College aantekeningen
DAT WEEK 3
- Instelling
- Universiteit Van Amsterdam (UvA)
Lecture notes of 7 pages for the course Democracies, autocracies and transitions at UvA (Notes for week 3)
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 2 van de 7 pagina's
Voorbeeld 2 van de 7 pagina's
In winkelwagengesponsord bericht van onze partner
Verkoper
Volgen
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
Week 3 readingsHybrid regimes
Reading 1: ‘Elections Without Democracy: The Rise of Competitive
Authoritarianism’ - Steven Levitsky, Lucan A. Way
- Recent academic writings have produced different labels for “hybrid regimes’ =
semidemocracy, virtual democracy, electoral democracy, pseudemocracy, illiberal
democracy, semi-authoritarianism, soft authoritarianism, electoral authoritarianism and
Freedom House’s Partly Free.
- However, this suffers from two important weaknesses
1. Democratising bias = They often treat mixed regimes as partial or
"diminished" forms of democracy or as undergoing prolonged transitions. This
bias fails to acknowledge the reality that these regimes may not be moving
towards democracy but rather represent a specific type of regime in themselves.
2. The terms "semidemocratic," "semi-authoritarian," and "Partly Free" are often
used as residual categories to describe hybrid regimes. However, these terms
tend to overlook important differences among regime types. For example, in the
early 1990s, El Salvador, Latvia, and Ukraine were all categorised as hybrid
regimes and received a combined political rights and civil liberties score of six or
"Partly Free" from Freedom House BUT these regimes differed in fundamental
ways.
- In Latvia, the absence of citizenship rights for people of Russian descent
was the main undemocratic feature.
- In El Salvador, substantial human rights violations and the absence of
civilian control over the military were the main undemocratic features.
- Ukraine had universal citizenship rights and a civilian-controlled military,
but civil liberties were frequently violated and incumbents routinely
abused or manipulated democratic procedures.
- Therefore, although these cases could be categorised as "hybrid,"
"semidemocratic," or "partly free," it is important to recognize the crucial
differences among them = Different mixes of authoritarian and democratic
features have distinct historical roots, and they may have different
implications for economic performance, human rights, and the prospects
for democracy.
DEFINING COMPETITIVE AUTHORITARIANISM
- This refers to a type of "hybrid" regime where formal democratic institutions are seen as
the main source of political authority. However, incumbents in these regimes frequently
violate democratic rules to such an extent that the regime fails to meet minimum
standards for democracy = Executives and legislatures are chosen through elections
, that are free and fair, the right to vote, political rights and civil liberties, including freedom
of the press, freedom of association, and freedom to criticise the government without
reprisal, are broadly protected and elected authorities possess real authority to govern
- Examples of competitive authoritarian regimes include Croatia under Franjo Tudjman,
Serbia under Slobodan Miloševiæ, and Russia under Vladimir Putin. (these would be
better described as a diminished form of authoritarianism).
- CA must be distinguished from unstable, ineffective or flawed types of regimes that meet
basic standards of democracy, this includes what Guillermo O’Donnell has called
‘delegative democracies’
- Delegative democracies are characterised by low levels of horizontal
accountability and powerful, plebiscitarian ( a type of vote to change the
constitution or government of a country), and occasionally abusive executives.
- These regimes meet minimum standards for democracy but lack checks and
balances.
- Examples of delegative democracies include Argentina and Brazil in the early
1990s. However, Peru after Fujimori's 1992 presidential self-coup is not
considered a delegative democracy.
- These regimes are characterised by a combination of democratic and authoritarian
features, with incumbents often abusing state resources, manipulating electoral results,
and suppressing opposition = so like bribery, co-option, etc.
- Even though their democratic institutions are flawed, both authoritarian incumbents and
their opponents must take them seriously.
- Competitive authoritarianism is different from ‘façade’ electoral regimes
- Façade electoral regimes refer to regimes in which electoral institutions exist but
do not yield meaningful contestation for power. These regimes may have
elections, but they lack genuine competition and opposition forces are unable to
challenge the ruling party effectively.
- Examples of such regimes include Egypt, Singapore, and Uzbekistan in the
1990s.
- In these regimes, democratic rules serve to legitimise the existing autocratic
leadership rather than provide a genuine avenue for democratic contestation.
FOUR ARENAS OF DEMOCRATIC CONTESTATION
1. Electoral Arena: In competitive authoritarian regimes, the electoral arena is the most
important arena of contestation. However, elections in these regimes are either
non-existent or not seriously contested. Opposition parties are often banned or
disqualified, and independent observers are prevented from verifying results (creates
widespread opportunities for vote stealing).
- For example, the Kazakh president Nazarbayev was reelected in 1999 with 80%
of the vote and in Uzbekistan, President Karimov was reelected in 2000 with 92%
of the vote. (As a rule of thumb, regimes in which presidents are reelected with
more than 70 percent of the vote can generally be considered noncompetitive.)
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper rahmahossam166. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €3,49. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 67474 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen