Recently, the new Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has pleased the scientific world, saying that it would be good to build Hungary’s illiberal democracy in the Russian manner, and that the liberal model as it has exhausted itself. However, he quite astutely that “the most popular topic of thought now – like working systems that are not Western, liberal, or liberal democracies”.
Indeed, there is nothing more relevant in contemporary political science than the study of hybrid regimes. Terms for them there are many, reflecting the unsettled nature of the research subject: illiberal democracy simulation democracy, electoral authoritarianism, autocracy nyiraneza.
That may be useful to give this leading edge of science practice? The nature of hybrid regimes is important to understand to avoid Intrusive historical analogies and wasting time waiting, when the window comes fascism or rise the dawn of Soviet power.
Historical pessimism is always in fashion – it is believed that the main lesson of the twentieth century is that at any moment things could get worse than it was, and no amount of civilization will not prevent from a sudden bout of savagery. But “worse” and “better” are terms of appraisal, and popular arguments about the bottom, into which is tapped and other Chronicles of the coming Apocalypse sound convincing, but the rational basis for them than the custom to spit over the left shoulder and the fear of the evil eye. To make decisions on such a basis no less rashly than to follow the optimistic principle of “maybe blow over”.
1. A hybrid regime is an authoritarian at a new historical stage. You know, what is the difference between authoritarian and totalitarian regimes: authoritarian regime encourages citizens to passivity, totalitarian mobilization. A totalitarian regime requires the participation: who is not marching and singing, he is disloyal. The authoritarian regime by various methods convinces citizens to stay home: who too cheerfully marching and singing too loud, he suspected, regardless of the ideological content of the songs and direction of the marches.
2. Hybrid modes of the plant mainly in the resource countries, sometimes called petrostates (although zhizneobespecheniya resource is not necessarily oil). That is, the mode in which the money gets wasted, and not from people’s work and natural resource. The population they only hinders and creates additional risks the cherished dream of hybrid mode – tenure.
In the heart of the regime – there is the idea that Russia is credited with somehow Margaret Thatcher – it would be nice to have X citizens to maintain the pipe (wells, mines), and the rest would be somewhere to go. For this reason, the regime is afraid of any mobilization – there are no institutions that use civic engagement and civic participation.
3. Western researchers, called hybrid mode illiberal democracy or electoral authoritarianism, pay attention to one side on the decorative quality of its democratic institutions. In hybrid regimes, elections are held, but the government as a result of their not changing, there are a few TV channels, but they all say the same thing, there is opposition, but no one opposes. So, say Western analysts, it’s all decorative tinsel, under which hides what? Good old-fashioned authoritarianism.
In fact, a hybrid mode is a simulation in two ways: he not only feigns democracy, which is not, but also depicts the dictatorship, which also does not exist in reality. Easy to see that the democratic façade is made of papier-mache – it is difficult to understand that the Stalin moustache is also false. This is difficult because modern man “turned to violence” and “low repression” — morally dubious terms. We live in a humanistic age, we are appalled at the casualties, according to European concepts of the twentieth century insignificant.
4. Hybrid mode trying to solve its main task – ensuring the tenure of power is a relatively low level of violence. It has at its disposal neither the moral capital of the monarchy, nor the repressive machinery of totalitarianism. You cannot deploy what is called a flywheel of repression without the active participation of citizens — and citizens of the hybrid modes do not want to get involved. Characteristically, the state propaganda in hybrid regimes does not give a mobilizing effect. It brings together citizens according to the principle of passivity.
Look at the Russian 87% who approve everything from military incursions to a grocery sanctions. To the question “approve?” they answer “Yes” — and what they do? Nothing. They are not recorded in the volunteer battalions, provienne don’t go to rallies, they even elections are not particularly go, why is hybrid mode have to endlessly care about turnout and vote rigging. From the politically-driven activities of them are seen only withdrawing money from Bank accounts and transfer them into dollars and also purchase butter.
Propaganda with dizzying effectiveness forms the opinion of precisely those people whose opinion doesn’t matter – not because it’s some kind of poor second-class people, and because their opinions did not correlate with their actions. They can provide the authorities with approval, but not support — they are unreliable.
5. The regime understands your reptilian brain (which in this case is not a curse, and neurophysiological term – the reptilian brain is in charge of the action in case of danger), 87 % approve are not subject to the political process, and the only one whose opinion matters is an active minority. This explains the “paradox of the legislator” — why the government, with its seemingly cohesive popular support, does not enjoy this support, and accepts all the new laws are repressive-defensive content. The adopted laws are intended to find this active minority, perhaps they have a second nationality? or they are somehow connected with public organizations? or are they bloggers? go to meetings? or at least like to smoke in restaurants? How to grope and squeeze – not too much, but slightly – better yet to convince that they are insignificant renegades, and it would be good to go.Hybrid mode ever of its citizens does not deter – on the contrary, encourages active minority to leave.
6. Hybrid regimes are quite stable and tenacious – they benefit almost market economies and a partially free public environment, and therefore do not fall apart zautra like a classic dictatorship. This should be taken into account as awaiting remake of the collapse of the USSR and awaiting his sudden revival. At the sixteenth year of the reign hit the floor and turn into brave fascist as difficult as ubitsya the wall and to revive the radiant liberal.
This does not mean, however, that hybrid mode is stable: he wants stability, and for the sake of it is ready for any shocks. The root of this apparent contradiction lies in the decision-making mechanism – koshcheeva needle hybrid mode. Successively cutting and scoring garbage all the feedback channels, the regime is forced to act largely by touch. For a reality, it is the TV talking to himself, the elite, specially selected according to the principle of incompetence and internal sense of the leader, whose heart must be beating in unison with the heart of the popular, but over the years of stay in isolation tend to rassoglasovaniya and beat in the same rhythm.
Therefore, the regime constantly guess what his act or omission would be acceptable for external and internal audiences – and when wrong (assuming, for example, that from step X to happen “loss of face”, from step Y, the opposite does not happen ill effects), then no leverage error correction had not. Hybrid reverse is not – it is stable, but maneuverable.
7. You have to understand that the very appearance of imitation democracies is not a result of the corruption of democracies nikitinyh, and the fruit of the progress of manners, which no longer allows the use of violence so widely and carelessly as it was made fifty years ago. If “hypocrisy is the tribute that Vice pays to virtue, imitation is the tax which dictatorship pays to democracy
Related Articles
Check Also
The UN’s ‘unofficial man’
Raphael Lemkin, a stateless Jewish refugee who died penniless, gave mankind’s greatest crime its name. …