actual participation in politics.
The functioning of the government acting on behalf of its citizens.
Scale: Ranging from 0 (least democratic) to 10 (most democratic).
(Referenced: OurWorldInData.org/democracy)
4. Hybrid Regime Classifications
Moving Beyond Binary: These classifications offer a framework that transcends the simple democracy/authoritarianism dichotomy.
Key Hybrid Types:
"Illiberal democracy" (Zakaria, 1997): Characterized by elections that are often "rigged," "reduced civil liberties," and "bypassed constitutional limits," raising the question of whether it truly constitutes "democracy."
"Electoral autocracy" (Luhrmann et al., 2018).
"Hybrid regimes" (EIU, 2022).
"Competitive authoritarianism" (Levitsky & Way, 2010).
5. Why the New Focus on Competitive Authoritarianism (Levitsky and Way, 2010, 2020)
Observation: Levitsky and Way note that many countries exhibit features that appear democratic but fall short of full democracy.
Democratic Procedures Present:
"Elections are regular."
"Political opposition is legal."
"Not all political journalists are routinely jailed or killed."
"Not every ballot box is stuffed."
These democratic procedures "allow partial but genuine contestation for power."
Reasons for NOT being Democracies: Despite the above, these regimes fail to be democracies because:
"Incumbents abuse state resources."
"Opposition denied media coverage."
"Opposition candidates and their supporters harassed."
"Journalists & opposition politicians threatened, spied on, assaulted, jailed, murdered."
(Referenced: Levitsky, S., and L. Way. “The New Competitive Authoritarianism”, Journal of Democracy, vol. 31, no. 1, Jan. 2020, pp. 51-65$.)
6. Emergence and Characteristics of Competitive Authoritarian Regimes
Emergence Conditions: Most competitive authoritarian regimes arose under conditions generally unfavorable for democracy, often after periods of rapid democratization, particularly during the "third wave" of democracy.
Typical Characteristics:
Predominantly "low-income countries."
Little historical "democratic tradition."
"Weak institutions and fragile rule of law."
"Weak private sectors and civil society."
Vulnerabilities & Manipulation:
"Weak state institutions [are] easily packed and manipulated."
"Parastatals [are] easily looted to fund governing parties."
"Vulnerable media outlets, businesses, and opposition parties [are] more easily co-opted."
"Opposition protest [is] limited and sporadic."
Conclusion: "Even relatively unskilled and unpopular leaders are often able to subvert democracy (even if they cannot consolidate dictatorship)" (Levitsky and Way 2020).
7. Case Study: The Russian Federation
Historical Context: Formed the dominant part of the Soviet Union until its collapse after 1989, encompassing many now-independent states.
Demographics: A multi-ethnic federation (80% Russians), with approximately 160 ethnic groups, 100 languages, and a population of 140 million.
Post-1993 Constitutional Framework:
"Semi-presidential republic."
"Multi-party representative democracy."
Included a "human rights framework."
Legislature: Bicameral Federal Assembly (State Duma plus Federation Council).
Executive: President appoints the Cabinet and the Prime Minister (with parliamentary approval).
Judiciary: Judges appointed by the Federation Council on the President's recommendation.
Extinguishment of Democracy Post-1989:
A multi-party system and energetic media emerged in the 1990s.
Vladimir Putin was first elected President in 2000.
The United Russia party progressively dominated the Duma.
Over time, the regime:
"Media and civil society curtailed."
"Opponents harassed, jailed, killed."
"Politicised court system abused."
"Elections increasingly manipulated."
8. Spread of Competitive Authoritarianism to New Cases & Strategies
Unexpected Spread: New instances of competitive authoritarianism have emerged even in countries seemingly less vulnerable, such as Hungary, the Philippines, Turkey, Venezuela, and India.
Initial Resilience: These countries often possessed features traditionally seen as safeguards against authoritarianism:
"Independent judiciaries."
"Developed economies."
"Vibrant civil society."
"Strong opposition parties."
"Power media outlets."
These factors made it appear difficult for aspiring autocrats to subvert democracy.
Identified Strategies (Levitsky and Way, 2020):
Constitutional and Electoral Manipulation: Secure a large electoral majority, then change constitutional and electoral rules to weaken opponents.
Polarizing Ethnonationalist Strategies: Employ "insider nationalism."
Anti-elite Populism: Seen in countries like "Venezuela" and "Turkey."
Exploiting Disaffection: Capitalizing on public discontent, such as "over crime" (e.g., in the "Philippines").
Religious Nationalism: Utilized in countries like "India."
Overall Effectiveness: "Skilful populist or ethnonationalist appeals provided potential autocrats with the broad public support and parliamentary majorities needed to undertake constitutional and other changes aimed at tilting the playing field."
9. Case Study: Hungary's Authoritarian Path
Pre-2010 Status: In 2010, Hungary was widely considered a "consolidated democracy" with robust institutions, a competitive party system, active civil society, and free and diverse media.
Fidesz's Transformation:
Viktor Orbán and his Fidesz party initially won in 1998 on a liberal platform but lost in 2002.
They subsequently shifted towards "religious conservatism, nationalism, and ethnic scapegoating."
This led to a significant victory and a "supermajority" (over 66%) in 2010.
Subversion of Democracy (without crude crackdowns):
Judicial Control: Claimed courts were "captured," then used their majority to remove key checks on the prime minister’s power and packed the Constitutional Court with Fidesz loyalists.
Institutional Packing: Filled the National Election Commission, National Budget Council, State Audit Office, and Public Prosecutor's office with loyalists.
Media Control: Politicized state media, used government loans for allies to purchase private media outlets, drove out foreign media, manipulated state advertising revenues, and issued threats to companies.
Electoral Manipulation: Implemented "gerrymandering" and a ban on TV campaign advertising on private media outlets.
Avoiding EU Censure: Used Fidesz’s membership in the European People’s Party (EPP) to avoid outright censure from the European Union.
10. Vulnerability in Established and New Democracies
Poland: The Law and Justice Party (PiS), gaining power in 2015, attempted to purge courts, pack the election commission, control public broadcasting, and reshape army and intelligence forces. However, these efforts faced significant "pushback from opposition, civil society, and the EU."
Austrian Freedom Party: As part of a coalition from 2017 to 2019, it tried to politicize state television and exclude critical media outlets.
United States: The Republican Party, under the Trump faction, attempted to pack courts and other key state institutions. It also adopted state-level "voter ID" laws, which critics argued aimed to prevent Black and Hispanic citizens from registering and voting.
Ongoing Concerns: Questions remain regarding the democratic health of countries like India, South Africa, and the United States.
Common Thread: These cases involve combinations of more subtle strategies alongside nationalist and/or populist campaigns.
11. Cautions
Populism vs. Democracy: "Populism' is easily confused with 'democracy,' necessitating careful distinction.
No Predetermined Outcomes: The future of political regimes is not set; outcomes are fluid and contingent.
Concurrent Trends: Democratization processes in some countries can happen simultaneously with democratic backsliding in others.
Contested Definitions: All definitions and classifications of democracy and authoritarianism "remain contested!" They are subjects of ongoing academic debate and interpretation.
1. From Binary Classifications to Spectrum Measures
Previously: Comparative politics primarily utilized a binary approach, classifying countries as EITHER democratic OR authoritarian. This approach, prevalent in earlier scholarship, focused on the "history of democratization," including "trends and waves" of democratic expansion and reversal, and sought "explanations for democratization," particularly the perceived link between "economic development and democratic consolidation." This often involved examining why some nations transitioned to democracy while others remained under authoritarian rule, or why some nascent democracies failed. (Referenced: ourworldindata.org/democratic-rights)
Shift in Approach: The binary classification, though central to comparative politics around 20 years ago for studying "transitions" from authoritarianism to democracy, has been largely supplanted due to its oversimplification of complex political realities. It became evident that many political systems didn't fit neatly into either category.
Current Approaches: Modern scholarship places a heightened emphasis on "spectrum measures" and the concept of new "hybrid regime types." These approaches acknowledge the gray areas between pure democracy and pure autocracy, recognizing that many states exhibit characteristics of both. Examples of these nuanced classifications include terms like "competitive authoritarianism" and "electoral autocracy," which describe regimes holding elections without genuinely free and fair contestation.
