Key message:
While the EU expects Western Balkan countries to democratize through membership incentives, in practice EU conditionality and external engagement often strengthen ruling elites instead of weakening them, resulting in state capture and competitive authoritarianism.

Use a simple metaphor:

“On paper, reforms are happening. In reality, democracy is not improving.”

Key framing question

Why do Western Balkan states formally progress toward EU membership while remaining stuck in hybrid regimes or even sliding into competitive authoritarianism 

What is a Hybrid Regime?

A hybrid regime is a political system that is neither fully democratic nor fully authoritarian.
It has elections, parliaments, media, civil society — but these institutions do not work fairly or independently.

Examples of hybrid features:

• Ruling parties control media

• Courts are politically influenced

• Elections happen but are not fully fair

• Corruption and clientelism dominate politics

This fits many Western Balkan countries today.

Why Is This a Problem in the Western Balkans?

After the 1990s wars, these countries began democratizing. But:

• Democratic reforms slowed down

• Authoritarian practices returned

• Leaders built strong control over the state

Scholars call these systems:

Competitive authoritarian regimes 

Why the Western Balkans Matter

The Western Balkans — Serbia, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Albania, Kosovo, and until 2013 Croatia — represent a region that has been in a prolonged transition toward democracy since the early 2000s. Despite two decades of reforms and the promise of European Union (EU) membership, most countries in the region remain hybrid regimes rather than consolidated democracies.

 why these countries struggle to democratize, and how the EU’s enlargement policy both helps and hinders democratic development.

Two key scholarly frameworks guide the analysis:

The Western Balkans provide multiple case studies that illustrate how EU conditionality interacts with domestic elites, sometimes promoting democracy, but often reinforcing state capture, clientelism, and competitive authoritarian rule.

LITERATURE REVIEW 

• Democratic Backsliding and Hybrid Regime Formation

• Early expectations of liberal-democratic consolidation have been replaced by widespread recognition of regression. The Balkans in Europe Policy Advisory Group (BiEPAG) identifies patterns of “democratic deconsolidation” across electoral integrity, media pluralism, judicial independence, and checks and balances.¹ Scholars note that, while democratic institutions persist formally, they are often hollowed out by patronage, state capture, and clientelistic networks.²

• The term hybrid regime has gained traction to describe this mix of formal democracy and informal authoritarian practices.³ These regimes blend electoral competition with elite dominance, often maintained through control of media, administrative resources, and economic rents. Scholars such as Bieber and Kmezić argue that Western Balkan political systems are best understood as “stabilitocracies” — regimes that secure EU and international legitimacy through geopolitical alignment and superficial stability, rather than substantive democratization.⁴

• 
  

• 3. The EU’s Enlargement Policy: Conditionality and Its Discontents

• The EU’s enlargement policy has long been the cornerstone of its transformative influence in the region. Through instruments such as the Stabilisation and Association Process (SAP) and the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA), Brussels aimed to anchor democratic reforms by offering the prospect of eventual membership.⁵ Yet, the literature demonstrates that conditionality’s effectiveness has waned.

• Malaj, Dervishi, and Krasniqi (2023) show empirically that prolonged accession timelines and the erosion of EU credibility have dampened reform momentum.⁶ Similarly, Börzel (2018) contends that while legal harmonization with EU norms often proceeds, practical implementation is stymied by weak institutions and entrenched political interests.⁷

• Moreover, enlargement fatigue within the EU — compounded by internal crises, the rise of populism, and geopolitical distractions — has diminished the transformative leverage of conditionality.⁸ As a result, the EU’s prioritization of regional stability over democratic deepening has produced what scholars term the “stability–democracy trade-off.”⁹

• 
  

• 4. Domestic Political Developments and Informal Power Structures

• The persistence of hybrid regimes in the Western Balkans cannot be explained solely by EU limitations. Domestic political economies, characterized by neopatrimonialism and weak civil societies, play an equally critical role. Ker-Lindsay (2017) notes that entrenched patronage systems, organized crime, and the instrumentalization of ethnic politics complicate democratic consolidation and foster selective compliance with EU norms.¹⁰

