跳转到内容

草稿:混合政权

维基百科，自由的百科全书

en:Hybrid regime

系列条目
政治
投票箱
基本主题
政治体系
学术门类
公共行政
政策
政府机构
相关主题
下属系列
主题政治主题
政治主题的一部分
政体基本形式（英语：List of forms of government）
权力基础（英语：French and Raven's bases of power）
民主政体
多数人的权力
寡头政治
少数人的权力
独裁政治
一个人的权力
无政府主义
没有人的权力
权力思想
君主制 对 共和制
社会政治意识形态
威权制 对 自由制
社会经济意识形态
全球 对 本地
地缘文化意识形态
权力结构
单一主义
从属主义
联邦主义
国家权力
行政区划与地方政府
政治主题页

混合政体（英文：hybrid regime）[a]是在威权政体与民主政体间转型不完全所导致的政治制度。[b]其兼具专制和民主政权特征、可同时进行政治镇压和定期选举。[10][8][11]混合政体通常出现在诸如石油国家等自然资源丰富的发展中国家，其可能在经历国内动荡后的数十年内，表现出相对稳定和顽强的特性。[b]冷战结束后，混合政体有所增加。[12][13]

“混合政体”一词源于反对把专制或民主直接二分的政治体制多态性观点。[14]现代学术界分析主要着重于民主制度如何成为混合政权的摆饰，例如选举不会导致权力更迭、不同媒体都在播报政府观点、议会中的反对派与执政党投票方式相同等，[15]并总结指出混合政体最常见的基础有民主倒退、向威权主义过渡等。[b][16]一些学者还认为，混合政体可能会模仿威权政体。[17][18]

定义

[编辑]

政治学者们会因各自专攻的学术不同，而对“混合政权”给出不同的定义。[19]据Christoph Mohamad-Klotzbach指出，“有学者认为不健全的民主或专制可视为混合政权，但也有学者认为混合政权是结合了民主与专制的政权特点”[3]学者也对混合政权是属于转型政权、抑或是本质上稳定的政体有所争论。[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27]

1995年，Terry Karl导入了“混合政权”一词，并定义为“结合了民主与专制部分的政权。”[28]

Matthijs Bogaards定义为：“不是某个政体的弱化变种，而是混合专制和民主两种政权的基本类型特征，因此结合两者维度。”[29]

Pippa Norris定义为：“政治系统，其行政权缺乏制衡、选举有缺陷甚至暂停、反对派力量支离破碎。国家政权会对媒体、知识分子、公民团体等施加限制，视法治为无物、法院权力受限、安全部队侵犯人权、国家还会容忍威权价值观。”[30]

Henry E. Hale定义为：“一定程度上，结合了民主与专制特点的政权。不过，混合政权拥有独特的动态；他们不会如我们所想，是单纯的民主一半、专制一半。”[31]

Leonardo Morlino定义为：“一种存在了数十年之久的政治体制，不考虑其稳定性。它可能之前是威权主义、含有殖民主义特征的传统政体，甚至是有限民主。其体制特征为有限的多元主义、还有独立自主的政治参与形式，但但缺乏至少一个最基本民主四要素。”[32]

Jeffrey C. Isaac定义为：“混合政权的共同特征为竞争，但掌权的政治菁英，会刻意在国家法规和政治方面，安插不当优势”[33]

历史

[编辑]
2010–2020年代中，各国的专制与民主变化。红色代表国家走向专制化、蓝色代表走向民主化、灰色则代表没有大幅度变动[34]

混合政权自1970年代的第三波民主化后开始出现。[35]这类混合政权在体制上既不属完全民主或完全专制；概念上亦非不自由的民主或选举威权主义。[35][36][37]

冷战结束后，混合政权成为非民主国家中，最常见的政体。[38][39]当国家处于专制政权转型后头，并出现自由化迹象时，通常会出现有限选举。理论上会假设有限选举，最后会走向自由民主，但事实上，政治改革最终会在有限选举阶段停滞。[40]

与先前的“过渡政权”一词相较，“混合政权”是从1980年代出现，Thomas Carothers的说法，使其获得关注：

多数“过渡政权”并非完全威权、但也无法走向民主。这些政权游走政治稳定的灰色地带，可能十几年内都不会改变，很难被称为“过渡”。因此Carothers认为，探讨此类混合政权时，不能假设其最终会成为民主政体。这种混合政体也被称为半威权主义、或选举威权主义。[41]

Hybrid regimes have evolved to lean more authoritarian while keeping some democratic traits.[42] One of the main issues with authoritarian rule is the ability to control the threats from the masses, and democratic elements in hybrid regimes can reduce social tension between the masses and the elite.[43] After the third wave of democratization, some regimes became stuck in the transition to democracy, causing the creation of weak democratic institutions.[44] This results from a lack of institutional ownership during critical points in the transition period leading the regime into a gray zone between democracy and autocracy.[45]

These developments have caused some scholars to believe that hybrid regimes are not poorly functioning democracies, but rather new forms of authoritarian regimes.[46] Defective democratic stability is an indicator to explain and measure these new forms of autocracies.[47] Additionally, approval ratings of political leaders play an important role in these types of regimes, and democratic elements can drive up the ratings of a strongman leader creating a tool not utilized previously.[48] Today, 'hybrid regime' is a term used to explain a growing field of political development where authoritarian leaders incorporate elements of democracy that stabilize their regimes.[49]

