Politicisation and intervention repertoires of democratic and hybrid-authoritarian states: evidence from intrastate conflicts in the wider Mediterranean

Abstract

This article examines how regime type shapes the politicisation and depoliticisation of intervention behaviour in intrastate conflicts. Focusing on external interventions across the wider Mediterranean region, it explains why democratic and hybrid-authoritarian states employ different intervention repertoires. We argue that domestic audience costs and institutional constraints shape the political feasibility, visibility, and escalation thresholds of external support. Through a structured comparison of three African conflicts – Libya, Ethiopia, and Somalia – we analyse the intervention behaviour of two democratic states, Italy and France, and two hybrid-authoritarian states, Türkiye and the United Arab Emirates. The findings show that democracies favour depoliticised, indirect, and institutionally mediated forms of engagement, including suspension and strategic non-intervention when political and reputational costs rise. By contrast, hybrid-authoritarian states display greater tolerance for escalation and combine politicised and selectively depoliticised forms of intervention through instruments such as armed drones, proxy forces, and covert logistics. The comparison also reveals three forms of substitution – rapid escalation, substitution through suspension, and gradual entrenchment – through which democratic restraint creates opportunities for hybrid-authoritarian actors to expand their influence. By integrating regime type with the politicisation–depoliticisation framework, the article contributes to debates on intervention repertoires, audience costs, and the evolving intervention dynamics of the wider Mediterranean.