iven the state of its democracy in 2024, Pakistan’s ranking dropped six places. It was listed among the “10 worst performers” in the Democracy Index, recently published by the Economist Intelligence Unit.

The report evaluates global democratic trends across 165 independent nations and two territories, examining five key dimensions: electoral process and pluralism; the functioning of government; political participation; political culture; and civil liberties. Countries are categorized into four regime types—full democracy; flawed democracy; hybrid regime; or authoritarian regime—based on their scores in these areas.

Pakistan’s ranking fell to 124th globally, with an overall score of 2.84, positioning the country in the authoritarian regime category. This drop reflected a broad global trend of democratic decline, with authoritarian regimes becoming increasingly repressive. The report attributed the overall decrease in the global democracy index to the worsening conditions in authoritarian regimes, suggesting that such regimes are growing more entrenched and oppressive.

This trend underscores the challenges facing global democracy. It also highlights Pakistan’s worsening political environment. Historically speaking, Pakistan’s journey with democracy has been tumultuous and marked by significant instability.

The core issue in Pakistan is an overdeveloped state structure. The concentration of power in certain state institutions has severely limited the role of civilian leadership in shaping the country’s political landscape.

Given this context, the question of how to classify Pakistan’s current political system has become a point of debate, especially among the youth in the field of liberal arts. Is the current governance structure a hybrid regime, combining elements of democracy and authoritarianism, or is it more accurately described as authoritarian?

But first let’s examine these two concepts and the processes of their evolution.

The concept of a hybrid regime emerged during the 1990s, as part of the discussions around third-wave democratisation and the transition paradigm. Hybrid regimes are seen as falling between full democracies and full autocracies. Over time, the idea of hybrid regimes evolved, eventually contributing to what became known as the “fourth wave” of democratisation. This perspective suggested that transitions could lead to either democracy or dictatorship, but there could also be a middle ground.

Within the literature on democratisation, scholars use various terms to describe hybrid regimes. These regimes are often thought to occupy a grey area between democracy and autocracy. Hybrids combine elements of both democratic and authoritarian systems. The ongoing debate has sparked discussions about various subtypes of hybrid regimes.

In the literature on democratisation, scholars use various terms to describe hybrid regimes. These regimes are thought to occupy a grey area between democracy and autocracy. 

Since 2006, a majority of the world’s political systems has been classified as hybrid regimes. According to The Economist’s 2020 Index, out of 167 countries analysed, 57 are authoritarian; 35 are hybrid regimes; 52 are considered flawed democracies; and the remaining are full democracies. This means that at least 52 percentof these regimes fall into the “gray zone” between democracy and autocracy, regardless of the terms used to describe them.

Hybrid regimes, blending democratic and authoritarian elements, are not a new phenomenon. In fact, they existed in the 1960s and 1970s in regions like Latin America, Africa, Southeast Asia and parts of Europe. There were multiparty electoral systems but the governance was still undemocratic. In Latin America, during the 19th and early 20th Centuries, some oligarchic democracies evolved into more democratic systems, establishing key political institutions and principles for limiting power and ensuring leadership succession.

In the 1990s, particularly in the second half of the decade, hybrid regimes were often seen as weakened democracies on the path to full democratic consolidation. This view was rooted in the Transition Paradigm of the 1990s, which saw these regimes as transitional.

In other words, these regimes had met some basic democratic standards but still had significant flaws. For example, they often had restricted freedom of expression and limited access to information. Citizen participation in the political process was low, and unelected bodies sometimes held power over elected officials, creating imbalances that favoured those in power.

Authoritarianism refers to a system of government where power is concentrated in the hands of a single leader or a small elite and there is no mechanisms for peaceful transfer of power. These regimes deny citizens civil liberties and political rights and significant decisions can be made without considering the people’s will. While the term is often used to describe non-democratic governments, studies show that authoritarian regimes can vary significantly in how they operate.

Although most authoritarian regimes have constitutions, they severely limit citizens’ freedoms, both on paper and in practice. People may express opinions on non-sensitive issues, but discussing certain topics often leads to harsh consequences for allegedly threatening national security.

Civil society is heavily restricted, with organisations subject to strict regulations and surveillance, especially if they receive foreign funding. Many must register with the state and face scrutiny for any suspicious activity.

The press, while not always state-owned, is controlled. Journalists and media outlets face limits on criticism of the government, with violations leading to imprisonment, harassment, fines and or licence revocation. In some cases, regimes ensure that media is controlled by loyal supporters.

Although authoritarian regimes may have legislatures, political parties and judiciaries, these institutions lack real power. Legislatures are often filled with loyalists who never oppose the leader and opposition and judicial independence are minimal. In Egypt, for example, President al-Sisi’s government has repeatedly dissolved or bypassed parliament, with little legislative action since his election.

Judges are sometimes instructed by the Executive on how to handle politically sensitive cases. This practice, known as “telephone law,” allows powerful individuals to bypass legal rules.

The writer is a professor in the Faculty of Liberal Arts at the Beaconhouse National University, Lahore.