指标

[编辑]
Bertelsmann Transformation Index2022年的全球趋势报告[50]

根据吉列尔莫·奥唐纳、菲利普·C·施米特、拉里·戴蒙德、托马斯·卡罗瑟斯等学者的看法，混合政权的特征有：[26][51]

  1. 拥有民主政权外在属性，比如选举、多党制、合法的反对党等。
  2. 在政治决策过程中，公民利益的代表性不足（这意味诸如工会等公民团体的失能，或是受国家控制）。
  3. 政治参与程度低。
  4. 宣示性、或形式上的政治权利与自由，要实际执行这些权利与自由会有困难。
  5. 公民对政治机构的信任度低。

过渡的形式

[编辑]
更多信息：民主过渡

专制化

[编辑]
约2010以来, 全球范围内专制化国家数量（蓝色）高于民主化国家数量（黄色）

民主倒退（英语：Democratic backsliding），又称专制化（英语：autocratization）[52][53][c] ，是一个政治学术语，用以描述政治体制中民主特征的减少[60] ，是民主化的反义词。

民主化

[编辑]

民主化通常指的是政权由独裁体制转变成民主体制的过程。不少人主张民主化可以被视为一种长期而且连续的历史过程[61]，而且可以发生在各种社会领域，例如经济民主化、家庭民主化等[62]，近来也有学者讨论全球化的民主治理议题[63]。

民主化是政治制度朝向更民主的状态发展之过渡过程[64]，包括朝着民主方向发展的实质性政治变革。它可能是从专制政权向完全民主政体过渡的混合状态，从专制政治制度向半民主过渡，或从半专制政治制度向民主政治制度过渡的混合状态。[65] 相反的过程有民主倒退或独裁。

量测

[编辑]
主条目：Democracy indices
更多信息：Democratic backsliding by country

There are various democratic freedom indices produced by intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations that publish assessments of the worlds political systems, according to their own definitions.[66]

Democracy Index

[编辑]
Democracy index types

According to the Democracy Index compiled by the Economist Intelligence Unit there are 34 hybrid regimes, representing approximately 20% of countries, encompassing 17.2% to 20.5% of the world's population.[67]

"The EIU Democracy Index is based on ratings across 60 indicators, grouped into five categories: electoral process and pluralism, civil liberties, the functioning of government, political participation and political culture."[66] The Democracy Index defines hybrid regimes with the following characteristics:[67]

  • Electoral fraud or irregularities occur regularly
  • Pressure is applied to political opposition
  • Corruption is widespread and rule of law tends to be weak
  • Media is pressured and harassed
  • There are issues in the functioning of governance
The 2024 Economist Intelligence Unit Democracy Index[67]

As of 2021 the countries considered hybrid regimes by the "Democracy Index" are:

Global State of Democracy Report

[编辑]

According to the "Global State of Democracy Report" by International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA), there are twenty hybrid regimes.[68] "International IDEA compiles data from 12 different data sources, including expert surveys and observational data includes the extent to which voting rights are inclusive, political parties are free to form and campaign for office, elections are free, and political offices are filled through elections."[66] IDEA defined hybrid regimes as:[69]

Combination of the elements of authoritarianism with democracy ... These often adopt the formal characteristics of democracy (while allowing little real competition for power) with weak respect for basic political and civil rights

As of 2021 the countries considered hybrid regimes by the "Global State of Democracy Report" are:[70]

V-Dem Democracy Indices

[编辑]
Map of V-Dem Electoral Democracy Index in 2024[71]

According to the V-Dem Democracy Indices compiled by the V-Dem Institute at the University of Gothenburg there are 65 hybrid regimes.[72] V-Dem's "Regimes of the World" indicators identify four political regimes: closed autocracies, electoral autocracies, electoral democracies, and liberal democracies.[73]

According to the V-Dem Institute:[74]

In 2021, 70% of the world population – 5.4 billion people – live in closed or electoral autocracies. A mere 13% of the world's population reside in liberal democracies, and 16% in electoral democracies.

Freedom House

[编辑]
Freedom House ratings for European Union and surrounding states, in 2019:[75]
  Free
  Partly free
  Not free

Freedom House measures the level of political and economic governance in 29 countries from Central Europe to Central Asia.[76]

"Freedom House assign scores to countries and territories across the globe on 10 indicators of political rights (e.g., whether there is a realistic opportunity for opposition parties to gain power through elections) and 15 indicators of civil liberties (e.g., whether there is a free and independent media)."[66] Freedom House classifies transitional or hybrid regimes as:[76]

Countries that are typically electoral democracies where democratic institutions are fragile, and substantial challenges to the protection of political rights and civil liberties exist

In 2022, Freedom House classified 11 of 29 countries analyzed as "Transitional or Hybrid Regimes":[76]

归类

[编辑]
更多信息：List of countries by system of government和List of forms of government
Countries in green claim to be a type of democracy while countries in red do not. Only Saudi Arabia, Oman, the UAE, Qatar, Brunei, Afghanistan, and the Vatican do not claim to be democratic.