Key New Focus: A significant and growing area of study now is "backsliding and regression" of democracy. This refers to the erosion of democratic institutions and norms within countries that were previously considered democratic or democratizing, moving them towards more authoritarian outcomes. This contrasts with earlier focuses on transitions to democracy, highlighting a reversal of democratic gains.
2. Spectrum Measures: The V-Dem Project
V-Dem (Varieties of Democracy) Project: This ambitious project measures democracy based on multiple core principles, providing a far more nuanced and granular view than a simple binary classification. It seeks to capture the multidimensional nature of democracy by assessing various attributes.
Core Principles of Democracy: Each principle represents a distinct dimension of democratic governance:
Electoral Democracy (Key principle): Focuses on the extent to which a country holds "free and fair elections," where citizens are able to choose their representatives meaningfully, and the outcomes are respected. This includes aspects like universal suffrage, secret ballots, and absence of systematic fraud.
Liberal Democracy: Emphasizes the protection of individual and minority rights, focusing on the "rule of law" (where all are equal before the law, including state officials) and the safeguard of "civil liberties" such as freedom of speech, assembly, and religion, often through robust constitutionalism and an independent judiciary.
Participatory Democracy: Highlights citizens' direct engagement beyond just voting. This involves active participation through "local democratic institutions," robust "civil society organizations," and mechanisms of "direct democracy" like referendums or citizen assemblies, empowering ordinary people in decision-making processes.
Deliberative Democracy: Concerns the quality of public discourse and decision-making, ensuring that decisions are made in the "public interest" rather than for "narrow interest groups." It emphasizes reasoned public deliberation, open access to information, and a space for diverse viewpoints to be heard and considered before policy choices are made.
Egalitarian Democracy: Ensures "equal access to resources, power, and freedoms across various groups within a society." This goes beyond formal equality to address substantive inequalities based on gender, ethnicity, class, or other social divisions, striving to remove barriers that prevent certain groups from fully exercising their democratic rights.
Measurement Methodology: The V-Dem project employs a highly systematic approach:
Each core principle is broken down into its "constituent components," which are measured separately to derive an overall score for that principle. For example, 'Electoral Democracy' would have components like 'electoral fairness' or 'suffrage inclusiveness'.
Components include: Specific measurable aspects such as access to free and fair elections, protection of civil liberties, the degree of judicial independence, the extent of executive constraints (checks and balances), promotion of gender equality, freedom of the media, and the vibrancy of civil society organizations.
Each component is further "disaggregated into specific indicators," resulting in over 450 distinct indicators annually collected from 1789 onwards for nearly all countries worldwide. These indicators are scored by multiple country experts, whose judgments are then aggregated, often using sophisticated statistical models, to produce reliable and comparative data.
(Referenced: V-Dem site and report on Vula; ourworldindata.org/democracies-measurement)
Other Spectrum Indices: Similar multi-dimensional approaches to measuring democracy are also seen in indices from "Freedom House" (which assesses political rights and civil liberties) and "The Economist" (whose Democracy Index incorporates political culture and civil liberties).
3. Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) Democracy Index (2022)
Basis: The EIU Democracy Index is compiled annually by the Economist Intelligence Unit, relying on expert assessments and a comprehensive index structured in 2022. It provides a snapshot of the state of democracy in various countries.
Combined Information: This index incorporates a wide range of factors to assess the health of a democracy, categorized into five key areas:
The extent to which citizens can choose political leaders in free and fair elections, reflecting the integrity and fairness of the electoral process.
The enjoyment of civil liberties by the populace, including freedoms of speech, assembly, and protection of human rights.
The degree of citizen preference for democracy over other political systems, indicating the public's commitment to democratic values.
The citizen capacity and actual participation in politics, moving beyond mere voting to include activism, engagement in civil society, and other forms of political involvement.
The functioning of the government, assessing its effectiveness, stability, and accountability in acting on behalf of its citizens.
Scale: The index assigns a score ranging from 0 (representing the least democratic or a full authoritarian regime) to 10 (representing the most democratic or a full democracy). Countries are then categorized into 'full democracies,' 'flawed democracies,' 'hybrid regimes,' and 'authoritarian regimes' based on their scores.
