Retaining power through elections: when "democracy"

enables autocracy

Sarah BirchUniversity of Glasgow

13 July 2014

Democracy and elections• Elections are crucial to democracy as generally understood in

today’s world• But democracy is not crucial to elections• Elections took place long before democracy existed• Thus elections are not necessarily democratic

Authoritarianism and elections• Authoritarian leaders often use elections to their advantage• Elections serve to communicate the agenda and views of

authoritarian leaders• Elections help distribute resources within an authoritarian

regime via patronage and co-optation• Elections can help authoritarian leaders to monitor the

population (and the opposition)• Elections provide a veneer of legitimacy, even when beset by

malpractice

Electoral malpracticeElectoral malpractice can be understood as taking three main forms:

• the manipulation of electoral institutions• the manipulation of vote choice• and the manipulation of voting

Typically authoritarian leaders seek to use all three strategies, though the first and the second are less risky than the third

Electoral systems and political power• The manipulation of electoral institutions is a powerful way

of maintaining power while at the same time also retaining a certain amount of democratic legitimacy• There are many electoral institutions that can be

manipulated, in many cases with a view to facilitating other forms of malpractice• The electoral system in the narrow sense is a common object

of manipulation

Electoral systems• First-past-the-post (single-member constituency plurality):

developed because geographic representation made sense• Proportional representation: developed in the late 19th

century following the industrial revolution when party representation made more sense•Mixed systems: developed after the Second World War as a

means of retaining the benefits of both geographic representation and proportional representation

Electoral systems and electoral malpractice I• First-part-the-post electoral systems are particularly

convenient for authoritarian leaders as they are winner-take-all systems that magnify power at the constituency level and often also at the aggregate level• First-past-the-post electoral systems also invite boundary

manipulation, which can enable a party to retain power for long periods on the basis of the support of a minority of the population• Boundary manipulation can involve malapportionment,

gerrymandering, or manipulation of the eligible population

Electoral systems and electoral malpractice II• Single-member electoral systems such as first-past-the-post

increase opportunities and incentives for manipulation of the vote• Candidates have an incentive to cultivate a personal support

base• This can lead to bribery and patronage, or at the least to

pork-barrel politics• In tight races, small numbers of votes need to be altered in

order to change the outcome

Elections and democratisation• Free and fair elections are necessary for genuine

democratisation• Typically this requires changes to the electoral system• It also requires a change of attitude by leaders, who need to

be prepared to accept power sharing, compromise and losing• Democracy is about accountable rule, but it is also about

being prepared to play the role of holding others to account.

The electoral tango I• Often elections have to get worse before they get better• Today, ‘paper rights’ in the electoral sphere are typically

given• Rights are violated through the implementation of elections• This means that rights are episodically taken away,

generating episodic grievances• This creates huge potential for popular mobilisation against

electoral malpractice

The electoral tango II• Protest is most likely to occur when (a) elections have been

of poor quality for a while and (b) elections get worse at a specific election• In the contemporary world, significant electoral reform,

leading to a genuine improvement in election quality, tends to come about following popular protests against electoral malpractice• This means that elections often have to get worse before

they get better - one step back then two steps forward