According to Yale professor Juan José Linz, there are three main types of political systems today: democracies, totalitarian regimes and, sitting between these two, authoritarian regimes with many different terms that describe specific types of hybrid regimes.[b][a][77][26][78][79][1]

Academics generally refer to a full dictatorship as either a form of authoritarianism or totalitarianism over a "hybrid system".[80][78][81] Authoritarian governments that conduct elections are in many scholars view not hybrids, but are successful well-institutionalized stable authoritarian regimes.[b][82][83][84] Democratic elements can simultaneously serve authoritarian purposes and contribute to democratization.[85]

选举威权主义

[编辑]
Page '选举威权主义' not found

选举独裁主义

[编辑]
Page '选举独裁主义' not found

不自由的民主

[编辑]

非自由民主（英语：illiberal democracy）[86][87][88]，其亦称不自由民主、威权复辟，与自由民主制相对[89]，是一种虽有“民主”却无法保障公民自由的不完全、不成熟的民主制度，不以保障自由、人权及强调法治作为其民主运作的主要特征[90]。

非自由民主国家的统治者可能会忽视或绕过宪法对其权力的限制。他们也倾向于忽视少数人的意愿，这正是民主不自由的原因。[91] 非自由民主国家的选举经常被操纵，被用来合法化和巩固现任掌权者，而不是用以选择国家的领导人和政策。[92]

于此种政制之下，国家通过限制民众的自由权利，以维护国家利益并促进经济发展，虽然实行民主制度并允许选举，但是人权得不到保障并缺乏公民自由，权利随时有可能被侵犯和剥夺，公民对行使权力的群体的行为亦缺少知情权，并非真正意义上的“开放社会”。实行此种政制的国家，既不能划分为“自由国家”或者“非自由国家”，更多地是被划分为“可能是自由国家”，这些国家介于民主与非民主政体之间[93]。这可能是因为存在一部限制政府权力有余，但保障公民自由不足的宪法框架，导致政府经常有意无意忽视公民自由[94]。

一党优势制

[编辑]

一党优势制（英语：dominant-party system或one-party dominant system），又称一党独大制[95]，是形容一个国家由某政党透过民主选举制度下，长期胜出而得以达到稳固执政之政局情境。通常发生在共和制的发展中国家。此种政党通常在立法机关（国会）中连续数次取得大多数议席，又或赢得总统选举。

代表性民主制

[编辑]
Page '代表性民主制' not found

Delegative democracy

软性独裁

[编辑]
Page '软性独裁' not found

指导民主

[编辑]

指导民主[96]（英语：Guided democracy）又称管理式民主（Managed democracy）是威权独裁（Authoritarian dictatorship）和软威权主义（Soft authoritarianism）的委婉说法。“指导民主”常被用来指代发展中国家普遍倾向于采取的中央集权体制。[97]实行“指导民主”的政府往往由公正自由化的选举产生，但在改变国家政策，意志和目标方面缺乏实质性权力。[98]其实际独裁者紧抓着政治体系的控制权，但是他很少控制社会的其他面向，而且受到诸如教会、军队、资产阶级等其他机构的节制。[97]典型的例子有中华民国国民政府时代的训政，现今的泰国自2019年军政府状态结束后，由军方掌控参议院全部席位，以及实行2008年宪法的缅甸，军方掌握议会两院各四分之一的席位，还有印度尼西亚前总统苏加诺执政时期实行的“纳沙贡”政策。如今，它被广泛使用于形容普京领导下的俄罗斯，由研究克里姆林宫的专家格列布·巴甫洛夫斯基（英语：Gleb Pavlovsky）等学者套入概念并普及使用[99]。而目前由人民行动党所带领的新加坡也可以属于此一范畴。

自由的专制

[编辑]
Page '自由的专制' not found

半民主

[编辑]

无支配体制（英语：Anocracy），又译为无支配统治、无体制政体，政治学术语，一种政体形态。在这种政体下，政权不是由政治组织控制，而是分散在数个不同的精英群体中，这些群体彼此竞逐权力。在非洲，索马里、乌干达、尼日利亚、肯亚及津巴布韦，都被归类在无支配体制之下。在政治学中，无支配体制有时被认为是介于民主与独裁政体之间的过渡型态，又可被译为半民主、虚民主、非民主等。

有缺陷的民主

[编辑]
Page '有缺陷的民主' not found

嵌入式民主

[编辑]
Page '嵌入式民主' not found

竞争性威权主义

[编辑]

Competitive Authoritarian Regimes (or Competitive Authoritarianism) is a subtype of Authoritarianism and of the wider Hybrid Regime regime type. This regime type was created to encapsulate states that contained formal democratic institutions that rulers viewed as the principal means of obtaining and exercising legitimate political authority with a meaningful opposition and other semblances of democratic political society. However officials violate elections frequently and interfere with opposition organisations causing the regime to miss the minimum conventional standard for democracy.[100][101][102][103]

Three main instruments are used within Competitive Authoritarian Regimes to maintain political power: the self-serving use of state institutions (regarding abuses of electoral and judicial institutions such as voter intimidation and voter fraud); the overuse of state resources (to gain influence and/or power over proportional representation media, and use legal resources to disturb constitutional change); and the disruption of civil liberties (such as freedom of speech/press and association).[101]

Currently, within the political sphere, Competitive Authoritarianism has become a crucial regime type that has grown exponentially since the Post-Soviet era in multiple world regions without signs of slowing. On the contrary, there has been growth of Competitive Authoritarianism within previously steadfast democratic regimes, which has been attributed to the recent phenomenon of democratic backsliding.[104][102]

参见

[编辑]

