What good is the "Gray Zone"?

Political scientists spend a lot of time examining the specific qualities of a government that constitute a true democracy as opposed to one that is a democracy only in name and basic procedures. What rules must a country obey in order for their elections to be deemed “free and fair”? What basic rights must be guaranteed in the Constitution? Carothers argues in “The End of the Transition Paradigm” that most developing democracies cannot be analyzed in the normal transitional paradigm but instead are in “gray zones”—they are not authoritarian because they are procedurally democratic, but they fail to fully adhere to the liberal democratic model of the Western world. These countries may be ruled continually by only one party or group, or they may have so many minority groups so as to render their government nearly ineffective. In “Thinking About Hybrid Regimes,” Diamond mentions several approaches to defining a true democracy. Some definitions require more conditions to be met and others require only the bare minimum. However, most political scientists would agree that in order to be a true democracy, a country must do more than simply hold elections.

Although there are disagreements concerning what specifically defines a country as a true democracy as opposed to a country in a “Gray Zone,” as Carothers argues, what distinctions can be made between a “Gray Zone” country and an authoritarian regime? Can a country that holds elections but does not guarantee free speech be considered more modern and progressive than a country that is overtly authoritarian? Diamond mentions the Ukraine, Nigeria, and Venezuela as “ambiguous cases,” countries that are classified as democracies but have one-party systems or do not guarantee basic rights. Does labeling a hybrid regime as a “democracy” actually have a harmful effect on that country’s path towards liberal democracy? It is easy to focus on promoting democracy in countries with explicitly authoritarian regimes. However, it is not more difficult to promote liberal values in countries that are labeled democracies but do not guarantee full rights—and trying to do so may negatively impact a country’s foreign relations. Democracy in the Palestinian Authority, for example, elected what is essentially a terrorist group, Hamas, to power over the more moderate Fatah. When the US protested, many Palestinians and others in the Arab world countered with the argument that the Western world cannot promote democracy and cry foul when that democracy produces results contrary to its own interests. It may be that eliminating the association of “Gray Zone” countries from democracies may lead to an increased understanding of liberal democracy itself.