(Referenced: OurWorldInData.org/democracy)
4. Hybrid Regime Classifications
Moving Beyond Binary: These classifications offer a crucial framework that transcends the simple democracy/authoritarianism dichotomy, acknowledging the complex and often contradictory nature of political systems that blend elements of both. They are not merely transitional but can be stable forms of governance.
Key Hybrid Types: Leading scholars have developed distinct terms to describe these multifaceted regimes:
"Illiberal democracy" (Zakaria, 1997): Characterized by the presence of elections, which might even be procedurally free, but where these elections are often "rigged" or heavily manipulated, accompanied by "reduced civil liberties" and "bypassed constitutional limits" on executive power. This raises a fundamental question of whether a system can truly be considered "democracy" if the rule of law and individual rights are not respected.
"Electoral autocracy" (Luhrmann et al., 2018): A regime that holds multi-party elections, but the electoral playing field is systematically tilted in favor of the incumbent, through manipulation of laws, media, or other state resources, making genuine competition difficult and often predetermining electoral outcomes.
"Hybrid regimes" (EIU, 2022): A broader category used by indices like the EIU to describe systems that combine democratic features (like regular elections) with significant authoritarian tendencies (such as political oppression, weak rule of law, and limited civil liberties).
"Competitive authoritarianism" (Levitsky & Way, 2010$-2020): A widely recognized classification for regimes where formal democratic institutions exist and are taken seriously by the opposition, but incumbents routinely violate democratic rules so severely that the regime fails to meet the minimal standards for democracy. This often involves an uneven playing field rather than outright suppression.
5. Why the New Focus on Competitive Authoritarianism (Levitsky and Way, 2010, 2020)
Observation: Levitsky and Way note that a significant number of countries since the end of the Cold War exhibit features that superficially appear democratic but fall critically short of qualifying as full democracies. This phenomenon necessitated a new conceptual framework.
Democratic Procedures Present: These regimes often maintain an appearance of democracy with certain formal procedures:
"Elections are regular," held at prescribed intervals, offering a degree of predictability.
"Political opposition is legal" and permitted to organize and participate, at least formally.
"Not all political journalists are routinely jailed or killed," implying some media freedom, though often constrained.
"Not every ballot box is stuffed," suggesting that electoral fraud, while present, might not be universally systematic or openly brazen in every instance.
Importantly, these democratic procedures "allow partial but genuine contestation for power," meaning that the opposition, despite disadvantages, can sometimes win local elections or gain some legislative seats, keeping the incumbents somewhat accountable and making the outcome not entirely predetermined.
Reasons for NOT being Democracies: Despite these seemingly democratic elements, these regimes fail to be considered democracies because incumbents systematically undermine the democratic process through various abuses:
"Incumbents abuse state resources" (e.g., public funds, state media, administrative apparatus) to their own political advantage, creating an unfair competitive environment.
"Opposition denied media coverage" or portrayed negatively, limiting their ability to reach voters and present their platforms effectively.
"Opposition candidates and their supporters harassed" through legal challenges, selective prosecution, or intimidation tactics, making it risky to challenge the ruling party.
"Journalists & opposition politicians threatened, spied on, assaulted, jailed, murdered," creating a climate of fear and self-censorship that stifles independent reporting and political dissent.
(Referenced: Levitsky, S., and L. Way. “The New Competitive Authoritarianism”, Journal of Democracy, vol. 31, no. 1, Jan. 2020, pp. 51-65$.)
6. Emergence and Characteristics of Competitive Authoritarian Regimes
Emergence Conditions: Most competitive authoritarian regimes arose under conditions generally unfavorable for the deep consolidation of liberal democracy, often emerging after periods of rapid but shallow democratization, particularly during the "third wave" of democracy witnessed in the late 20^{th} century. This wave led to the establishment of formal democratic institutions in many countries, but often without the underlying societal and institutional strength to sustain full democracy.
Typical Characteristics: These regimes often share common structural weaknesses that make them susceptible to authoritarian tendencies:
Predominantly "low-income countries" where economic vulnerabilities can be exploited by political elites to secure loyalty or suppress dissent.