注解

[编辑]
  1. ^ 1.0 1.1 学者会使用多种术语，强调完全威权主义与完全民主政权之间的灰色地带。[1]这些术语包含：竞争性威权主义（competitive authoritarianism）、半威权主义（semi-authoritarianism）、混合威权主义（hybrid authoritarianism）、选举威权主义（electoral authoritarianism）、自由的专制（liberal autocracy）、代表性民主制（delegative democracy）、不自由的民主（illiberal democracy）、指导民主（guided democracy）、训政、半民主（semi-democracy）、不健全的民主（deficient democracy）、有缺陷的民主（defective democracy）、混合民主（hybrid democracy）等。[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]
  2. ^ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 学界仍在争论“混合”的具体定义，请详见#定义。
  3. ^ Other names include: democratic decline,[54] de-democratization,[55] democratic erosion,[56] democratic decay,[57] democratic recession,[58] democratic regression,[54] and democratic deconsolidation[59]

参考资料

[编辑]
  1. ^ 1.0 1.1 Gagné, Jean-François, Hybrid Regimes, Oxford University Press (OUP), Mar 10, 2015, doi:10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0167 
  2. ^ Plattner, Marc F. Is Democracy in Decline?. kipdf.com. 1969-12-31 [2022-12-27]. （原始内容存档于2023-04-06）. 
  3. ^ 3.0 3.1 Hybrid Concepts and the Concept of Hybridity. European Consortium for Political Research. 2019-09-07 [2022-11-18]. （原始内容存档于2023-04-06）. 
  4. ^ Urribarri, Raul A. Sanchez. Courts between Democracy and Hybrid Authoritarianism: Evidence from the Venezuelan Supreme Court. Law & Social Inquiry (Wiley). 2011, 36 (4): 854–884 [2022-11-16]. ISSN 0897-6546. JSTOR 41349660. S2CID 232400805. doi:10.1111/j.1747-4469.2011.01253.x. （原始内容存档于2022-11-16）. 
  5. ^ Göbel, Christian. Semiauthoritarianism. 21st Century Political Science: A Reference Handbook. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks California 91320 United States: SAGE Publications, Inc. 2011: 258–266. ISBN 9781412969017. doi:10.4135/9781412979351.n31. 
  6. ^ Tlemcani, Rachid. Electoral Authoritarianism. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 2007-05-29 [2022-11-16]. （原始内容存档于2023-04-06）. 
  7. ^ What is Hybrid Democracy?. Digital Society School. 2022-05-19 [2022-11-16]. （原始内容存档于2023-04-05）. 
  8. ^ 8.0 8.1 Zinecker, Heidrun. Regime-Hybridity in Developing Countries: Achievements and Limitations of New Research on Transitions. International Studies Review ([Oxford University Press, Wiley, The International Studies Association]). 2009, 11 (2): 302–331 [2022-11-18]. ISSN 1521-9488. JSTOR 40389063. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2486.2009.00850.x. （原始内容存档于2022-11-16）. 
  9. ^ Index. Dem-Dec. 2017-09-23 [2022-11-21]. （原始内容存档于2022-11-21）. 
  10. ^ Croissant, A.; Kailitz, S.; Koellner, P.; Wurster, S. Comparing autocracies in the early Twenty-first Century: Volume 1: Unpacking Autocracies - Explaining Similarity and Difference. Taylor & Francis. 2015: 212 [Nov 27, 2022]. ISBN 978-1-317-70018-0. （原始内容存档于December 9, 2022）. 
  11. ^ Carothers, Christopher. The Surprising Instability of Competitive Authoritarianism. Journal of Democracy. 2018, 29 (4): 129–135. ISSN 1086-3214. S2CID 158234306. doi:10.1353/jod.2018.0068. 
  12. ^ Levitsky, Steven; Way, Lucan. The Rise of Competitive Authoritarianism. Journal of Democracy (Project Muse). 2002, 13 (2): 51–65. ISSN 1086-3214. S2CID 6711009. doi:10.1353/jod.2002.0026. 
  13. ^ Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes After the Cold War. Department of Political Science. [2022-11-16]. （原始内容存档于2023-04-06）. 
  14. ^ Hybrid Regimes. obo. [2019-08-13]. （原始内容存档于2019-07-29）. 
  15. ^ Mufti, Mariam. What Do We Know about Hybrid Regimes after Two Decades of Scholarship?. Politics and Governance (Cogitatio). Jun 22, 2018, 6 (2): 112–119. ISSN 2183-2463. S2CID 158943827. doi:10.17645/pag.v6i2.1400 可免费查阅. 
  16. ^ Home - IDEA Global State of Democracy Report. International IDEA. [Nov 26, 2022]. （原始内容存档于April 4, 2023）. 
  17. ^ Schedler, Andreas. Shaping the Authoritarian Arena. The Politics of Uncertainty. Oxford University Press. Aug 1, 2013: 54–75. ISBN 978-0-19-968032-0. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199680320.003.0003. 
  18. ^ Brooker, P. Non-Democratic Regimes. Comparative Government and Politics. Bloomsbury Publishing. 2013: 222 [Nov 27, 2022]. ISBN 978-1-137-38253-5. （原始内容存档于December 9, 2022）. 
  19. ^ Cassani, Andrea. Hybrid what? Partial consensus and persistent divergences in the analysis of hybrid regimes. International Political Science Review (SAGE). September 3, 2013, 35 (5): 542–558. ISSN 0192-5121. S2CID 144881011. doi:10.1177/0192512113495756. 
  20. ^ Ekman, Joakim. Political Participation and Regime Stability: A Framework for Analyzing Hybrid Regimes. International Political Science Review. 2009, 30 (1): 7–31. ISSN 0192-5121. S2CID 145077481. doi:10.1177/0192512108097054 可免费查阅. 
  21. ^ Baker, A. Shaping the Developing World: The West, the South, and the Natural World. SAGE. 2021: 202 [2023-04-23]. ISBN 978-1-0718-0709-5. （原始内容存档于2023-04-23）. 
  22. ^ Why Parties and Elections in Dictatorships?. How Dictatorships Work. Cambridge University Press. 2018: 129–153. ISBN 9781316336182. doi:10.1017/9781316336182.006. 
