Introduction

The global rise of populism is driving a process of democratic erosion. Accordingly, scholarly attention has shifted from processes of democratization to de-democratization trajectories; or, how democracies perish after they have transitioned from authoritarianism. This chapter distinguishes between populism (a political strategy) and competitive authoritarianism (a regime type). The chapter enumerates the conceptual contributions of this book, primarily, that the rise to power of populism can lead to regime change by creating significant power asymmetries. However, while unconstrained populism in power can lead to hybrid regimes or even full-scale authoritarianism, strong judiciaries, and other institutional actors, can contain or constrain populism in power, preventing regime change. The chapter offers a new definition of populism that includes a governance dimension that is missing in other definitions and argues that Alberto Fujimori, Hugo Chávez, Álvaro Uribe, Evo Morales, and Rafael Correa are examples of populism.

State Regulation of Organized Civil Society in Hybrid Regimes: A Systematic Assessment of Cross-National Variations in the Regulation of Civil Society Organizations in Seven Post-Soviet Countries

How do the post-Soviet countries differ in their regulatory approaches to organized civil society? This study provides a systematic and comprehensive assessment of relative differences and similarities in the regulation of civil society organizations in seven post-Soviet countries: Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, and Ukraine. Empirically, the study offers a regulatory index that makes it possible to map and compare relative differences and similarities between these countries’ regulatory approaches to civil society. The findings show that post-Soviet authoritarian countries do not use similar levels of repression against organized civil society. The study provides an account of how different political configurations explain relative differences in the extent to which post-Soviet authoritarian countries repress their respective civil societies.

The mutual constitution of illiberal civil society and neoauthoritarianism: Evidence from Turkey

Recent scholarship on state–civil society dynamics in neoauthoritarian contexts demonstrates that the space for civil society is rapidly shrinking worldwide. Faced with legal, administrative, and extralegal measures that restrict operations and resources, civil society actors are forced to choose between marginalization or co-optation. This article examines the ruling party–Islamic civil society symbiosis in Turkey and identifies mutual constitution as an alternative model of the state–civil society relationship in hybrid regimes. Defined as utilitarian reciprocity between the ruling authority and civil society actors where both parties expand and consolidate their respective domains, the mutually constitutive relationship between the AKP government and Islamic civil society actors has facilitated the consolidation of neoauthoritarianism. Drawing attention to the recent rise of conservative civil society actors worldwide, the article urges the civil society and neoauthoritarianism research program to shift its focus to non-state actors that endorse non-democratic socio-political agendas and function as co-constitutors of illiberal regimes.

The crisis of the classical concept of liberal democracy in the context of modern challenges

The main aim of this paper is to examine the problem of the crisis of liberal democracy in the modern world, referring to the phenomenon of a loss of balance between social and personal good in a pluralistic society. There are several concepts of democracy in political science, including the classic liberal concept, which sees its core priorities collide with recent global challenges. Thus, the relevance of this problem refers to the recent disappointment in the idea of liberal democracy, which shows disillusionment in democracy as such. In response to this trend, some hybrid regimes offer an alternative in the form of so-called democracies with illiberal approaches. From the other side, the liberal democratic platforms are used by populist political forces, which results in dividing democratic societies about the questions hard to finally solve. The Brexit problem – the process of British exit from the European Union – shows recent examples of long-lasting social effects derived from the crisis of liberal democratic concept. The author of the article has come to the conclusion that when it comes to modern democratic processes, classic liberal approach brings the populism threat back to the table. When there is no balance between the totally free civil society with its direct democratic influences and the state structure with formal procedures aimed at total good of beneficial functioning, the liberal instruments would be used by populists. Populism can create severe divisions within liberal democratic societies providing dilemmas, such as Brexit, which are difficult to solve with the same liberal democratic procedures. This means that liberal democratic approach undermines itself with the very fact of the existing tendency to lose balance between the ideal personal freedom (that includes satisfying every citizen’s choice) and public good.

Civil Society in Hybrid Regimes: Trade Union Activism in Post-2003 Iraq

This article explores the relationship between hybrid regimes and civil society. It examines the extant debate between ‘neo-Tocquevilleans’ and their opponents over whether or not a robust civil society portends democratic transition and consolidation. It demonstrates the limits of these two models by arguing that civil society in hybrid regimes can in fact agitate against the state, advocate for democratic freedoms and achieve significant political reforms even when these do not lead to broader democratization. To demonstrate, this article documents the case of the Iraqi Federation of Oil Unions through 15 years of complex Iraqi politics, from the 2003 US-led intervention and during the incumbency of Prime Minister’s Maliki (2006–2014) and Abadi (2014–2018). By analysing primary materials produced by and about the Iraqi Federation of Oil Unions, it finds that this case holds important lessons for those seeking to understand the complex interface between civil society and the state in hybrid regimes.