smartcybers786@gmail.com 
#Hybrid #authoritarian #regimes #Political #Economy
In the state of democracy in 2024, Pakistan’s ranking dropped six places. It was one of the “10 worst actors” in the Democracy Index, which was recently published by the Economist Intelligence Unit.
The report reviews global democratic trends in 165 independent countries and two areas, which reviews five important dimensions: electoral process and pluralism. Government’s work; Political participation; Political culture; And urban freedoms. Countries have been ranked in four types of government – complete democracy. Poor Democracy; The hybrid government; Or the dictatorial government is based on their scores in these areas.
Pakistan’s ranking ranked 124th globally, with a total score of 2.84, which placed the country in the rule of the dictatorial government. This reduction reflects a wide range of democratic decline, and dictatorial governments are becoming increasingly increasingly oppressed. The report attributes the overall decline in the World Democrats Index to deteriorating conditions in the authoritarian governments, which suggests that such governments are growing more roaming and increasing.
This trend indicates challenges facing global democracy. It also highlights Pakistan’s worst political environment. Historically, Pakistan’s journey with democracy has been turbulent and has been subjected to significant instability.
The main problem in Pakistan is the structure of the developed state of the state. In some state institutions, the concentration of power has strongly restricted the role of civilian leadership in the formation of the country’s political landscape.
Given this context, the question of ranking Pakistan’s current political system has become a point of view, especially in the field of liberal arts. Is the current governance structure a hybrid government, which connects the elements of democracy and dictatorship, or is it more accurately declared authoritarian?
But first examine these two concepts and their evolutionary process.
In the 1990s, the concept of a hybrid government emerged, as part of the third wave about democratic and transition. Hybrid governments are seen falling between full democracies and complete suicide. Over time, the idea of hybrid governments was created, eventually known as the “fourth wave” of the Republic. In this context it has been suggested that a transition can lead to democracy or dictatorship, but it can also contain a middle land.
In the literature of democratic making, scholars use different terms to describe hybrid governments. This government is often thought to occupy a brown area between democracy and sovereignty. Hybrids combine elements of both democratic and authoritarian systems. The ongoing debate has given rise to dialogue about various sub -types of hybrid governments.
In the literature of democratic making, scholars use different terms to describe hybrid governments. These governments are thought to have occupied a brown area between democracy and sovereignty.
Since 2006, the majority of the world’s political systems have been classified as hybrid governments. According to the 2020 index of economists, 57 of the 167 analyzed countries are dictatorial. There are 35 hybrid governments. 52 is considered poor democracy. And the rest are democratic democracies. This means that at least 52 % of these governments fall into the “gray zone” between democracy and sovereignty, regardless of the terms used to explain them.
Hybrid governments, mixing democratic and authoritarian elements, have no new trend. In fact, he existed in regions like Latin America, Africa, Southeast Asia and parts of Europe in the 1960s and 1970s. There were multilateral electoral systems here, but governance was still undemocratic. In Latin America, during the 19th and early 20th centuries, some of the most outgorant democracies turned into more democratic systems, which established key political institutions and principles to restrict power and ensure leadership succession.
In the 1990s, especially in the second half of the decade, hybrid governments were often seen as democrats on the path of democratic stability. The root of this theory was in the parable of the transfer of the 1990s, which considered these governments interim.
In other words, these governments met some basic democratic standards, but still have important flaws. For example, he often restricted freedom of expression and limited access to information. Citizens’ participation in the political process was less, and non -elected institutions sometimes took power over elected officials, which creates imbalances that are in favor of those living in power.
Dictatorship refers to a system of government where electricity is concentrated in the hands of a leader or a small elite, and there is no method for peaceful transfer. These governments deny the freedoms and political rights of the citizens and important decisions can be made without considering the will of the people. Although this term is often used to describe undemocratic governments, studies show that authoritarian governments may vary significantly in their working procedures.
Although most of the dictatorial governments have circles, they strictly restrict the freedoms of both citizens and practically. People may express their opinion on insensitive issues, but discussing some topics often have severe consequences for threatening national security.
Civil society has a lot of restrictions, in which organizations are subject to strict rules and surveillance, especially if they receive foreign financing. Many people should register with the state and face checks for any suspicious activity.
The press, when not always public property, is controlled. Journalists and media outlets face the limits of government criticism, which resulted in violations resulting in imprisonment, harassment, fines and licenses. In some cases, governments ensure that the media is controlled by loyal supporters.
Although authoritarian governments may have legislators, political parties and judiciary, these institutions lack real power. The legislature is often filled with loyalists who never oppose the leader, and opposition and judicial freedom are minimal. For example, in Egypt, President Al -Sisi’s government has repeatedly dissolved or ignored Parliament with very little legislative process since its elections.
Judges are sometimes instructed by the executive how to handle politically sensitive issues. This exercise, called the “telephone law”, allows powerful people to ignore legal rules.
The author is a professor at the Faculty of Liberal Arts at the Beacon House National University in Lahore.
