A hybrid regime is a political system that combines democratic and authoritarian elements, where elections are held and governments permit some civil liberties, but systematically undermine democratic principles such as guaranteeing all political freedoms and rule of law. In such regimes, the state machinery controls critical aspects of the political process, such as elections, media and the judiciary.

The term ‘hybrid regime’ was popularised by Andreas Schedler who wrote about it in his 2006 work, Electoral Authoritarianism: The Dynamics of Unfree Competition. Schedler’s conceptualisation highlights the tension between formal democratic institutions, like elections, and authoritarian practices, such as electoral fraud, media manipulation and political repression.

He emphasised that while elections are held in such systems, the outcomes do not reflect the will of the people due to significant manipulation by the ruling elite. Scholars like Larry Diamond and Steven Levitsky have expanded on the idea. Diamond differentiates between democratic regimes, authoritarian states and hybrid systems. Levitsky and Lucan Way, in their 2010 work, Competitive Authoritarianism, focused on ‘competitive authoritarian’ regimes where opposition parties and media are allowed, but are systematically disadvantaged by the state. They highlighted that while these regimes might allow some level of competition, it is constrained by institutional manipulation and repression.

Hybrid regimes exhibit several key features. These include electoral manipulation, where elections may be held but are marred by fraud, voter intimidation or media suppression. Political competition is limited as opposition parties face heavy restrictions such as legal challenges, media blackouts and harassment, making it difficult for them to mount a serious challenge. Civil liberties are curtailed, with free speech, assembly and press often restricted or censored in practice despite formal constitutional protections. The government may engage in institutionalised corruption, using state resources to bolster its power and suppress democratic reforms. Additionally, the rule of law tends to be weak. The Judiciary is controlled or influenced by the Executive, preventing fair trials and accountability.

Authoritarian tendencies have been conspicuous in countries like Pakistan, Myanmar, Russia, Turkey and Venezuela. Pakistan has long oscillated between democratic and authoritarian governance, with the establishment playing a significant role in undermining democratic institutions. While the country has had elected governments, the establishment retains substantial influence over areas like foreign policy and security. This influence undermines democratic governance.

While elections have been held fairly regularly, many have been marred by allegations of rigging, manipulation and interference by apolitical elements. The establishment’s involvement in shaping electoral outcomes has weakened political competition. Opposition parties have historically faced repression. Their leaders have been frequently imprisoned or exiled. The Judiciary has often been described as subject to political pressure, particularly during periods of military rule. The hybrid nature of Pakistan’s political system is evident in the struggle between elected governments and the establishment.

Myanmar has similarly experienced long periods of hybrid governence, with the military retaining significant control even during civilian rule. Despite periods of democratic governance, the military junta’s authoritarian tendencies have been apparent. Even under the civilian leadership of Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy, the military retained significant power through a constitutional provision that reserved 25 percent of parliamentary seats for military representatives. This provision ensured that the military could block reforms that might undermine its dominance.

After the formal end of the military junta in 2011, Myanmar made some strides towards democracy, but the military continued to control key levers of power, particularly in defence, home affairs and border security. The 2020 general election, where the NLD won decisively, was followed by a military coup in February 2021, underscoring the military’s unwillingness to relinquish power despite the electoral process. Following the coup, the military junta cracked down on political opposition, arrested key NLD leaders and launched violent attacks on protesters, restricting media freedom and harassing journalists and rights activists. The military’s brutal treatment of ethnic minorities, particularly the Rohingya Muslims, too, reflects its authoritarian character. Despite Myanmar’s nominal shift towards democracy, the military has maintained its authoritarian control through violence and repression.

Russia is another example of a hybrid regime where formal democratic institutions are manipulated to ensure the continued dominance of the ruling party. Russia holds regular elections, but opposition parties and candidates face severe restrictions. Many have faced imprisonment and harassment. The state controls much of the media landscape, stifling dissent and presenting a distorted version of the political reality. The Judiciary is seen as aligned with the interests of the Kremlin. Laws are often used to suppress political opposition, human rights organisations and independent media. While Russia retains some features of a democracy, its political system has become increasingly authoritarian, undermining the principles of free and fair elections and political pluralism.

Turkey has also seen a shift towards hybridism under President Recep Tayyip Erdo an. Despite holding elections, Turkey has seen increasing authoritarian practices, including the suppression of political opposition, control over the media and the erosion of judicial independence. Erdo an’s government has used state resources to undermine opposition parties. Many of its critics have faced imprisonment or exile. The ruling party has also enacted constitutional changes that concentrate power in the Executive branch, reducing checks on presidential authority. While Turkey maintains the façade of democracy, its democratic institutions have been weakened by repression.

Venezuela is another example of a hybrid regime with authoritarian tendencies. Under the leadership of Hugo Chávez and his successor Nicolás Maduro, Venezuela’s political system evolved from a democracy into a state where the government retains formal democratic structures, such as elections, but systematically undermines the political opposition through repression, media control and electoral fraud.

Opposition leaders are often jailed or exiled and the media is heavily censored. The Judiciary is seen as a tool of the government, preventing any meaningful legal challenges to the ruling elite. Despite the country’s official commitment to democratic processes, the government has maintained tight control over the political system, rendering the elections largely unfair.

The transition from a hybrid regime to a democracy is a complex and gradual process. Pakistan, Myanmar, Russia, Turkey and Venezuela need stronger political institutions that can withstand external pressures. In Pakistan, reducing the establishment’s involvement in politics and ensuring greater independence of the Judiciary is pivotal for democratisation. In Myanmar, constitutional reforms to reduce the military influence are essential.

Electoral processes must be transparent, free and fair. Pakistan requires electoral reforms to curb the establishment’s interference in political campaigns and electoral outcomes. Myanmar needs a political system that enables free and fair elections and ensures civilian leadership in key government functions. A free and independent media is essential for holding governments accountable. All these nations need reforms that protect press freedom and allow independent journalism to thrive. Strengthening judicial independence is also necessary.

Strengthening civil society organisations, ensuring freedom of speech and upholding human rights are crucial steps. In Pakistan, this involves greater protection for activists and journalists facing threats. Myanmar needs to end military crackdowns on ethnic minorities and political dissent. Both Russia and Turkey need to restore genuine political competition and stop the repression of opposition movements. Venezuela must allow free and fair elections and ensure the protection of civil rights. Countries under hybrid regimes can arguably benefit from international pressure to adhere to democratic norms, through sanctions, diplomatic engagement, or support for pro-democracy movements. Public mobilisation, through peaceful protest and civil disobedience, can also play a role in challenging authoritarian practices and demanding greater democratic reforms.

Transforming hybrid regimes into full democracies requires comprehensive reforms, from electoral processes to judicial independence and media freedom.

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