User:Smk22012/sandbox

Anocracy is a term used to describe a regime type that is characterized by inherent qualities of political instability and ineffectiveness, as well as an "incoherent mix of democratic and autocratic traits and practices." These regime types are particularly susceptible to outbreaks of armed conflict and unexpected or adverse changes in leadership. Despite its popular usage, anocracy lacks a precise definition. Anocratic regimes are also loosely defined as part democracy and part dictatorship. . A second definition classifies anocracy as, "a regime that permits some means of participation through opposition group behavior but that has incomplete development of mechanisms to redress grievances." . Marshall and Gurr

The operational definition of anocracy is widely used by scholars Monty G. Marshall and Benjamin R. Cole at the | Center for Systemic Peace and gains most of its dissemination through the polity data series. The data set aims to measure democracy in different states, and retains anocracy as one of its classification methods for regime type. The data series scores regimes on executive recruitment, constraints on executive authority, and political competition. The 21-point sliding scale ranges from -10 to +10, where -10 corresponds to hereditary monarchy and + 10 to consolidated democracy. Anocracies are regimes that receive a score between -5 and +5, as well as the special values of -66, -77, and -88, which correspond to cases of foreign interruption, interregnum, and transition regimes. The data set further sorts anocractic regimes into "closed anocracies" (-5 to 0) and "open anocracies" (1 to 5). Consequently, anocracy frequently appears in democratization literature that utilizes the polity data set.

The number of anocratic regimes has steadily increased over time, with the most notable jump occurring during the Post Cold War era. During the period from 1989 to 2013, the number of anocracies increased from 30 to 53.

Successful Transitions
Anocratic regimes are often implicitly mentioned in democratic transition literature. There are numerous examples of regimes that have successfully transitioned to democracy through anocracy.

Mexico
Mexico's transition from an anocratic to democratic regime occurred during the 1980's and 1990's on the electoral stage. This period was characterized by the rise of multiple parties, decline of power from the Institutional Revolutionary Party, and decentralization of power from the national level into municipalities. The democratization process produced competitive elections with less voting fraud, culminating with the 1994 presidential election. There was also a documented increase in the the role of media and journalism during this period, which led to the creation of various special interest groups, such as those representing the environment, indigenous rights, and women's rights. However, violence continues to remain a characteristic of in Mexico's local elections.

Taiwan
In the aftermath of World War II, Japan surrendered Taiwan to the Republic of China. The constitution that the Republic of China used to govern Taiwan guaranteed civil rights and elections, but was ignored in favor of rule under martial law. Taiwain's pro-democracy movement gained momentum during the early 1980's and coalesced into the formation of the Democratic Progressive Party in 1986. Over the next decade, Taiwan attempted to restore the civil rights promised in its constitution, culminating with the Taiwan's first direct presidential election in 1996. Taiwan continues to move towards a consolidated democracy.

=NEW DEFINITION= Anocracy is a term used to describe a regime type that is characterized by inherent qualities of political instability and ineffectiveness, as well as an "incoherent mix of democratic and autocratic traits and practices." These regime types are particularly susceptible to outbreaks of armed conflict and unexpected or adverse changes in leadership. Despite its popular usage, anocracy lacks a precise definition. Anocratic regimes are also loosely defined as part democracy and part dictatorship, or a "regime that mixes democratic with autocratic features." Another definition classifies anocracy as, "a regime that permits some means of participation through opposition group behavior but that has incomplete development of mechanisms to redress grievances." Scholars have also distinguished anocracies from autocracies and democracies in their capability to maintain authority, political dynamics, and policy agenda. Similarly, these regime types have democratic institutions that allow for nominal amounts of competition.

The operational definition of anocracy is widely used by scholars Monty G. Marshall and Benjamin R. Cole at the | Center for Systemic Peace and gains most of its dissemination through the polity data series. The data set aims to measure democracy in different states, and retains anocracy as one of its classification methods for regime type. The data series scores regimes on executive recruitment, constraints on executive authority, and political competition. The 21-point sliding scale ranges from -10 to +10, where -10 corresponds to hereditary monarchy and + 10 to consolidated democracy. Anocracies are regimes that receive a score between -5 and +5, as well as the special values of -66, -77, and -88, which correspond to cases of foreign interruption, interregnum, and transition regimes. The data set further sorts anocractic regimes into "closed anocracies" (-5 to 0) and "open anocracies" (1 to 5). Consequently, anocracy frequently appears in democratization literature that utilizes the polity data set.

The number of anocratic regimes has steadily increased over time, with the most notable jump occurring during the Post Cold War era. During the period from 1989 to 2013, the number of anocracies increased from 30 to 53.

Broadness and Complexity
While the first three characteristics capture the instability of anocracies, another feature of anocratic regimes is its broad descriptiveness. Anocracy describes a regime type with a mix of institutional characteristics that either constrains or promotes the democratic process, "encapsulating a complex category encompassing many institutional arrangements". While anocracies demonstrate some capacity for civil society and political participation, their autocratic and democratic counterparts show considerably more or less capabilities. Thus, while scholars are easily able to identify democratic and autocratic regimes based on their respective characteristics, anocracies become a wider, "catchall" category for all other regimes. Yet, despite its broadness and complexity, the convention is still used because of it's relevance to civil instability as well as its usage in the Polity data series.