9 Toward “Electoral Authoritarianism”: The 2019 Elections

2021 ◽  
pp. 310-348
Keyword(s):  
Electoral Authoritarianism

Federal and Subnational Elections in Russia: Coherence and Divergence in Electoral Outcomes

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 329-353
Author(s):  
Rostislav Turovsky ◽  
Marina Sukhova
Keyword(s):  
Party System ◽  
Party Systems ◽  
Strong Connection ◽  
Regional Parties ◽  
Electoral Outcomes ◽  
Electoral Authoritarianism ◽  
Subnational Elections ◽  
Effective Number Of Parties ◽  
Number Of Parties ◽  
Regional Elections

Abstract This article examines the differences between Russian voting at federal elections and regional legislature elections, both combined and conducted independently. The authors analyse these differences, their character and their dynamics as an important characteristic of the nationalisation of the party system. They also test hypotheses about a higher level of oppositional voting and competitiveness in subnational elections, in accordance with the theory of second-order elections, as well as the strategic nature of voting at federal elections, by contrast with expressive voting during subnational campaigns. The empirical study is based on calculating the differences in votes for leading Russian parties at subnational elections and at federal elections (simultaneous, preceding and following) from 2003, when mandatory voting on party lists was widespread among the regions, to 2019. The level of competitiveness is measured in a similar way, by calculating the effective number of parties. The study indicates a low level of autonomy of regional party systems, in many ways caused by the fact that the law made it impossible to create regional parties, and then also by the 2005 ban on creation of regional blocs. The strong connection between federal and regional elections in Russia clearly underlines the fluid and asynchronic nature of its electoral dynamics, where subnational elections typically predetermine the results of the following federal campaigns. At the same time, the formal success of the nationalisation of the party system, achieved by increasing the homogeneity of voting at the 2016 and 2018 federal elections, is not reflected by the opposing process of desynchronisation between federal and regional elections after Putin’s third-term election. There is also a clear rise in the scale of the differences between the two. At the same time, the study demonstrates the potential presence in Russia of features common to subnational elections in many countries: their greater support for the opposition and presence of affective voting. However, there is a clear exception to this trend during the period of maximum mobilisation of the loyal electorate at the subnational elections immediately following the accession of Crimea in 2014–2015, and such tendencies are generally restrained by the conditions of electoral authoritarianism.

Localization of Ethnic Groups in the Regions as a Factor in Cross-Regional Variations in Voting for United Russia

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 131-153
Author(s):  
Eleonora Minaeva ◽  
Petr Panov
Keyword(s):  
Ethnic Groups ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Political Mobilization ◽  
Structural Factors ◽  
Regional Variations ◽  
Political Machines ◽  
Ethnic Networks ◽  
Electoral Authoritarianism ◽  
Administrative Unit ◽  
The Russian Federation

Abstract In the context of electoral authoritarianism, political mobilization is likely to be a more reasonable explanation of cross-regional variations in voting for the party of power than the diversity of the regions’ policy preferences. In the Russian Federation, the political machines which coordinate various activities aimed at mobilizing people to vote for United Russia demonstrate different degrees of effectiveness. This article examines the structural factors that facilitate machine politics focusing on ethnic networks. Although strong ethnic networks are more likely to arise if the members of an ethnic group live close to each other, and at the same time separately from other ethnic groups, so far researchers have neglected to consider the localization of ethnic groups within the territory of an administrative unit as a factor. In order to fill the gap, we have created an original geo-referenced dataset of the localization of non-Russian ethnic groups within every region of the Russian Federation, and developed special GIS (geographic information systems) techniques and tools to measure them in relation to the Russian population. This has made it possible to include the localization of ethnic groups as a variable in the study of cross-regional differences in voting for United Russia. Our analysis finds that the effect of non-Russians’ share of the population on voting for UR increases significantly if non-Russian groups are at least partially geographically segregated from Russians within a region.

