According to this article illiberal democracies are becoming fashionable these days:
PRINCETON - Nearly two decades ago, the political commentator Fareed Zakaria wrote a prophetic article called “The Rise of the Illiberal Democracy,” in which he worried about the rise of popular autocrats with little regard for the rule of law and civil liberties. Governments may be elected in free and fair elections, he wrote, and yet routinely violate their citizens’ basic rights.
Since Zakaria’s piece, illiberal democracies have become more the norm than the exception.
According to Larry Diamond (via Wikipedia) a democracy consists of four key elements:
(a) A political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections; (b) The active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life; (c) Protection of the human rights of all citizens, and (d) A rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens.
On the other hand, an illiberal democracy:
is a governing system in which, although elections take place, citizens are cut off from knowledge about the activities of those who exercise real power because of the lack of civil liberties.
So, according to Larry Diamond, an illiberal democracy is not a democracy (or at least this is my conclusion).
Question: can illiberal democratic regimes be considered democratic regimes or they, in fact, should be considered authoritarian regimes with a tendency towards dictatorship? Or shortly put, isn't "illiberal democratic" just a fancy concept for a nondemocratic regime?
To narrow down the question, I am thinking about Hungary and its Prime Minister, Viktor Orbán.