• Informal governance structures—rooted in clientelism and elite networks—undermine formal institutions. These patterns reveal a “dual state,” where the appearance of legality masks informal decision-making.¹¹ The EU’s technical approach to institution-building often fails to address these embedded power asymmetries, reinforcing façade reforms and “isomorphic mimicry.”¹²

• 
  

• 5. External Geopolitical Pressures and the New Hybrid Context

• Recent scholarship situates hybrid regime resilience within a shifting geopolitical context. The Russian invasion of Ukraine, renewed U.S. engagement, and China’s Belt and Road investments have transformed the strategic calculus for both the EU and the Western Balkans.¹³ Competing external actors offer alternative sources of legitimacy and economic support, reducing EU leverage.

• Analyses from the Re-Engaging Europe project emphasize that geopolitical competition now interacts with domestic hybridization, creating “multi-layered hybridity” — where internal illiberalism and external strategic bargaining reinforce each other.¹⁴

Theoretical Background

1. Hybrid Regimes Explained

A hybrid regime is a system combining democratic institutions — elections, parliaments, courts — with authoritarian practices such as:

• media control

• politicized judiciary

• patronage networks

• electoral manipulation

• suppression of opposition

Hybrid regimes appear democratic on paper, but in reality power remains concentrated.

2. EU Enlargement and Conditionality

The EU promotes democratic reforms through conditionality:

“If you implement reforms, you move closer to accession.”

But conditionality can be:

• slow

• inconsistent

• easily manipulated by domestic elites

This creates a gap between formal compliance and actual democratic transformation.

3. Two Key Theoretical Models

They show three mechanisms through which EU policies unintentionally help non-democratic elites:

1. MONEY – Rapid economic reforms created opportunities for corruption

EU encouraged quick privatization and market opening.
But institutions were too weak to regulate these processes.
→ Result: powerful business–political networks captured parts of the state.

2. POWER – Governments use EU demands to avoid accountability

Leaders say:
“We must pass this law quickly because the EU requires it.”

This allows them to:

• Bypass parliament

• Ignore civil society input

• Avoid debate

So EU rules become a tool to concentrate political power, not share it.

3. GLORY – EU praise gives authoritarian leaders legitimacy

When EU leaders meet Western Balkan politicians or praise reforms:
→ Citizens think these leaders are doing a good job.
Even if they are weakening democracy.

So EU diplomacy can unintentionally make undemocratic leaders look good 

Hybrid Regimes Have Evolved Into Competitive Authoritarian Systems

 Patterns of competitive…

Bieber argues that Western Balkan countries today:

• Hold elections

• Allow opposition

• Display multiparty politics

BUT the playing field is tilted.

Characteristics include:

• Control of media

• Use of crises (real or invented) to stay in power

• Politicization of state institutions

• Clientelism and patronage

• Dependence on EU/NATO for external legitimacy (“stabilitocracy”)

These are modern forms of competitive authoritarianism — authoritarian rule operating under a democratic façade.

How Domestic & EU Factors Combine to Create Hybrid Regimes

Now we connect both articles.

Domestic factors:

• Corruption

• Weak institutions

• Dominant ruling parties

• Informal networks control public institutions

EU factors:

• Focus on stability over democracy

• Rewards governments for formal reforms

• Lacks strong enforcement power

• Sends mixed signals (praise despite democratic decline)

👉 Combined effect:

Countries progress with formal EU reforms,
but informal authoritarian practices grow stronger.

This explains why the Western Balkans remain stuck in hybrid regimes.

Synthesis and Implications

Across the literature, several converging themes emerge:

1. Superficial reforms vs. genuine democratization: Legal and institutional reforms rarely translate into meaningful accountability.

2. Erosion of EU conditionality: Prolonged stagnation in accession undermines incentives for reform.

3. Entrenched hybrid regimes: “Stabilitocracy” is becoming normalized.

4. Geopolitical instrumentalization: The EU’s strategic pragmatism often supersedes democratic principles.

For policymakers and scholars alike, the Western Balkans illustrate the limits of external democracy promotion in contexts of weak statehood and competitive clientelism. The EU’s future engagement will require reconciling its strategic interests with a reinvigorated commitment to democratic substance over procedural compliance.