Was it worth the trouble? Limited competition and citizen well-being under authoritarian rule

2016 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 93-113
Author(s):  
Andrea Cassani
Keyword(s):  
20Th Century ◽  
Political Change ◽  
Developing World ◽  
Political Competition ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Living Conditions ◽  
Democratic Institutions ◽  
Authoritarian Rule ◽  
Electoral Authoritarianism ◽  
Ordinary Citizens

The last part of 20th century saw the collapse of a dramatic number of dictatorships. Rather than democracy, several of these transitions brought regimes where limited political competition coexists with persistently authoritarian practices. The diffusion of this form of authoritarianism in the developing world raises several questions about its broader consequences. Most importantly, does political change short of democratization matter for ordinary citizens? Recent research demonstrates that nominally democratic institutions, even in the absence of people empowerment, can result in better living conditions. The paper adds to this debate by formulating and testing new hypotheses. I compare electoral authoritarianism with democracy and full dictatorship, including specific subtypes of the latter, and focus on both policy outputs and outcomes.

DECENTRALIZATION AND THE LOCAL DEVELOPMENTAL STATE: PEASANT MOBILIZATION IN OROMIYA, ETHIOPIA

Africa ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 86 (2) ◽  
pp. 263-287 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rony Emmenegger
Keyword(s):  
Rural Areas ◽  
Field Research ◽  
Developmental State ◽  
National Politics ◽  
Grass Roots ◽  
Electoral Authoritarianism ◽  
Decentralization Policy ◽  
Nuanced Understanding ◽  
Citizen Interactions ◽  
Political Understanding

ABSTRACTThis article explores the politics of decentralization and state–peasant encounters in rural Oromiya, Ethiopia. Breaking with a centralized past, the incumbent government of the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) committed itself to a decentralization policy in the early 1990s and has since then created a number of new sites for state–citizen interactions. In the context of electoral authoritarianism, however, decentralization has been interpreted as a means for the expansion of the party-state at the grass-roots level. Against this backdrop, this article attempts a more nuanced understanding of the complex entanglements between the closure of political space and faith in progress in local arenas. Hence, it follows sub-kebele institutions at the community level in a rural district and analyses their significance for state-led development and peasant mobilization between the 2005 and 2010 elections. Based on ethnographic field research, the empirical case presented discloses that decentralization and state-led development serve the expansion of state power into rural areas, but that state authority is simultaneously constituted and undermined in the course of this process. On that basis, this article aims to contribute to an inherently political understanding of decentralization, development and their entanglement in local and national politics in rural African societies.

Constitutionalism and Electoral Authoritarianism in Ethiopia

2021 ◽  
pp. 169-197
Author(s):  
Zemelak Ayitenew Ayele
Keyword(s):  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Civil Liberties ◽  
Developmental State ◽  
The Political ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Political Dynamics ◽  
International Pressure ◽  
Electoral Authoritarianism ◽  
Socioeconomic Structure ◽  
Democratic Principles

After centuries of monarchical rule, 14 years of military rule, and three years of a one-party political system, Ethiopia adopted a constitution that provides for multiparty democracy. The Constitution establishes democratic institutions and contains democratic principles that are vital for competitive multiparty democracy; it also guarantees civil liberties and political rights, including freedom of expression and association that are critical in this regard. Be that as it may, in the past two-and-a-half decades, no competitive multiparty democracy has existed in Ethiopia. Instead, an electoral authoritarian system was instituted that allowed the Ethiopian Peoples’ Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) and its affiliates to enjoy exclusive control over every level and unit of government. This was so because, among other things, even if the domestic and global political dynamics that were at work when the EPRDF came to power in the 1990s left it with no choice but to constitutionalize multipartyism, its violent history, its vanguardist self-perception, and the developmental-state paradigm it later endorsed have driven it into electoral authoritarianism. The various formal and informal mechanisms that the party put in place, the socioeconomic structure of the country, and the minimal international pressure it faced when not democratizing allowed it successfully to retain its incumbency for more than two decades. New domestic and international dynamics put pressure on the EPRDF to open up the political space and to change its leadership leading to the rise to power of Abiy Ahmed who, having begun as a reformer, is now showing the tell-tale signs of authoritarianism and harbingers of one-man rule.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document