Can autocratic governments that incorporate elements of democracy provide good governance? The authors approach this question with an inductive study of Russia, which is widely regarded as a leading hybrid regime and an innovator in the field. They argue that for most of the past decade, and especially during Vladimir Putin’s second term as president, Russia has been characterized by a hybrid regime that strongly resembles those in many other Eurasian states, as well as Venezuela and Iran. This type of regime combines a high degree of state centralization with the gutting of democratic institutions, and their systematic replacement with substitutions that are intended to serve some of their positive functions without challenging the incumbent leaders’ hold on power.
The label chosen for this system, overmanaged democracy, reflects three central findings. First, this system has enabled Russia’s leaders to govern more by a non-participation pact with society than by outright repression—though some very repressive elements play a role. Second, the more centralized this system becomes, the more likely political outcomes are to diverge from social ideals, and the more vulnerable the regime becomes to shocks. The survival of the regime depends heavily on the personal reputation and skill of the top leaders, who must increasingly exercise manual control over the system. And third, political outcomes in a hybrid regime are closer to social ideals and the system is less vulnerable than would be the case in a regime that relies primarily on outright repression—allowing no political opposition to exist and creating no substitutions to serve any of the functions of democratic institutions. But the authors conclude that while overmanaged democracy may be stable in the short term, it will not last in the long term. In Russia’s case, the system is unlikely to survive Putin himself.
Overmanaged Democracy in Russia: Governance Implications of Hybrid Regimes
While autocratic governments that incorporate elements of democracy may be stable in the short term, such systems cannot be sustained in the long term. In Russia’s case, the system is unlikely to survive Putin himself.
More work from Carnegie
Yoon’s Failed Political Coup and South Korea’s Mounting CrisisYoon’s martial law decree lasted only three hours, but the ramifications for his political future and the country’s political divide will go on much longer.
Russia in the Middle East and North Africa—Disrupting Washington’s Influence and Redefining Moscow’s Global RoleThe agency of MENA states and nonstate actors and their multilayered interactions with the United States, China, Russia, and the EU have helped shape the complex outcomes of the great power competition.
The United States and the “Axis” of Its Enemies: Myths vs. RealitySince launching its all-out assault on Ukraine, Russia has drawn closer to China, Iran, and North Korea. But have they really formed an “axis?” Their interests have aligned but not merged. It makes little sense and can be even counterproductive to treat these four countries, each guided by its own vision, as a unified coalition.
Overcoming the North-South Divide in Global Migration GovernanceAlthough migration policy trends in Global North and South countries diverge, the two hemispheres both stand to benefit from a more open labor market and more cohesive global migration governance.
- Alan Hirsch
How the Traumas of 2004 Blinded PutinA terrorist attack in 2004 shaped Vladimir Putin’s understanding of external actors and other countries. The influence can be felt even today.