Little historical "democratic tradition" or experience with robust democratic institutions, making new democratic practices fragile and easily subverted.
"Weak institutions and fragile rule of law," meaning that constitutional checks and balances, an independent judiciary, and a professional bureaucracy are not strong enough to resist executive overreach.
"Weak private sectors and civil society," which are crucial for providing independent sources of power, resources, and oversight to counterbalance state power.
Vulnerabilities & Manipulation: The fragility of institutions in these contexts makes them easy targets for manipulation by incumbents:
"Weak state institutions [are] easily packed and manipulated" by appointing loyalists to key positions, undermining their independence and effectiveness.
"Parastatals [are] easily looted to fund governing parties," where state-owned enterprises or public funds are privatized for the benefit of political allies or to fuel patronage networks, providing an illicit source of campaign finance.
"Vulnerable media outlets, businesses, and opposition parties [are] more easily co-opted" through financial incentives, threats, or selective enforcement of regulations, diminishing their capacity to act as independent watchdogs or challengers.
"Opposition protest [is] limited and sporadic," often due to effective state repression, co-optation of leaders, or public apathy resulting from fear or disillusionment, making it difficult for collective action to coalesce and challenge the regime.
Conclusion: Levitsky and Way (2020) conclude that "Even relatively unskilled and unpopular leaders are often able to subvert democracy (even if they cannot consolidate dictatorship)" in these environments due to the inherent structural weaknesses that make democratic institutions vulnerable to manipulation without requiring outright repression.
7. Case Study: The Russian Federation
Historical Context: The Russian Federation was the dominant constituent part of the Soviet Union until its collapse after 1989 and 1991, a process that led to the independence of many former Soviet republics. The transition from communism brought both hopes for democracy and significant challenges.
Demographics: Russia is a vast, multi-ethnic federation, where approximately 80% of the population identifies as ethnically Russian. It encompasses around 160 distinct ethnic groups speaking over 100 languages, with a total population of approximately 140 million. This diversity adds complexity to political governance and identity.
Post-1993 Constitutional Framework: Following a constitutional crisis in 1993, a new constitution was adopted that technically established:
A "semi-presidential republic," combining elements of presidential and parliamentary systems, with a strong president.
A "multi-party representative democracy," allowing for political pluralism and electoral competition.
Included a comprehensive "human rights framework," theoretically safeguarding individual liberties and freedoms.
Legislature: A bicameral Federal Assembly, consisting of the State Duma (the lower house, with legislative initiative) and the Federation Council (the upper house, representing regional interests).
Executive: The President, elected directly by the people, holds significant power, including appointing the Cabinet and the Prime Minister (with parliamentary approval, though presidential influence is substantial).
Judiciary: Judges are appointed by the Federation Council on the President's recommendation, raising questions about judicial independence from the executive.
Extinguishment of Democracy Post-1989: While a multi-party system and energetic, often critical, media initially emerged in the 1990s, the democratic gains began to erode significantly after Vladimir Putin's ascent to power:
Vladimir Putin was first elected President in 2000, consolidating power over subsequent terms.
The United Russia party, aligned with Putin, progressively dominated the Duma through electoral advantages and systemic manipulation, effectively diminishing legislative oversight.
Over time, the regime systematically undermined democratic institutions and practices:
"Media and civil society curtailed" through state control of major broadcast networks, harassment of independent journalists and NGOs, and restrictive laws on public assembly and foreign funding.
"Opponents harassed, jailed, killed" through politically motivated prosecutions, imprisonment, and even assassinations of prominent critics, creating widespread fear of dissent.
"Politicised court system abused" where the judiciary lost its independence and became a tool for prosecuting political opponents rather than upholding the rule of law impartially.
"Elections increasingly manipulated" through various means including administrative pressure, ballot stuffing, exclusion of opposition candidates, and biased media coverage, rendering them ceremonial rather than competitive.
8. Spread of Competitive Authoritarianism to New Cases & Strategies
Unexpected Spread: While initially most competitive authoritarian regimes emerged in structurally weak states, new instances have unexpectedly surfaced even in countries seemingly less vulnerable to democratic backsliding. This includes nations like Hungary, the Philippines, Turkey, Venezuela, and India.
