When and Where Do Elections Matter? A Global Test of the Democratization by Elections Hypothesis, 1900-2012

Abstract

Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) is a new approach to the conceptualization and measurement of democracy. It is co-hosted by the University of Gothenburg and University of Notre Dame. With a V-Dem Institute at University of Gothenburg that comprises almost ten staff members, and a project team across the world with four Principal Investigators, fifteen Project Managers, 30+ Regional Managers, 170 Country Coordinators, Research Assistants, and 2,500 Country Experts, the V-Dem project is one of the largest-ever social science research-oriented data collection programs.Please address comments and/or queries for information to: elections is isolated to the sub-Saharan region. In addition, the hypothesis has been subject to conceptual criticism (Lust-Okar 2009). This paper poses a comprehensive and global set of tests on the democratizing effect of elections, assessing the scope of the argument both geographically and temporally. We test whether elections have a democratizing effect in specific regions, in specific time periods, and globally. In particular we assess whether the effects are largely confined to Africa, during the third wave, or if this is a more general phenomenon. We find consistent support that the reiteration of contested multiparty elections leads to the improvement of rule of law and the quality of civil rights protections.3

Neopatrimonialism and Democracy: An Empirical Investigation of Africa's Political Regimes

“…In fact, there is now considerable evidence that democratization, even in neopatrimonial contexts, can bring about expansions in civil rights and political freedoms (Lindberg, 2006;Edgell et al, 2017), the institutionalization of constitutional rule (Posner and Young, 2007), improvements in governance (Alence, 2004) and wider distributions of public goods and services (Stasavage, 2005;Burgess et al, 2015). Moreover, some have argued that patrimonialism may actually promote both democracy (Pitcher et al, 2009) and developmental governance (Crook, 1989;Booth and Golooba-Mutebi, 2012;Kelsall, 2013).…”

Introduction: State capacity and elections in the study of authoritarian regimes

“…As such, elections are not meant to bring forth a new political majority, but rather confirm the status quo (cf. Edgell et al, 2015: 5).…”

“…In contrast to other approaches in comparative politics, which conceptualize regimes that are "neither fully democratic nor classic authoritarian" (Boogards, 2009) as diminished subtypes of democracy (Merkel 2004) or as "hybrid regimes" (Diamond, 2002;Levitsky and Way 2010), the unifying approach across the contributions in this volume is different. Following the conceptual strategy proposed by Schedler and others (Schedler, 2006(Schedler, , 2015Howard and Roessler, 2006;Lindberg 2006Lindberg , 2009Brownlee, 2009;Boogards 2009;Edgell et al, 2015), we conceptualize authoritarian regimes that allow for multiparty elections for legislatures (and the executive) in which opposition parties can compete -even though "governments deploy a broad repertoire of manipulative strategies to keep winning elections" (Schedler, 2015: 1) -as a specific subtype of authoritarian rule (not a third, hybrid, category of regimes). Hence, we draw a line between authoritarian regimes that do allow for (limited) multiparty competition in elections (often labeled as "electoral authoritarianism") and those dictatorships in which political parties are banned or only the ruling party is allowed to file candidates for parliament, and in which the entire legislature is composed of nonparty representatives or members of the ruling party ("closed authoritarianism"; Magaloni, 2008;Brownlee 2009;Schedler, 2015).…”

“…The recent and global nature of this development has sparked a shift in scholarly attention from the study of democratization to the origins and designs of multiparty elections in authoritarian regimes as well as the impact of these on regime resilience. Nonetheless, as an emerging literature has begun to point out, the available evidence is not yet conclusive in terms of when, where, or why elections work to sustain or undermine authoritarian rule (Boogards, 2013; Edgell et al, 2015). In fact, both supporters and opponents of the ‘democratization by election’ thesis (Lindberg, 2009) suggest that the effect of multiparty elections on the stability and survival of autocratic regimes will depend on the context – irrespective of whether this effect is positive or negative.…”

Beyond First Elections: The Importance of Consistency in the Timing of Recurrent Elections

“…Greene, 2007;Lust, 2009;Magaloni, 2008;Malesky and Schuler, 2011;Gandhi and Przeworski, 2007), or rather further democratization (e.g. Beissinger, 2007;Di Palma, 1990, Edgell andLindberg, 2015;Howard and Roessler, 2006;Lindberg, 2006, Lindberg, 2009Miller, 2015;Schedler, 2009), and if holding elections "too early" increases the risk of conflict (e.g. Brancati and Snyder, 2011;Flores and Nooruddin, 2012;Reilly, 2002).…”