«DEMOCRACY» OR «AUTOCRACY»: HOW TO ESCAPE THE GREY ZONE OF HYBRIDITY

Abstract

The article is devoted to the current approaches to the study of hybrid regimes, the history of this concept and the problems that arise in connection with the theory of hybrid regimes. The author analyses how the third wave of democratisation has led to the emergence of a «grey zone» between democracies and dictatorships, which in turn has led to the emergence of the theory of hybrid regimes. It is determined that the central issue in the study of hybrid regimes is the notion of democracy and autocracy. The author analyses how the concept of democracy has changed from the minimalist procedural approach of Joseph Schumpeter to the polyarchy of Robert Dahl. Two main approaches to understanding ‘hybridity’ are considered: as the interpenetration of authoritarian and democratic components, and as the superiority of informal rules over formal ones. It is found that the main problem with theories of hybrid regimes is that they focus either on ‘imperfect democracies’ or ‘soft dictatorships’, which leads to an internal contradiction: the theory of hybrid regimes lacks a holistic analysis of hybridity. The author describes how this problem is being addressed by contemporary researchers. The emphasis is placed on Matthijs Bogaards «double-rooted strategy» with a parallel analysis of democracies and autocracies, and Yuri Matsiyevsky’s analysis of the relationship between formal and informal rules. As a result of the study, it is proposed to use the concept of a ‘hybrid regime’ as a starting point for the research, which should prevent bias towards the study of democracies or autocracies. However, the ultimate goal of studying specific political regimes should be their qualification them using dichotomous approach.