  23. ^ Riaz, Ali. What is a Hybrid Regime?. Voting in a Hybrid Regime. Politics of South Asia. Singapore: Springer. 2019: 9–19. ISBN 978-981-13-7955-0. ISSN 2523-8345. S2CID 198088445. doi:10.1007/978-981-13-7956-7_2. 
  24. ^ Schmotz, Alexander. Hybrid Regimes. The Handbook of Political, Social, and Economic Transformation. Oxford University Press. 2019-02-13: 521–525. ISBN 978-0-19-882991-1. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198829911.003.0053. 
  25. ^ Morlino, Leonardo. Are There Hybrid Regimes?. Changes for DemocracyActors, Structures, Processes. Oxford University Press. 2011-11-01: 48–69. ISBN 978-0-19-957253-3. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199572533.003.0004. 
  26. ^ 26.0 26.1 26.2 Подлесный, Д. В. Политология: Учебное пособие [Political Science: Textbook]. Kharkiv: ХГУ НУА. 2016: 62–65/164 [2019-08-13]. （原始内容存档于2023-04-22） （俄语）. 
  27. ^ Schulmann, Ekaterina. Царство политической имитации [The kingdom of political imitation]. Ведомости. 15 August 2014 [2019-08-13]. （原始内容存档于2019-07-30）. 
  28. ^ Colomer, J. M.; Beale, A. L. Democracy and Globalization: Anger, Fear, and Hope. Taylor & Francis. 2020: 180 [2022-12-27]. ISBN 978-1-000-05363-0. （原始内容存档于2023-04-04）. 
  29. ^ Bogaards, Matthijs. How to classify hybrid regimes? Defective democracy and electoral authoritarianism. Democratization. 2009, 16 (2): 399–423. ISSN 1351-0347. S2CID 145315763. doi:10.1080/13510340902777800. 
  30. ^ Norris, Pippa. Is Western Democracy Backsliding? Diagnosing the Risks. SSRN Electronic Journal (Elsevier). 2017 [2022-12-09]. ISSN 1556-5068. S2CID 157117940. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2933655. （原始内容存档于2023-04-04）. 
  31. ^ Hale, Henry E. Eurasian Polities as Hybrid Regimes: The Case of Putin's Russia. Journal of Eurasian Studies (SAGE Publications). 2010, 1 (1): 33–41. ISSN 1879-3665. doi:10.1016/j.euras.2009.11.001. 
  32. ^ Hameed, Dr. Muntasser Majeed. Hybrid regimes: An Overview. IPRI Journal. 2022-06-30, 22 (1): 1–24. doi:10.31945/iprij.220101 可免费查阅. 
  33. ^ Isaac, J. C. Democracy in Dark Times. Cornell University Press. 1998: 199. ISBN 978-0-8014-8454-4. 
  34. ^ Newton, Kenneth; van Deth, Jan W. Foundations of comparative politics: democracies of the modern world. Cambridge, United Kingdom. 2021. ISBN 978-1-108-92494-8. OCLC 1156414956. 
  35. ^ 35.0 35.1 Huntington, S. P. The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late 20th Century. The Julian J. Rothbaum Distinguished Lecture Series. University of Oklahoma Press. 2012 [November 16, 2022]. ISBN 978-0-8061-8604-7. 
  36. ^ Matthijs Bogaards. 2009. *How to Classify Hybrid Regimes? Defective Democracy and Electoral Authoritarianism". Democratization 16 (2): 399–423.
  37. ^ Gagné, Jean-François. Hybrid Regimes. obo. 2019-05-02 [2022-11-19]. （原始内容存档于2019-07-29）. 
  38. ^ Morlino, Leonardo; Berg-Schlosser, Dirk; Badie, Bertrand. Political Science: A Global Perspective. SAGE. 6 March 2017: 112ff [16 November 2022]. ISBN 978-1-5264-1303-1. OCLC 1124515503. （原始内容存档于16 November 2022）. 
  39. ^ Andreas Schedler, ed. (2006). Electoral Authoritarianism: The Dynamics of Unfree Competition. Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner.
  40. ^ Yonatan L. Morse (January 2012). "Review: The Era of Electoral Authoritarianism". World Politics 64(1). pp. 161—198. 互联网档案馆的存档，存档日期2021-07-29..
  41. ^ Dam, Caspar ten. (PDF) Democratic Transition, Transformation and Development in times of War and Peace: Conceptualisations and Observations. ResearchGate: 5–18. Feb 17, 2017 [Aug 22, 2024].  |volume=被忽略 (帮助); |issue=被忽略 (帮助)
  42. ^ Authoritarianism: What Everyone Needs to Know. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. 2018-09-04 [2023-03-03]. ISBN 978-0-19-088020-0. （原始内容存档于2023-03-03）. 
  43. ^ Foundations of Comparative Politics. VitalSource 4th. [2023-03-03]. ISBN 9781108831826. （原始内容存档于2023-03-02） （英语）. 
  44. ^ Rocha Menocal, Alina; Fritz, Verena; Rakner, Lise. Hybrid regimes and the challenges of deepening and sustaining democracy in developing countries. South African Journal of International Affairs. 2008-06-01, 15 (1): 29–40. ISSN 1022-0461. S2CID 55589140. doi:10.1080/10220460802217934. 
  45. ^ Stroh, Alexander; Elischer, Sebastian; Erdmann, Gero. Origins and Outcomes of Electoral Institutions in African Hybrid Regimes: A Comparative Perspective (报告). German Institute of Global and Area Studies (GIGA). 2012 [2023-03-03]. （原始内容存档于2023-03-03）. 
  46. ^ Ekman, Joakim. Political Participation and Regime Stability: A Framework for Analyzing Hybrid Regimes. International Political Science Review. 2009, 30 (1): 7–31. ISSN 0192-5121. JSTOR 20445173. S2CID 145077481. doi:10.1177/0192512108097054 可免费查阅. 
  47. ^ Schmotz, Alexander. Hybrid Regimes. The Handbook of Political, Social, and Economic Transformation. Oxford University Press. 2019: 521–525 [2023-03-03]. ISBN 978-0-19-882991-1. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198829911.003.0053. （原始内容存档于2023-04-22）. 
  48. ^ Treisman, Daniel. Presidential Popularity in a Hybrid Regime: Russia under Yeltsin and Putin. American Journal of Political Science. 2011, 55 (3): 590–609 [2023-03-03]. ISSN 0092-5853. JSTOR 23024939. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00500.x. （原始内容存档于2023-03-24）. 
