Hybrid Regimes
Research Question
- Why do Hybrid Regimes Turn to Elections to Consolidate Their Power?
In real democracies, “elections” are perceived as a way to empower and select administrative councils through competition for people’s votes. In a democratic regime, a leader or party’s power relies on the prevalent appeal among the inhabitants. However, hybrid regimes syndicate self-governing traits (frequent and direct elections) and tyrannical traits (political subjugation). The hybrid regimes go against the full-fledged dimension of democracy, encompassing the values and principles of freedom, equality, and accountability (Mazepus et al. 2016, p.352). Democracy in the hybrid regimes can be termed as defective for lack the elements of legal guarantee, intermediation, and decision-making. The hybrid regimes maintain the elements of multiparty elections without democracy. The electoral contest in the hybrid democracy is subject to state manipulation to crop a foreseeable and favorable dogmatic result (Morgenbesser 2014, p. 27). Subsequently, choices in such countries do not qualify as democratic. However, the elections are still used by the regimes in such countries to consolidate power despite limited chances to test the power of the officeholders since elections have foregone conclusions. This paper argues that the hybrid regimes use elections to consolidate their power since elections can be used to gain domestic and international legitimacy and accomplish elite relationships so that the hybrid regime can be strengthened. The hybrid regimes tend to use elections to appeal to a range of possible stimuli that they have the ability to offer socio-economic growth and are willing to participate in elections and thus have consented to democracy. The belief that equality is the most suitable form of power makes most of the hybrid regimes to consolidate power through elections despite being authoritarian elections. This study will compare the case of Venezuela (hybrid regime) and Uganda to understand why the hybrid-regimes use elections to consolidate power.
Annotated Bibliography
Mazepus, H., Veenendaal, W., McCarthy-Jones, A., & Trak Vásquez, J. M. 2016. A comparative study of legitimation strategies in hybrid regimes. Policy Studies, 37(4): pp. 350-369.
The article explores the strategies used by hybrid regimes to gain legitimacy both domestically and internationally. The most important part of the article to this study is where Mazepus et al. (2016) discuss how hybrid regimes seek validation of their right to rule through institutions of polls which define attributes of democracy, but the elections are marred with controlled competition and manipulations to keep the incumbent in power. The electoral institutions engender the elements of democracy, and that is what the hybrid regimes use to hoodwink the public that they ascend to power through democratic suffrage. This claim will act as the basis of my discussion to indicate that hybrid regimes use elections to consolidate power since the electoral institutions engender elements of democracy and democracy is believed to be the most acceptable form of governance. Therefore, the leaders are able to appeal to certain stimuli in public thus giving their regime the legitimacy they want.
Morgenbesser, L. 2014. Elections in hybrid regimes: Conceptual stretching revived. Political Studies, 62(1), pp. 21-36.
This article explores whether the meaning of democratic elections is applicable in the hybrid regimes and whether democracy has the same meaning in hybrid regimes like in liberal countries. The discussion part of the Morgenbesser (2014) is the most crucial part of this article as it concludes that elections in the hybrid countries are used for legitimation, aid and elite administration. Morgenbesser (2014) postulates that hybrid regimes are able to consolidate their power through elections use of presence and perseverance apparatuses that successfully prevent the handover of power through elections. The article explains that by the Hybrid Regimes holding elections, they tend to imply that they are less than fully authoritarian and hence democratic in the eyes of the public. Subsequently, they are able to win the public appeal and support their legitimacy.
Bogaards, M. 2009. How to classify hybrid regimes? Defective democracy and electoral authoritarianism. Democratization, 16(2), pp. 399-423.
The article explores different hybrid regimes and how they consolidate power and the strategies they use in the consolidation of power. The most essential elements in the process of consolidating power are the elements of defective democracy and authoritarian elections. In the defective democracy, the principles of pure democracy are foregone and replaced with strategies that repress people and maintain consolidation of power of among the elite. In the electoral authoritarianism, the hybrid regime leaders uphold the entrance of democracy without revealing themselves to the radical risks that free rivalry entails. They, therefore, conduct elections with the absence of democracy for them to remain in power.
Diamond, L. 2002. Elections without Democracy: Thinking about hybrid regimes. Journal of Democracy, 13(2), pp. 21-35.
The article explores how the regimes across the world are adopting the aspects of democracy including such things as regular and competitive multiparty elections but fail to meet the substantive test of democracy. The article uses Nigeria, Venezuela, Russia, and Ukraine case studies to assess the capacity of ambiguous democratic ruling elites who hide rule under the disguise of acting on constitutional authority. The article is essential to this study since it helps to shed light on how the ruling elite manipulates elections to ensure they remain in power but at the same time find legitimacy through the democratic elements attached to the electoral bodies.
Perrot, S. (2014). Elections in a hybrid regime: revisiting the 2011 Ugandan polls.
The book provides an outlook of the elections in Uganda how they are used to give legitimacy to the hybrid leaders in Uganda. The critical part of the book is where Perrot (2014) discusses how elections are manipulated through reliable means but made to look democratic despite having a foregone conclusion. Multiparty democracy and competition are elements of the elections, but they are just used to increase the regime’s legitimacy before the public. The public will be involved in the electioneering process, and they will tend to believe that the election outcomes are legit since it was a competitive process. However, it is through the elections that the elites are able to increase their cohesion and manipulate the elections to their advantage.
References
Bogaards, M. 2009. How to classify hybrid regimes? Defective democracy and electoral authoritarianism. Democratization, 16(2), pp. 399-423.
Diamond, L. 2002. Elections without democracy: Thinking about hybrid regimes. Journal of democracy, 13(2), pp. 21-35.
Mazepus, H., Veenendaal, W., McCarthy-Jones, A., & Trak Vásquez, J. M. 2016. A comparative study of legitimation strategies in hybrid regimes. Policy Studies, 37(4): pp. 350-369.
Morgenbesser, L. 2014. Elections in hybrid regimes: Conceptual stretching revived. Political Studies, 62(1), pp. 21-36.
Perrot, S. 2014. Elections in a hybrid regime: revisiting the 2011 Ugandan polls.
Place this order or similar order and get an amazing discount.
