The Economist Intelligence Unit, an analytical division of the British Economist Group, publishes an annual Democracy Index. This index assesses 167 countries using 60 different indicators, grouped into five categories: electoral process and pluralism, civil liberties, government functioning, political participation, and political culture.
Who evaluates countries based on these criteria? Primarily experts, though public opinion polls are sometimes considered. We know who most of the Armenian “experts” are— the same pro-Western NGOs that seize every opportunity to defend Pashinyan’s actions. If The Economist relies on the assessments of such “experts,” it hardly adds credibility to the report.
With that caveat in mind, let’s see where Armenia stands in the report’s classification. Political regimes are categorized into four types: full democracies, flawed democracies, hybrid regimes, and authoritarian regimes. Armenia is placed in the third group. According to the report, hybrid regimes are characterized by electoral violations, governments that suppress political opponents, and a judiciary that lacks independence. The rule of law is weak, and these states generally have more systemic shortcomings than flawed democracies—particularly in terms of citizen participation.
By these criteria, our “hybrid peers” include Georgia and Turkey, while Russia, Iran, and Azerbaijan are classified as authoritarian states. Interestingly, last year’s report placed Romania among the “hybrids” after its Constitutional Court annulled the presidential election, fearing that the wrong candidate might win.
Read also
I must say, while the term hybrid regime is widely used in political science, I find it problematic—after all, in a hybrid, anything can be mixed together. A regime is either democratic or authoritarian. In my view, Armenia has been under pure authoritarianism since 1991.
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