  49. ^ Morlino, Leonardo. Are there hybrid regimes? Or are they just an optical illusion?. European Political Science Review. July 2009, 1 (2): 273–296 [2023-03-03]. ISSN 1755-7747. S2CID 154947839. doi:10.1017/S1755773909000198. （原始内容存档于2023-03-03） （英语）. 
  50. ^ Global Dashboard. BTI 2022. [April 17, 2023]. （原始内容存档于April 17, 2023）. 
  51. ^ Nations in Transit Methodology. Freedom House. 2021-12-31 [2022-11-19]. （原始内容存档于2023-03-18）. 
  52. ^ Skaaning, Svend-Erik. Waves of autocratization and democratization: a critical note on conceptualization and measurement. Democratization. 2020, 27 (8): 1533–1542. S2CID 225378571. doi:10.1080/13510347.2020.1799194. 
  53. ^ Lührmann, Anna; Lindberg, Staffan I. A third wave of autocratization is here: what is new about it?. Democratization. 2019, 26 (7): 1095–1113. S2CID 150992660. doi:10.1080/13510347.2019.1582029 可免费查阅. The decline of democratic regime attributes – autocratization 
  54. ^ 54.0 54.1 Mietzner, Marcus. Sources of resistance to democratic decline: Indonesian civil society and its trials. Democratization. 2021, 28 (1): 161–178. S2CID 225475139. doi:10.1080/13510347.2020.1796649. 
  55. ^ Mudde, Cas and Kaltwasser, Cristóbal Rovira (2017) Populism: a Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. pp.86-96. ISBN 978-0-19-023487-4
  56. ^ Laebens, Melis G.; Lührmann, Anna. What halts democratic erosion? The changing role of accountability. Democratization. 2021, 28 (5): 908–928. S2CID 234870008. doi:10.1080/13510347.2021.1897109. 
  57. ^ Daly, Tom Gerald. Democratic Decay: Conceptualising an Emerging Research Field. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law. 2019, 11: 9–36. S2CID 159354232. doi:10.1007/s40803-019-00086-2. 
  58. ^ Huq, Aziz Z. How (not) to explain a democratic recession. International Journal of Constitutional Law. 2021, 19 (2): 723–737. doi:10.1093/icon/moab058. 
  59. ^ Chull Shin, Doh. Democratic deconsolidation in East Asia: exploring system realignments in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. Democratization. 2021, 28 (1): 142–160. S2CID 228959708. doi:10.1080/13510347.2020.1826438. 
  60. ^ Walder, D.; Lust, E. Unwelcome Change: Coming to Terms with Democratic Backsliding. Annual Review of Political Science. 2018, 21 (1): 93–113. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-050517-114628 可免费查阅. Backsliding entails a deterioration of qualities associated with democratic governance, within any regime. In democratic regimes, it is a decline in the quality of democracy; in autocracies, it is a decline in democratic qualities of governance. 
  61. ^ Tilly, Charles. 2007. Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  62. ^ Dahl, Robert Alan. 1998. On Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  63. ^ Held, David. 1995. Democracy and the Global Order: from the Modern State to Cosmopolitan Governance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  64. ^ Arugay, Aries A. Democratic Transitions. The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Global Security Studies. Cham: Springer International Publishing. 2021: 1–7. ISBN 978-3-319-74336-3. S2CID 240235199. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-74336-3_190-1. 
  65. ^ Abjorensen, N. Historical Dictionary of Democracy. Historical Dictionaries of Religions, Philosophies, and Movements Series. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. 2019: 116 [2022-11-19]. ISBN 978-1-5381-2074-3. （原始内容存档于2023-03-26）. 
  66. ^ 66.0 66.1 66.2 66.3 Greenwood, Shannon. Appendix A: Classifying democracies. Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project. 2022-12-06 [2022-12-27]. （原始内容存档于2023-03-05）. 
  67. ^ 67.0 67.1 67.2 Democracy Index 2024需要免费注册. EIU.com. [27 February 2025]. 
  68. ^ The Global State of Democracy. Publications. 2021-11-22 [2022-12-27]. （原始内容存档于2023-03-08）. 
  69. ^ FAQs – The Global State of Democracy Indices. International IDEA. 2021-12-31 [2022-12-27]. （原始内容存档于2023-04-04）. 
  70. ^ International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. The Global State of Democracy 2021: Building resilience in a Pandemic Era. 2021. ISBN 978-91-7671-478-2. OCLC 1288461480. 
  71. ^ Democracy Report 2025, 25 Years of Autocratization – Democracy Trumped? (PDF). [14 March 2025]. 
  72. ^ V-Dem Codebook v11 (PDF). March 2021 [21 April 2023]. （原始内容 (PDF)存档于30 October 2022）. 
  73. ^ Lührmann, Anna; Tannenberg, Marcus; Lindberg, Staffan I. Regimes of the World (RoW): Opening New Avenues for the Comparative Study of Political Regimes. Politics and Governance (Cogitatio). March 19, 2018, 6 (1): 60–77. ISSN 2183-2463. doi:10.17645/pag.v6i1.1214 可免费查阅. 
  74. ^ Boese, Vanessa A.; Lundstedt, Martin; Morrison, Kelly; Sato, Yuko; Lindberg, Staffan I. State of the world 2021: autocratization changing its nature?. Democratization. 2022-05-23, 29 (6): 983–1013. ISSN 1351-0347. S2CID 249031421. doi:10.1080/13510347.2022.2069751 可免费查阅. 
  75. ^ Freedom House. Democracy in Retreat. Freedom in the World. 2019-02-06 [2019-02-06]. （原始内容存档于2019-02-05）. 