Initial Resilience: These countries often possessed features traditionally seen as safeguards against authoritarianism, which made their democratic subversion more surprising:
"Independent judiciaries" capable of upholding the rule of law and checking executive power.
"Developed economies" that typically foster a strong middle class and independent economic actors less reliant on state patronage.
"Vibrant civil society" organizations that can monitor government, advocate for rights, and mobilize citizens.
"Strong opposition parties" capable of organizing, garnering significant public support, and holding incumbents accountable.
"Power media outlets" that are editorially independent and can provide critical coverage of the government.
These factors made it appear difficult for aspiring autocrats to subvert democracy, suggesting a level of democratic resilience that ultimately proved insufficient.
Identified Strategies (Levitsky and Way, 2020): Levitsky and Way identified several key strategies employed by leaders in these seemingly resilient democracies to undermine them from within, often leveraging existing legal frameworks and public sentiment:
Constitutional and Electoral Manipulation: Incumbents first secure a large electoral majority (often a supermajority in parliament), then use this power to change constitutional and electoral rules. This might include extending term limits, redrawing electoral districts (gerrymandering), or altering media regulations to weaken or disqualify opponents.
Polarizing Ethnonationalist Strategies: They employ "insider nationalism," where the ruling party positions itself as the sole legitimate representative of the national identity, demonizing and excluding opposition parties and minority groups as 'outsiders' or 'enemies of the nation.'
Anti-elite Populism: Leaders appeal directly to the public by framing themselves as champions of the 'common people' against a corrupt 'elite' (often including opposition politicians, judges, and independent media). This strategy was seen effectively in countries like "Venezuela" under Chavez and "Turkey" under Erdogan, where populist leaders mobilize support by railing against established institutions.
Exploiting Disaffection: Leaders capitalize on existing public discontent, such as widespread frustration "over crime" (e.g., Rodrigo Duterte in the "Philippines" gained support for his harsh crackdown on drug-related crime), economic inequality, or perceived corruption, to justify strong-arm tactics and undermine democratic norms.
Religious Nationalism: Utilized in countries like "India" under the BJP, where the ruling party leverages religious identity and appeals to a dominant religious majority (Hindu nationalism) to consolidate power, marginalize religious minorities, and portray secular opposition as illegitimate.
Overall Effectiveness: "Skilful populist or ethnonationalist appeals provided potential autocrats with the broad public support and parliamentary majorities needed to undertake constitutional and other changes aimed at tilting the playing field." This allowed them to dismantle democratic checks and balances incrementally from within, often with initial public legitimacy.
9. Case Study: Hungary's Authoritarian Path
Pre-2010 Status: In 2010, Hungary was widely considered a "consolidated democracy." It boasted robust democratic institutions, a competitive multi-party system that allowed for genuine alternation of power, an active and vocal civil society that served as a watchdog, and a free and diverse media that provided a range of perspectives and critical reporting.
Fidesz's Transformation:
Viktor Orbán and his Fidesz party initially won power in 1998 on a relatively liberal platform but lost in 2002 after one term.
During their time in opposition, they strategically shifted their ideology towards "religious conservatism, nationalism, and ethnic scapegoating," appeals that resonated with a significant portion of the electorate concerned about national identity and traditional values.
This strategic shift, combined with public dissatisfaction with the incumbent socialist government, led to a significant electoral victory and a "supermajority" (over 66%) in parliament in 2010. This supermajority proved crucial, as it allowed Fidesz to unilaterally change constitutional laws.
Subversion of Democracy (without crude crackdowns): Unlike traditional authoritarian takeovers, Fidesz's subversion of democracy was largely incremental and utilized legal means, avoiding overt violence or repression that would trigger immediate international condemnation:
Judicial Control: Fidesz claimed that the courts were "captured" by liberal ideologies or previous regimes. Using their supermajority power, they then proceeded to remove key checks on the prime minister’s power, systematically restructured the judiciary, and packed the Constitutional Court with Fidesz loyalists, ensuring favorable rulings and minimizing judicial oversight of executive actions.
