An interview with Samuel Chu, a community organizer for human rights and democracy. Interviewer: Ottilie Tabberer

If in the expression “hybrid regime” the adjective will be the focus of this short essay, understanding the meaning and implications of the term “regime” is an unavoidable starting point. The subsequent questions will be: How do we define a hybrid regime? Are there different types? And what is the crux of the issue today?

The mainstream notion of regime refers to all government institutions and norms, either formalized or informally recognized as existing in a given territory and concerning a given population. When, more precisely, we look at the patterns that shape the channels of access to the leading government positions, the characteristics of the actors who are admitted or excluded from such access, and the resources or strategies that they can use to gain access, we understand that to have a regime we need some stabilization. If there is no stabilization, we are in a fluid transitional phase that can also go towards either an authoritarian solution or a democracy.

In the past, authoritarian regimes such as the Soviet Union maintained power through the total control of information and propaganda. Today, the situation has changed significantly. Many of the new features of contemporary dictatorships have been imposed by the process of globalization and technological progress.

Throughout history, dictatorial rulers have been a consistent presence, evolving from tribal chieftains and monarchs to modern-day autocrats. Even in different settings, these leaders had one thing in common: pursuing and maintaining power by utilizing diverse tools to secure their dominance. In ancient times it was often sufficient for a ruler to claim divine endorsement, such as being the representative of a rain or fire god, and to eliminate any threat or expression of disobedience.

After the fall of communism, democracy seemed to have won the day all over the world. Thirty years later, autocracy have steadily replaced democratic regimes and is on the rise in Western Europe and the United States, where democracy originated. Many naively believed that autocracy and democracy are mere labels, a choice that would not substantially impact our day-to-day lives.

Russia ditched democracy as not fit for the country’s needs. As a result, the Kremlin identified elections and relatively brief terms of office as the system’s weak points. Since the 2010s, Moscow has learned how to use the openness of the internet and democracy for destabilizing the West. It costs little and brings huge returns. The Kremlin has successfully weaponized democracy for attacking Europe and North America.