Ambiguous elections: the influence of non-electoral politics in Ethiopian democratisation

Abstract

The ' non-electoral context ' of elections is often overlooked in democratisation studies, in order not to obscure an otherwise clear model or theory of transition.A key challenge for research on democratisation processes is to balance electoral ' formalities' with contextual factors, qualitative perceptions and non-electoral issues, in order to reach a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of democratic transitions. This article advocates a multilayered approach to -or a ' thick description ' of -elections, as this will capture the diversity of real life experiences and expose alternative power discourses competing with the electoralist one in influencing the path of democratisation. In so doing, it casts light on the crucial impact of the Eritrean-Ethiopian war on Ethiopia's 2005 election, in addition to other qualitative and contextual factors, which lead to the conclusion that the advancement of democracy through multiparty elections in Ethiopia under the Ethiopian Peoples' Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) has failed.

Claims to legitimacy count: Why sanctions fail to instigate democratisation in authoritarian regimes

“…Referring to its liberation war credentials and refusing ‘neo‐imperialist’ interference in internal affairs, Zimbabwe's ZANU‐PF staged a vocal anti‐sanctions campaign, which found resonance among the population (Eriksson ). Building on different claims, the Ethiopian regime managed to bolster its legitimacy based on electoral procedures (Tronvoll ).…”

“…Referring to its liberation war credentials and refusing 'neo-imperialist' interference in internal affairs, Zimbabwe's ZANU-PF staged a vocal anti-sanctions campaign, which found resonance among the population (Eriksson 2007). Building on different claims, the Ethiopian regime managed to bolster its legitimacy based on electoral procedures (Tronvoll 2009). As for the relationship to other conditions, the first configuration (see Figure 1 above) confirms our foremost expectation that if an authoritarian regime under sanctions draws on a strong claim to legitimacy, it only needs to resort to soft repression to ensure authoritarian persistence.…”

‘Land grab’ as development strategy? The political economy of agricultural investment in Ethiopia

“…Largely to secure international legitimacy and development assistance, the EPRDF claimed to have switched to a market-based development strategy, although in practice the government retains close control over the economy (Vaughan & Tronvoll 2003). Similarly, despite claims of democratisation, space for political opposition has reduced substantially in recent years leaving Ethiopia as an effective one party state, with the EPRDF and its affiliate parties winning 99% of seats at the 2010 federal and 2008 local elections and controlling all levels of government (Aalen & Tronvoll 2009, Tronvoll 2009).…”

Powers – mengist – and peasants in rural Ethiopia: the post-2005 interlude

“…Via shell companies, it takes up the main positions in the key sectors of the modern economy. The integration of the state and the ruling party is so deep that Ethiopia is de facto ruled by a ‘monolithic party-state’ (Clapham 2009) due to ‘the effective “fusion” of party and state’ (Tronvoll 2009).…”