Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Anocratic regimes, also known as hybrid regimes, are known for having guided democracy instead of liberal democracy. They combine authoritarian powers with some democratic practices, for example holding elections that are competitive to some degree. In a closed anocracy, competitors are drawn from the elite. In an open anocracy, others also ...
For example, there are policymakers who believe (wrongly, in my view) that the rise of China should be the only concern of U.S. national security policy. In that view, aid for Ukraine, then, is at ...
This article lists forms of government and political systems, which are not mutually exclusive, and often have much overlap. [1] 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 hybrid regimes.
Cuba for example, is an anocratic regime with both autocratic and democratic attributes. In Cuba, the Communist Party has complete control over the nation but there are still democratic attributes, namely the National Assembly of Popular Power, whose 600 members are elected for five-year terms by popular vote.
According to Kei Hiruta, it is a popular, yet contested, position in historiography today to exclude Fascist Italy from the list of totalitarian regimes. Hannah Arendt in The Origins of Totalitarianism disputes that Italy was a totalitarian state, [ 17 ] at least until 1938.
Democratic backsliding [a] or autocratization is a process of regime change toward autocracy in which the exercise of political power becomes more arbitrary and repressive. [7] [8] [9] The process typically restricts the space for public contest and political participation in the process of government selection.
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 ...
The more serious criticism of American DG work in the region is that it can lead to more harm than good. "Dishonest" democratization involving superficial political liberalization can serve as a facade for continued authoritarianism and repression of civil society, [80] and even help reinforce and stabilize autocratic regimes. [81]