A wave of democratisation swept across the developing world in the 1980s and 1990s. The transformation in the nature of political regimes was remarkable: while in 1974 there were 41 democracies among the existing 150 states, by 2006, 123 of 192, or about three-fifths, of all the world’s states were considered ‘electoral democracies’, however imperfect they might be.
However, only a limited number of countries that have undergone transitions have succeeded in establishing consolidated and functioning democratic regimes. Many of these new regimes have ended up ‘getting stuck’ in transition, or reverting to authoritarian forms of rule. This article, produced originally for the Wilton Park Conference on Democracy and Development, October 2007, considers the main challenges facing these ‘hybrid’ regimes.
Academics and policy-makers increasingly recognise that the holding of elections alone does not offer a cure for the deeper political and social problems besetting states in many developing countries. In particular, the inability of many of these new democracies to meet the demands and basic needs of its citizens, including the promotion of economic development, has led to critical questions about their nature, quality, efficiency and sustainability over time. There is an emerging consensus that structural factors – such as economic, social, and institutional conditions and legacies – impact on democratic consolidation. Above all, consolidation requires the evolution of a democratic political culture where all the main political players view and accept democracy as ‘the only game in town’. The building of such a culture will take a long time, and this is the main challenge hybrid regimes are facing today.
The article identifies a number of characteristics common amongst hybrid regimes. In such regimes:
- Populist politics, unaccountable leadership, and opaque decision-making processes are common.
- Many formal institutions that are crucial to make democracy work, such as national legislatures and political parties, suffer from a lack of credibility and/or trust.
- Shallow political participation outside elections and weak governmental accountability lead to a sense of collective public frustration about what democracy can deliver.
- The ‘rules of the game’ are contested. Formal institutions are often perceived as biased/unfair, and therefore cannot secure compliance. Informal practices persist and often take precedence.
- Personalised interests are paramount among public officials. The result is often clientelistic structures and high levels of corruption.
- State capacity remains weak, but at the same time a greater number of actors demand to be included in decision-making processes and expect better services and enhanced state accountability. This reinforces the prospects for instability.
The overall trend towards democratisation has both advantages and disadvantages:
- On the positive side, even ‘unfinished’ democratisation processes have opened up new opportunities for participation and for the alternation of power through formal institutions.
- However, the emergence of hybrid regimes entails important risks as well. In particular, expectations are raised that are very difficult to satisfy. Clientelistic systems continue or even intensify where the potential for authoritarian top-down control is not replaced by effective checks and balances and accountability to citizens.
The article concludes by arguing that highlighting the challenges embedded in hybrid regimes does not imply that the risks of democratisation are not worth undertaking. A deeper understanding of the problems that these regimes face is desirable because it provides a more realistic assessment of how democratic politics function in settings that remain undefined as well as a sobering appraisal of what these incipient and fragile democracies can be expected to achieve. We have certainly not reached the end of history. On the other hand, it is also undeniable that some considerable gains have been made, at the very least in terms of an (almost) universal recognition of the primacy of democratic forms. How to give substance to those forms so that they don’t ossify as the hollow core of democracy is a formidable endeavour, but one that is well worth pursuing. However imperfect, democracy is still better than the available alternatives.
