My post today is more a factual one with little opinion, but it is a topic that I am interested in as well as it is being relevant today, as certain countries are becoming possibly classified as having a hybrid regime. Yet notice that I used the word “possible” as there has been much debate amongst social scientists whether “hybrid regimes” can be used as a correct term for certain countries as they argue that a country is more democratic than authoritarian and cannot be in the middle. I do agree yet hybrid regimes is a more specific way of classifying a political system of a country which is why I do think this term should be used. 

My definition of a hybrid regime is a state that combines democratic features with authoritarian governing principles. They often occur because of an incomplete transition between the two political systems. Typically, an unrest occurs within these regimes but there are certain periods of relative stability. I will look at the case studies of Russia and Hungary, observing the extent to which these countries can be considered hybrid regimes. Overall, I believe that these regimes can be effective in ensuring a relatively stable governance, but when assessed more closely it is often much harder to maintain the balance between a democratic and authoritarian regime.

Hybrid regimes are unique for different countries so I will begin by talking about how Hungary has created their own regime. Hungary does still seem democratic on the surface, with elections held every four years, freedom of speech and opposition parties are in existence and generally tolerated. Yet, there are some important democratic aspects that the president Viktor Orban has compromised. For example he has disregarded LGBTQ+ rights, the independence of the judiciary is under threat and there are also issues about the media pluralism. This has been raised by the EU parliament, stating that Hungarian government has undermined the core values of the EU and has not been demonstrating fully democratic values. Whist the country is still able to function well purely from the administrative side of things, there seem to be still more unhappy citizens than those in the UK (a fully democratic country) as certain rights have been either curtailed or completely seized from them, leaving them with no choice but to struggle. Orban has also taken control of certain aspects of his country such as the media and he has been accused of turning it pro governmental therefore diminishing or removing any democratic opposition. This is an aspect of authoritarian rule which is a contributing reason to why the country has been classified as a hybrid regime. As a result there has been backlash and violent riots which has led to Orban as the de facto ruler struggling. Yet there is one major setback from introducing authoritarian aspects into a democracy: other countries will notice and thus their relationships may deteriorate with the country, heralding greater disadvantages. This has happened to Hungary who disagrees frequently with NATO and the EU as well as also leaning towards a fellow hybrid regime country, Russia. I believe that Hungary is a hybrid regime to a great extent as whilst democracy is still utilised, it can be regarded as surface level and aspects of authoritarian are attempted to be masked but still restrict society.

Russia is a country well known for its leader, Putin. He has been at the forefront of the country for 25 years and has established his regime since then. It can be said that Russia has more authoritarian aspects than democratic yet it still holds regular elections and supposedly allows for freedom of speech. Yet, Putin rules by fear and people vote for him in elections as they may face grave consequences otherwise. Russia can be described as having more authoritarian facets than democratic such as Putin's great control over the media and influence over the people. Putin is often labelled as a dictator thus his country is often categorised as under authoritarian rule. Thus the extent to which the country is a hybrid regime has been questioned. Russia has been subject to various international sanctions by the western countries as a result of its invasion to Ukraine. In my opinion, Russia is a hybrid democracy to a minimal extent as it has many more authoritarian aspects than democratic, as Putin has been a longstanding leader who has created a great influence over the political system of the country. Compared to Hungary it is much further down the scale away from democracy and it would be hard for Russia to revert back to democratic ideals, if Putin were to go, without a major regime and cultural change.

To conclude, both Russia and Hungary certainly have aspects of a hybrid regime but the extent to which they both are members, differs. Hungary can be seen to be more of a hybrid regime due to the great balance between democratic and authoritarian aspects. Yet, I believe Russia has more authoritarian aspects which means it is more a dictatorship than any other system.