Institutional Packing: Critical independent institutions designed to provide checks and balances were systematically filled with party loyalists. This included the National Election Commission (undermining electoral fairness), the National Budget Council (weakening fiscal oversight), the State Audit Office (reducing accountability), and the Public Prosecutor's office (allowing for selective prosecution or protection of allies).
Media Control: Fidesz engineered various methods to control the media landscape. They politicized state media, turning it into a government mouthpiece. Government loans and other financial incentives were used for allies to purchase private media outlets, consolidating ownership. Foreign media outlets critical of the government were driven out through regulatory hurdles or financial pressure. State advertising revenues were manipulated, directed primarily to pro-government media, starving independent outlets of funds. Lastly, officials issued subtle and overt "threats" to companies that advertised with critical media, creating an environment of self-censorship.
Electoral Manipulation: While formal elections continued, the playing field was tilted through methods such as "gerrymandering" (redrawing electoral districts to favor Fidesz candidates) and implementing a ban on TV campaign advertising on private media outlets (which disproportionately affected opposition parties who relied more on these channels).
Avoiding EU Censure: Fidesz’s continued membership in the European People’s Party (EPP), which was then the largest group in the European Parliament, effectively allowed Hungary to avoid outright censure or significant sanctions from the European Union for many years, providing a shield against severe international pressure.
10. Vulnerability in Established and New Democracies
Poland: The Law and Justice Party (PiS), upon gaining power in 2015, launched significant attempts to undermine democratic institutions. These included efforts to purge courts of independent judges, pack the election commission with loyalists, assert political control over public broadcasting, and reshape the leadership of the army and intelligence forces. However, these efforts faced significant "pushback from opposition parties, active civil society organizations, and strong condemnation and legal challenges from the EU," providing a crucial check on PiS's power.
Austrian Freedom Party: As a junior partner in a coalition government from 2017 to 2019$$, the far-right Freedom Party attempted to politicize state television and implement strategies to exclude critical media outlets from government press conferences and advertising, signaling an effort to control the public narrative.
United States: Under the Trump faction of the Republican Party, there were concerted attempts to pack courts and other key state institutions with politically aligned individuals. This included rapid appointments of conservative judges. Additionally, Republican-controlled states adopted numerous "voter ID" laws and other electoral restrictions, which critics argued were specifically designed to prevent Black and Hispanic citizens, who tend to vote Democrat, from registering and voting, thereby suppressing electoral participation among specific demographics.
Ongoing Concerns: Beyond these explicit cases in Europe and the US, questions remain regarding the democratic health and potential for backsliding in other large and regionally influential countries like India (under ethnonationalist governance), South Africa (facing challenges of corruption and institutional erosion), and the United States (grappling with deep partisan polarization, electoral integrity debates, and challenges to democratic norms).
Common Thread: These diverse cases, spanning both established and newer democracies, involve combinations of more subtle strategies—such as legal and constitutional manipulation, control of state institutions, and media capture—alongside potent nationalist and/or populist campaigns that capitalize on existing societal divisions and grievances.
11. Cautions
Populism vs. Democracy: "Populism" is a specific political ideology or approach that can be easily confused with "democracy," especially when populist leaders claim to represent the 'will of the people.' It is crucial to distinguish between genuine democratic participation and populist appeals that often rely on anti-elite sentiment, simplified solutions, and disregard for minority rights or liberal institutions, potentially undermining democracy in the long run.
No Predetermined Outcomes: The future of political regimes is not set in stone; democracy is not an inevitable endpoint of development. Outcomes are inherently fluid and contingent upon political choices, societal dynamics, and external factors. Political backsliding can happen unexpectedly, just as democratic transitions can emerge.
Concurrent Trends: It's important to recognize that democratization processes in some countries can happen simultaneously with significant democratic backsliding in others. The global landscape of democracy is not a uniform wave but a complex tapestry of concurrent and often opposing trends.
Contested Definitions: All definitions and classifications of democracy and authoritarianism "remain contested!" These are not fixed concepts but are subjects of ongoing academic debate, differing theoretical perspectives, and evolving interpretations. Scholars continually refine these definitions as political systems themselves change, reflecting the inherent complexity of political science.