Identify different kinds of non-democratic regimes
Recognize examples of different non-democracies in the world, past and present
Introduction
Given the diversity of regimes that are commonly labeled ‘non-democracy’, one first cut at analytical clarity is devising a typology to categorize different non-democracies by their essential characteristics. Typologies offer a powerful means for thinking analytically about a group, by dividing it into subgroups based on certain criteria. This section will explore a few of the major types of non-democracies that exist in the world, past and present.
A typology of non-democracies
Creating a typology is an important descriptive exercise. It helps to establish the “lay of the land” and distinguish key characteristics of items within a category. Typologies can be a helpful first step for further analysis. After dividing non-democracies into types A, B, C, and D, for example, a researcher can then ask deeper questions such as: Which type of non-democracy lasts longer, on average? Which type tends to fall into conflict or remain at peace for longer stretches of time? Which enjoys more economic stability? Do types tend to cluster in certain regions of the world?
Typologies of non-democracies are an example of a nominal measure of regime type. That is, the items in this typology are not ranked, or ordinal, in relationship to one another. Rather, this typology presents a nominal measure, where non-democracies are divided into sub-groups based on certain characteristics. These sub-groups are sorted based on the two characteristics identified below but there isn’t a hierarchy between groups.
Typologies present challenges. Since most things in the social world are dynamic, a typology may work for a certain period of time but then fail to capture changes such as the emergence of a new type or expiration of old types. The rise of modern fascist and communist regimes in the twentieth century prompted some scholars to argue that a new type of non-democracy, totalitarianism, had arisen. To this day scholars debate whether totalitarianism is a useful term.
A second challenge is one of fit. Some observations may not slot neatly into the types offered by a given typology but rather combine characteristics of two or even more types. This kind of combination is observable in the real world of non-democracies. It highlights how types within our typology of non-democracies are not mutually exclusive: one country may fit several types or change types over time.
In short, typologies are grounded in certain underlying characteristics that divide a group into subgroups. Typologies are dynamic and can shift with changes in those underlying characteristics of the category being observed. New types of non-democracies are identified over time, scholars argue that they have identified something distinct, and a new type may eventually become widely accepted by specialists and more casual observers. Illiberal or hybrid regimes, which will be discussed below, is one example of this phenomenon.
There exist many typologies for dividing up the diverse countries classified as non-democracies in the world. The typology presented here provides analytical leverage for thinking about variation within this regime type. Our typology of non-democracies depends on two qualitative factors, namely, leadership characteristics and sources of legitimacy. Leadership focuses on questions such as whether the core leadership comprises one or several people. Beyond how many people are in power, there are further questions about leadership characteristics: Are civilians or the military in power? Do the leaders all come from a certain institution, such as a political party or religious group? A second major consideration focuses on the foundations of regime authority: What are the animating ideas that lend legitimacy to the regime? Is the regime guided by a religion or a particular ideology?
When considering these two sets of factors, leadership characteristics and bases for regime legitimacy, we can focus on five major types of non-democracy in the world today. These are theocracies, personalist regimes or monarchies, single-party regimes or oligarchies, military regimes, and hybrid or illiberal regimes. Table 5.3.1 summarizes these types.
Table 5.3.1: Types of non-democracies based on leadership characteristics and sources of legitimacy
Type of non-democracy
Leadership characteristics
Sources of legitimacy
Theocracy
Single leader or collective rule
Religious texts
Personalist or monarchy
Single leader
Variable: Religion, charisma, tradition
Single-party rule or oligarchy
Collective rule
Variable: Religion, political ideology such as communism, fascism
Military rule
Variable: Single leader or collective rule, all military
Variable: Religion, political ideology, beliefs about military competence
Illiberal regime
Variable
Variable, but all have a veneer of liberal democracy
Theocracy
Theocracies are as old as organized religion. Many theocracies are non-democracies in which the authority of political leaders is grounded in a sacred text. These texts provide divine legitimacy to political leaders, who are not accountable to the public. Within theocracies, political institutions are organized in accordance with prescriptions in a sacred text, notably executive office, the legal code, legal system, and schools. Some current non-democratic theocracies are those organized around Islam, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran. The Vatican, another non-democratic theocracy, is organized around Roman Catholicism.
Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\):The Holy See, or Vatican City, is a contemporary example of a theocracy. It is governed by Roman Catholic texts and led by a pope. Consecrated in 1626, St. Peter’s Basilica (pictured here) is the largest Christian church in the world. (Source: Facade of St. Peter's Basilica in Vatican City byCIA World Factbook is licensed under Public Domain)
Personalist rule and monarchy
Non-democracies characterized by personalist rule are led by a single leader. That leader may derive their legitimacy from a variety of sources. These include the personal charisma of that leader or their ability to serve as a convincing interpreter of a political ideology for all of society. An example of the former is Idi Amin of Uganda (r. 1971-1979), and an example of the latter is Fidel Castro of Cuba (r. 1959-2008). Some personalist leaders come to power through family dynasties, such as the al-Assad family in Syria. In all of these cases, personalist leaders are not subject to formal mechanisms of accountability.
Personalist rule is often combined with other types of non-democracy, for example a charismatic leader may rely upon the organizational heft of a ruling party or the military to remain in power. Idi Amin was a commander in the Ugandan army; Fidel Castro commanded the formidable organizational apparatus of the Communist Party of Cuba and Cuban Revolutionary Armed Forces.
Figure \(\PageIndex{2}\):Fidel Castro was a charismatic leader of Cuba. He is pictured here (right) next to fellow revolutionary Che Guevara. (Source:Che Guevara & Fidel Castro by Alberto KordaWikipedia is licensed underPublic Domain)
Personalist rule tends to be unstable due to problems of succession. A personalist ruler might be hesitant to designate a successor because that successor then has incentives to depose them from power. But if a successor is not designated, then instability is likely to set in upon the ruler’s death.
A monarchy is similar to personalist rule in that there is a single leader, but the bases of legitimacy tend to be grounded in tradition or sacred texts. The Vatican City, introduced previously as a theocracy, is also self-described as an “absolute monarchy” because it is led by a pope. The Kingdom of Bahrain is an example of a constitutional monarchy and has been led by the Al-Khalifa family since 1783.
In contrast to personalist rule, single-party rule and oligarchies are shaped by collective leadership. Oligarchies are an older form of nondemocratic collective rule. In these systems, elites control political office and national resources and are not accountable to the public for their actions. The Roman Republic was a kind of oligarchy in that only the very wealthy could hold high political office. Political scientist Jeffrey Winters has theorized that there are two key dimensions to oligarchies. First, the wealth of oligarchs is difficult to seize and disperse. Second, their power extends systemically, across the entire regime (Winters 2011). In the contemporary world, some have pointed to Russia as subject to a great deal of political influence by oligarchs, though it is not formally an oligarchy.
The overriding characteristic of single-party rule is leadership by members of a political party. Prominent examples include the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (1917-1991) and the PRI (Partido Revolucionario Institucional) of Mexico (1929-2000). The latter is especially interesting because PRI rule took place in an environment of multi-party competition, but the competition was so skewed in favor of the PRI that Mexico was subject to single-party rule for decades. A ruling party may have a clear guiding ideology, such as communist parties of the twentieth century, or instead be similar to the political parties that we see in the United States: organizations for selecting political talent and unifying political elites.
Single-party regimes can be quite stable. For this reason, single-party regimes have been on the rise worldwide since the 1970s (Figure 5.1). Over the period 1972 to 2005, non-democracies led by a ruling party increased from 60 percent of all non-democracies to 85 percent.
Figure \(\PageIndex{4}\):Single-party regimes as a percent of non-democratic regimes over the period 1972-2005 (Data source: Hadenius and Teorell, 2007) (Source: One-Party regimes as a percent of non-democratic regimes, 1972-2005, by Charlotte Lee is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Today one of the most powerful countries in the world, the People’s Republic of China, is an example of single-party rule. Political leadership over the billion-plus people of China resides in the Politburo of the Chinese Communist Party, a body comprising around twenty individuals. Within the Politburo is the Politburo Standing Committee, a body typically comprising between seven and one dozen high officials; from this inner group emanate all major decisions guiding contemporary China.
