{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018050541516245487, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.0271739130434785, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Between democracy and dictatorship: Hybrid regime and rule of law

Past and on-going political affairs linked to the pandemic, particularly in Serbia (which fits the concept of a hybrid regime), created discussions among some lawyers on whether the President's declaration of a state of emergency was constitutional or not. This is the motivation for a Kelsen - Schmitt debate about who ought to be the guardian of the constitution and drawing some parallels with contemporary hybrid regimes. Some of the problems that arise in hybrid regimes are in relation to the rule of law, the role of the parliament and the constitution. Most contemporary constitutions are based on the rule of law, which is exercised through pluralism, free and fair elections, constitutional guarantees of human and minority rights, separation of powers, an independent judiciary and obedience of the constitution and the law. Using Serbia as an example, we can notice that the rule of law and the role of parliament as the bearer of constituent and legislative authority are endangered by potential dictatorships in hybrid regimes.