Babel in Democratization Studies

Armony, Ariel C.; Schamis, Hector E.

doi:10.1353/jod.2005.0055

Cited by 70 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Hybrid regimes are variably understood as diminished subtypes of democracy (Merkel, 2004;Puhle, 2005;Zakaria, 1997); diminished subtypes of authoritarianism (Schedler, 2006); transitional "situations" that are expected to revert back to either democracy or authoritarianism (Armony & Schamis, 2005;Linz, 1973); a residual category of regimes that fit neither democracy nor authoritarianism (Bogaards, 2009;Gilbert & Mohseni, 2011); or as clear-cut instances of authoritarianism (Ezrow & Frantz, 2011;Gandhi, 2008).…”

Section: What Are Hybrid Regimes?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The fluid nature of politics is assumed to be symptomatic of the regime being in a transitional "situation", suggesting that the transition will either be completed once democracy consolidates or the regime could backslide and renew forms of autocratic control (Armony & Schamis, 2005). But there is also a third possibility, where a regime could stabilize in this uncertain state and persist as a hybrid regime.…”

Section: A "Transitional Situation"mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What Do We Know about Hybrid Regimes after Two Decades of Scholarship?

Mufti

2018

PaG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In two decades of scholarship on hybrid regimes two significant advancements have been made. First, scholars have emphasized that the hybrid regimes that emerged in the post-Cold War era should not be treated as diminished sub-types of democracy, and second, regime type is a multi-dimensional concept. This review essay further contends that losing the lexicon of hybridity and focusing on a single dimension of regime type-flawed electoral competition-has prevented an examination of extra-electoral factors that are necessary for understanding how regimes are differently hybrid, why there is such immense variation in the outcome of elections and why these regimes are constantly in flux. Therefore, a key recommendation emerging from this review of the scholarship is that to achieve a more thorough, multi-dimensional assessment of hybrid regimes, further research ought to be driven by nested research designs in which qualitative and quantitative approaches can be used to advance mid-range theory building.

show abstract

Section: What Are Hybrid Regimes?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: A "Transitional Situation"mentioning

confidence: 99%

What Do We Know about Hybrid Regimes after Two Decades of Scholarship?

Mufti

2018

PaG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The resulting confusion is not necessarily a product of any one individual's work, as many scholars are quite clear, explicit, and consistent in the concepts they employ. Rather, it is the absence of a standardized conceptualization among scholars that creates difficulties for the field (Munck 2001;Armony and Schamis 2005).…”

Section: A Conceptual Map Of the Hybrid Regime Fieldmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Second, this change emphasizes the new conceptual boundary of hybrid regimes by highlighting their competitiveness. As scholars have critically advised, it is important to maximize the conceptual potential of prior typologies (Armony and Schamis 2005;Snyder 2006: 227). In other words, the conceptualization of hybrid regimes is only justified when prior classifications prove problematic or inadequate.…”

Section: Redefining Electoral Regimesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond Authoritarianism: The Conceptualization of Hybrid Regimes

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper appraises the state of the field on hybrid regimes by depicting the tensions and blurred boundaries of democracy and authoritarianism "with adjectives." An alternative conceptualization and ordering of regimes are subsequently introduced using a configurative approach. Rather than place regimes on a linear continuum from authoritarianism to democracy, it highlights the multi-dimensional arrangements possible for the construction of regime types. The configurative approach also provides an analytically useful way to measure and integrate hybrid regimes into our classificatory schemes. As a result, it helps alleviate the conceptual confusion in the literature and contributes to a discussion of hybrid regimes beyond the framework of authoritarianism. The paper concludes by presenting a list of all hybrid regimes in the world between 1990 and 2009 identified with this method.Keywords Authoritarianism . Hybrid regimes . Regime classification . Concept building and measurement "The boundary between democratic and nondemocratic is sometimes a blurred and imperfect one, and beyond it lies a much broader range of variation in political systems." Diamond, Linz and Lipset (1988) Democracy in Developing CountriesThe imperfect conceptual boundary between democratic and nondemocratic regimes has been the focus of much scholarly attention and debate at the turn of the St Comp Int Dev (2011) 46:270-297

show abstract

“…If these symptoms are rampant, then it causes a return to authoritarianism or setback of democracy. 12 The concept of 'illiberal democracy' is an example of distorted democracy at the stage of democratic transition and consolidation. 13 Illiberal democracy "allows wide civil liberty, but at a critical juncture this liberty is partly or totally denied".…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Democratic Consolidation beyond Political Crisis: An Experience of Korea

Lee¹,

Lee²

2008

J. Contemp. East. Asia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In late 20th century, the East Asian region joined the world-wide democratic trend of 'the third wave.'1 Once formidable authoritarian regimes were dismantled and gave way to democratization. The trend began in the Philippines in 1986 and it was followed by South Korea and Taiwan both in 1987. Thailand joined the club in 1992 and Indonesia did the same a couple of years before the new millennium. In those countries, new democratic constitutions were written. With the new constitutions, freedom of political participation was bestowed upon ordinary citizens, civil organizations, political parties, and so on. Free and fair elections have been regularly held since then and the elections, reflecting the hopes of ordinary citizens, installed new civilian political leadership.Not all democratic transitions and consolidations in those countries, however, were without crisis. Despite free and competitive elections and political participation guaranteed by constitutions and by the laws related to elections and political parties, the marches towards further democracy in those countries often look unstable and confusing. The instability was partly due to a sudden explosion of political demands, which had been suppressed for a long time under authoritarian rule. The plethora of political demands could not be smoothly aggregated and articulated in the new born democratic political systems. If the instability of a newly democratized political system continues, then it may endanger the sustainability of a new democracy causing reversal of democracy or return to authoritarianism.Korea, after democratization, has been plagued by various political crises too. The economic crisis in 1997 was a grave test for Korean democracy. With the economic crisis, Korea, for the first time, experienced a peaceful change of political power. Korea's march towards democracy was thereafter relatively smooth despite minor political scandals. In spring 2004, Korea suddenly plunged into a political crisis when President Roh Moo-Hyun faced impeachment proceedings. This crisis brought about a serious division not only among politicians, but also among ordinary citizens. Also, hot debates on the constitution, on political leadership and civil society were incurred. The presidential impeachment was the first in Korea's history. It, however, became an important turning point of democratic progress when political leaders and civil society successfully managed and overcame the crisis.This study will first analyze democratic transition and consolidation and secondly analyze the causes of and responses to the political crisis caused by the impeachment of the president through examining the following questions. The main questions of this study are as follows: How did the democratic transition and consolidation in Korea occur? What was the nature of political crisis in Korea after democratization? What was the main reason of the crisis? What sort of problems did the political leadership and civil society have? How did Korea respond to the crisis and overcome the...

show abstract

Babel in Democratization Studies

Cited by 70 publications

References 23 publications

What Do We Know about Hybrid Regimes after Two Decades of Scholarship?

What Do We Know about Hybrid Regimes after Two Decades of Scholarship?

Beyond Authoritarianism: The Conceptualization of Hybrid Regimes

Democratic Consolidation beyond Political Crisis: An Experience of Korea

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About