While the concept of the ‘hybrid regime’ traces its origins back to 1970, it was formally solidified in modern political science during the 1990s as a scholarly response to the ‘Third Wave of Democratisation’.

This global surge of democratic transitions was part of a framework postulated by the political scientist Samuel P. Huntington. He categorised the global spread of democracy into three distinct historical periods: an initial wave beginning in the mid-1800s that stalled due to the rising tide of authoritarianism in the 1920s/30s; a second wave triggered by the end of World War II and lasting till the early 1960s; and a third wave beginning in the 1990s but one that prompted the hybrid classification, because many transitioning states remained suspended in a grey zone between full democracy and autocracy.

By the mid-2000s, a democratic recession marked by significant backsliding became evident, as many emerging democracies failed to consolidate and, instead, adopted hybrid models. While Western scholars often interpret this as a symptom of decline, an alternative perspective suggests the model acts as a vital deterrence against outright authoritarianism.

In Pakistan, the hybrid model’s legacy dates back to the late 1950s, when Gen Ayub Khan abrogated the Constitution and imposed the country’s first martial law. Gen Ayub transitioned from overt martial law to a ‘controlled democracy’ in 1962. Cornered by a powerful pro-democracy movement, Ayub was forced to resign in 1969, even though, the fact is, he only really did so after losing the institutional backing of his own institution — the military. As Stephen Cohen notes, this period deeply embedded militarism into Pakistan’s political fabric.

Pakistan’s hybrid regime has hardened into a lasting political order, where........

© Dawn (Magazines)