  76. ^ 76.0 76.1 76.2 Countries and Territories. Freedom House. [Nov 25, 2022]. （原始内容存档于March 26, 2023）. 
  77. ^ Dobratz, B.A. Power, Politics, and Society: An Introduction to Political Sociology. Taylor & Francis. 2015: 47 [Apr 30, 2023]. ISBN 978-1-317-34529-9. （原始内容存档于April 30, 2023）. 
  78. ^ 78.0 78.1 Juan José Linz. Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes. Lynne Rienner Publisher. 2000: 143 [2022-11-19]. ISBN 978-1-55587-890-0. OCLC 1172052725. （原始内容存档于2023-04-22）. 
  79. ^ Jonathan Michie (编). Reader's Guide to the Social Sciences. Routledge. 3 February 2014: 95 [19 November 2022]. ISBN 978-1-135-93226-8. （原始内容存档于22 April 2023）. 
  80. ^ Allan Todd; Sally Waller. Allan Todd; Sally Waller , 编. History for the IB Diploma Paper 2 AuthoritariaAuthoritarian States (20th Century). Cambridge University Press. 10 September 2015: 10– [19 November 2022]. ISBN 978-1-107-55889-2. （原始内容存档于22 April 2023）. 
  81. ^ Sondrol, P. C. Totalitarian and Authoritarian Dictators: A Comparison of Fidel Castro and Alfredo Stroessner. Journal of Latin American Studies. 2009, 23 (3): 599–620 [2022-11-19]. JSTOR 157386. S2CID 144333167. doi:10.1017/S0022216X00015868. （原始内容存档于2023-03-08）. 
  82. ^ Schedler, Andreas. Electoral Authoritarianism. The SAGE Handbook of Comparative Politics. 1 Oliver's Yard, 55 City Road, London EC1Y 1SP United Kingdom: SAGE Publications Ltd. 2009: 380–393. ISBN 9781412919760. doi:10.4135/9780857021083.n21. 
  83. ^ Levitsky and Way 2002 互联网档案馆的存档，存档日期2022-12-30.; T. Karl 1995 互联网档案馆的存档，存档日期2021-03-01.; L. Diamond 1999 互联网档案馆的存档，存档日期2023-01-31.; A. Schedler 2002 互联网档案馆的存档，存档日期2022-12-30.
  84. ^ Barbara Geddes — Why Parties and Elections in Authoritarian Regimes?; Department of Political Science; March 2006
  85. ^ Brancati, Dawn. Democratic Authoritarianism: Origins and Effects. Annual Review of Political Science (Annual Reviews). May 11, 2014, 17 (1): 313–326. ISSN 1094-2939. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-052013-115248. 
  86. ^ 民主的概念 (PDF). 香港城市大学. [2019-04-30]. （原始内容 (PDF)存档于2019-04-30）. 
  87. ^ 不自由的民主 illiberal democracy. 风传媒. 2018-10-20 [2019-04-30]. （原始内容存档于2021-06-21） （中文（台湾））. 
  88. ^ 苏庆轩. 威權與憲法. 菜市场政治学. 2018-03-01 [2019-04-30]. （原始内容存档于2018-03-14） （中文（台湾））. 宪法也能成为威权统治的窗饰（window dressing），宪法内容虽然载明国内外期待的基本人权保障以及对政府体制的规范，但威权政体却仅相应施行徒具形式而无实质内涵的制度或政策。如第三波民主化后，部分新兴民主国家出现民主倒退与威权复辟，非自由民主（illiberal democracy）政体继之兴起，其徒有民主形式而无实质自由权利保障的统治形态，可说见证了窗饰功能的实践。 
  89. ^ Juan Carlos Calleros, Calleros-Alarcó, The Unifinished Transition to Democracy in Latin America, Routledge, 2009, p. 1.
  90. ^ 人權與民主 (I)：共生或互斥？. 东吴大学. [2018-12-26]. （原始内容存档于2016-11-03）. 
  91. ^ Mounk, Yascha. The People Vs. Democracy - Why Our Freedom Is in Danger and How to Save It. Harvard University Press. 2020-03-18 [2023-03-18]. ISBN 978-0-674-24502-0. （原始内容存档于2022-11-26） （英语）. 
  92. ^ Nyyssönen, Heino; Metsälä, Jussi. Liberal Democracy and its Current Illiberal Critique: The Emperor's New Clothes?. Europe-Asia Studies. 24 September 2020, 73 (2): 273–290. doi:10.1080/09668136.2020.1815654 可免费查阅. Thus, there is a real danger of ‘pseudo-democracy’, especially because elections can be manipulated and often are. In these cases, elections and other democratic institutions are simply adapted patterns of authoritarianism, not democracy in some imperfect form, having the dual purpose of legitimising the incumbent’s rule and guarding it from any danger of democratic change. 
  93. ^ O'Neil, Patrick. Essentials of Comparative Politics. 3rd ed. New York, New York, W. W Norton & Company, 2010. pp. 162–63. Print.
  94. ^ Define illiberal. 5 January 2014 [2018-12-27]. （原始内容存档于2018-10-17）. 
  95. ^ Heywood的政黨體系之分類--一黨獨大制. [2024-08-20]. （原始内容存档于2021-09-24）. 
  96. ^ 印尼的政治发展
  97. ^ 97.0 97.1 里昂·P·巴拉达特. 意识形态:起源和影响（第10版）. 世界图书出版公司北京公司. 2010年4月. ISBN 978-7-5100-1766-7.  293页 （简体中文）
  98. ^ Sheldon Wolin. Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 2008 [2016-12-10]. ISBN 0-691-13566-5. （原始内容存档于2016-04-20）.  47页 （英文）
  99. ^ Weir, Fred. Kremlin lobs another shot at marketplace of ideas. The Christian Science Monitor. October 1, 2003 [2009-11-10]. （原始内容存档于2017-08-02）. 
  100. ^ Levitsky, Steven; Way, Lucan A. Elections Without Democracy: The Rise of Competitive Authoritarianism. Journal of Democracy. April 2002, 13 (2): 51–65. ISSN 1086-3214. doi:10.1353/jod.2002.0026. 
  101. ^ 101.0 101.1 Levitsky, Steven; Way, Lucan A. Competitive Authoritarianism. Cambridge University Press. 2010-08-16. ISBN 978-0-521-88252-1. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511781353. 
  102. ^ 102.0 102.1 Levitsky, Steven; Way, Lucan. The New Competitive Authoritarianism. Journal of Democracy. 2020, 31 (1): 51–65. ISSN 1086-3214. doi:10.1353/jod.2020.0004. 
  103. ^ Diamond, Larry. Elections Without Democracy: Thinking About Hybrid Regimes. Journal of Democracy. April 2002, 13 (2): 21–35. ISSN 1086-3214. S2CID 154815836. doi:10.1353/jod.2002.0025. 
  104. ^ Mufti, Mariam. What Do We Know about Hybrid Regimes after Two Decades of Scholarship?. Politics and Governance. 2018-06-22, 6 (2): 112–119. ISSN 2183-2463. doi:10.17645/pag.v6i2.1400 可免费查阅. 