Military rule
Military rule is characterized by military elites, rather than civilians, running the government. There are various reasons why militaries rise to political power in a society. One is that they possess the material means – the weapons and organizational capacity – to seize control over a society. On the demand side, a population might support military rule because of popular perceptions of the competence of the military, especially if there are charismatic or well-known generals leading the military. In some cases, the military might appear to be a particularly stable and orderly institution during a time of political turmoil. This in turn may appeal to certain segments of society (such as economic elites, who especially value stability) or entire war-weary societies.
There exists a continuum for thinking about the role of militaries within a polity. On one end of this continuum, developed democracies are grounded in civilian control of the military. In the example of Canada, the commander-in-chief of the Canadian military is the Canadian monarch.The reverse, total military control over the civilian population, falls on the opposite end of this continuum, and in these nondemocratic situations the military is not accountable to the public, even for gross human rights violations. Burma is a prominent example of a country which has been subject to repressive military rule for significant chunks of its post-colonial independence since 1948. The Burmese military, known as the Tatmadaw, appeared to allow some liberalization and turn toward civilian leadership during the 2010s, but in the 2020s it has again asserted control over the country and its political apparatus.
Military rule rose and fell in frequency during the twentieth century. In the post-World War II period, military regimes peaked at 40 percent of all nondemocracies in the world, then fell to approximately 15 percent of nondemocracies worldwide by the turn of the twenty-first century (Gandhi 2008).
Illiberal and hybrid regimes
The idea of an illiberal regime – that is, one that mixes characteristics of liberal democracies but is decidedly illiberal in other respects – emerged in the twentieth century when it became clear that many aspiring democracies born immediately after the end of the Cold War (1989-1991), from Romania to Kazakhstan, were sliding into nondemocratic habits. Even more, this seemed to be a trend affecting many young democracies that had emerged even earlier in the twentieth century.
An illiberal regime might have multiple political parties, a partially free media, and partially free and fair elections. Institutions that are central to a liberal democracy are, in an illiberal context, weak and subject to manipulation by those with economic power and political influence. In an article exploring the rise of this form of government Fareed Zakaria observed that, “Far from being a temporary or transitional stage, it appears that many countries are settling into a form of government that mixes a substantial degree of democracy with a substantial degree of illiberalism,” (Zakaria, 1997, p. 24). In short, illiberal democracies exist in an in-between zone where there are nondemocratic institutions or practices in place, yet also some of the markers of democracy. One open-ended question is whether illiberal democracy will remain a distinct status for many countries for long stretches of time or whether they will trend more decisively toward either non-democracy or democracy.
Hybrid regimes are separate but related to illiberal regimes. The category of “hybrid regime” is an acknowledgement that many of the types of nondemocracies described previously are “ideal” types and many nondemocracies combine features of more than one type. North Korea is an example of a “triple hybrid” – a combination of a single-party system led by a personalist leader (from the Kim dynasty) with a politically powerful military. China under President Xi Jinping may be moving toward a hybrid of personalist rule and single-party rule.
Table 5.3.2 offers a summary of the different types of nondemocracies explored in this section, dominant characteristics, and some examples.
Table 5.3.2: Types of nondemocracies, distinguishing characteristics, and examples
Type of Nondemocracy
Dominant Characteristics
Examples
Theocracy
Rule by religious elite in accordance with sacred texts
Iran, 1979-present
Personalist rule and monarchy
Rule by a single individual; in the case of a monarchy, the monarch derives legitimacy from tradition
Idi Amin of Uganda, 1971-79
Kingdom of Bahrain, 1971-present
Single-party rule and oligarchy
Collective rule by a group of elites, in the case of single-party rule via the ruling party
Soviet Union under the CPSU, 1917/22-1991
Mexico under PRI, 1929-2000
China under the CCP, 1949-present
Military rule
Rule by military elites
Burma, 1962-2011
Venezuela, 1899-1945, 1948-1958
Illiberal regime
Veneer of liberal democratic institutions that are subverted by political elites
