What is anocracy?

Maintaining a democracy is difficult because it requires people to engage in behaviors that don't always come naturally—accepting opposing viewpoints, tolerating disagreement, and resolving conflicts peacefully. When those democratic norms begin to weaken, countries often enter a middle stage known as anocracy.

Barbara F. Walter, Professor of International Affairs at the School of Global Policy and Strategy at UC San Diego and one of the world's leading experts on civil wars, violent extremism, and domestic terrorism, explains the concept of anocracy.

Barbara Walter:

"Anocracy is just a fancy political science term for a partial democracy. It's a government that's neither fully democratic nor fully autocratic. It's something in between.

Think about a country where elections are held, and citizens are enthusiastic about voting. Hungary is a good example. But once someone is elected, there are very few constraints on what that leader can do. Viktor Orbán essentially governs however he wants. The opposition tries to remove him but is never successful, in part because he controls the state media and has structured the system so that no other party can compete on equal footing."

Listen to the full episode on Democracy Works: Between democracy and autocracy

Anocracy often emerges during periods of political transition, instability, or democratic backsliding. Rather than being a permanent form of government, it is frequently a transitional stage that countries pass through as they become either more democratic or more authoritarian.

Common characteristics of anocracies include:

• Elections are held, but they are unfair or manipulated.
• Opposition parties exist but face harassment, intimidation, or other disadvantages.
• A constitution exists, but the courts lack genuine independence.
• Free speech is legally protected, but censorship or intimidation limits open expression.
• Citizens participate in politics, but executive power steadily expands.

Freedom in the World, the annual survey published by the U.S.-based nonprofit organization Freedom House, measures civil liberties and political rights around the world. The report describes how democracies can gradually slide toward authoritarianism:

"Democratic institutions such as free and fair elections, independent legislatures and courts, and strong anticorruption agencies serve to facilitate public participation and representation, protect individual rights, and place checks on those in power. The erosion of these features of democracy... can effectively exacerbate authoritarian rule..."

Political scientist Kevin Smith, a professor at the University of Nebraska, explains that weakening the institutions that make disagreement possible can accelerate that democratic decline.

Kevin Smith:

"In a fundamental way, what we're talking about is the same issue and dilemma that James Madison was wrestling with in Federalist No. 10. How do you create a system that guarantees individual freedom without allowing people to use that freedom to deprive others of theirs?

Madison considered the alternatives. One possibility was giving everyone the same preferences, but that's simply never going to happen. So the real question becomes: How do you build a system where people can have deep disagreements about politics and governance—sometimes disagreements that seem impossible to reconcile—and still reach compromise within a large, diverse republic?

Madison had a remarkably good answer to that question. As I said, those institutions are still standing and still functioning. But if we continue to erode the norms that support those institutions, eventually the institutions themselves will fall."

Listen to the full episode on Outrage Overload: Outrage 31 – In a Democracy You Get Exactly the Government You Deserve

Research has consistently found that anocracies tend to be less politically stable than either well-established democracies or entrenched authoritarian regimes. This is often because:

• Democratic institutions are too weak to resolve conflicts peacefully.
• Governments struggle to maintain public legitimacy.
• Political actors distrust election results.
• Competing groups are more likely to resort to violence, coups, or other extra-constitutional means of gaining power.

This does not mean every anocracy becomes unstable. However, compared with established democracies and entrenched authoritarian regimes, anocracies generally face a greater risk of political instability and democratic breakdown.