延伸阅读

[编辑]

当代的分析

[编辑]

研究历史

[编辑]

The researchers conducted a comparative analysis of political regimes around the world (Samuel Finer 1970), in developing countries (Almond and Coleman, 1960 互联网档案馆的存档，存档日期2023-04-04.), among Latin America (Collier 1979) and West Africa regimes (Zolberg, 1966). Types of non-democratic regimes are described (Linz, 2000, originally published in 1975 and Perlmutter, 1981). Huntington and Moore (Huntington and Moore, 1970) discuss the one-party system issue Hermet (Guy Hermet, Rose, & Rouquie 1978) explores how elections are held in such authoritarian regimes, which are nominally democratic institutions.

"Hybrid regimes" (Diamond 2002), "competitive authoritarianism" (Levitsky and Way 2002 互联网档案馆的存档，存档日期2019-08-08.) and "electoral authoritarianism" (Schedler, 2006) as well as how officials who came to power in an undemocratic way form election rules (Lust-Okar and Jamal, 2002 互联网档案馆的存档，存档日期2019-07-30.), institutionalize electoral frauds (Lehoucq 2003 互联网档案馆的存档，存档日期2022-03-13., Schedler 2002 互联网档案馆的存档，存档日期2019-08-26.) and manipulate the economy (L. Blaydes 互联网档案馆的存档，存档日期2023-04-04. 2006, Magaloni 2006) in order to win the election and stay in power.

外部链接

[编辑]
检索自“https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:混合政權&oldid=86931070”