No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Why Election Monitoring Does Not Always Lead to Democratization: from the Perspective of Information on the International Standards of Electoral Integrity
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 May 2018
Abstract
This paper theoretically presents a new structure from the perspective of information on international standards with regards to the actual impact that election monitoring has on political change. Specifically, there is the point of view that after the election monitoring, a report is published, and as a result information relating to international standards of electoral integrity becomes clear in the countries subject to monitoring. Then if it becomes clear, for example, to one country that it is unable to meet the standards required by the international community then that country might abandon trying to meeting international requirements and its inclination toward authoritarianism might strengthen. Therefore, the clarification of information on the international standards of fair electoral integrity as a result of election monitoring could result in a shift toward authoritarianism. Through a case study, this paper shows that new interpretations of democratization in Africa can be advanced by its theoretical framework. Many African countries started to get rid of one-party systems or military dictatorships in the 1990s and to introduce multi-party elections. As a result, they held founding elections. What is often pointed out is that compared to the founding elections, the degree of fraud increased at the second elections. Although there has been no appropriate explanation, this paper suggests a theoretical explanation for this puzzling trend.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018
References
Bader, Julia, Grävingholt, Jörn, and Kästner, Antje (2010), ‘Would Autocracies Promote Autocracy?: A Political Economy Perspective on Regime-Type Export in Regional Neighbors’, Contemporary Politics, 16 (1): 81–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beaulieu, Emily (2014), Electoral Protest and Democracy in Developing World, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birch, Sarah (2007), ‘Electoral Systems and Electoral Misconduct’, Comparative Political Studies, 40 (12): 1533–56.Google Scholar
Bjornlund, Eric C. (2004), Beyond Free and Fair: Monitoring Elections and Building Democracy, Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bland, Gary, Green, Andrew, and Moore, Toby (2013), ‘Measuring the Quality of Election Administration’, Democratization, 20 (2): 358–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bogaards, Matthjis (2013), ‘Reexamining African Elections’, Journal of Democracy, 24 (4): 151–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bratton, Michael and van de Walle, Nicholas (1997), Democratic Experiments in Africa: Regime Transitions in Comparative Perspective, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bratton, Michael (1998), ‘Second Elections in Africa’, Journal of Democracy, 9 (3): 51–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brownlee, Jason (2009), ‘Portents of Pluralism: How Hybrid Regimes Affect Democratic Transitions’, American Journal of Political Science, 53 (3): 515–32.Google Scholar
Carothers, Thomas (1997), ‘The Observers Observed’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 8 (3): 17–31.Google Scholar
Cheibub, José Antonio, Gandhi, Jennifer, and Vreeland, Raymond (2010), ‘Democracy and Dictatorship Revisited’, Public Choice, 143 (1–2): 67–101.Google Scholar
Darnolf, Staffan (2011), ‘International Election Support: Helping or Hindering Democratic Elections’, Representation, 47 (4): 361–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis-Roberts, Avery, and Carroll, David J. (2010), ‘Using International Law to Assess Elections’, Democratization, 17 (3): 416–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donno, Daniela (2013), Defending Democratic Norms: International Actors and the Politics of Electoral Misconduct, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elklit, Jørgen (1999), ‘Electoral Institutional Change and Democratization: You Can Lead a Horse to Water, but You Can't Make It Drink’, Democratization, 6 (4): 28–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elklit, Jørgen, and Svensson, Palle (1997), ‘What Makes Election Free and Fair’, Journal of Democracy, 8 (3): 32–46.Google Scholar
Emmanuel, Nikolas (2010), ‘Undermining Cooperation: Donor-Patrons and the Failure of Political Conditionality’, Democratization, 17 (5): 856–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gandhi, Jennifer and Lust-Okar, Ellen (2009), ‘Elections under Authoritarianism’, Annual Review of Political Science, 12: 403–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyde, Susan D. (2011), The Pseudo-Democrat's Dilemma: Why Election Observation Became an International Norm, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyde, Susan D. and Marinov, Nikolay (2014), ‘Information and Self-Enforcing Democracy’, International Organization, 68 (2): 329–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelley, Judith (2012), Monitoring Democracy: When International Election Observation Works, and Why It Often Fails, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Lebovic, James H. and Voeten, Erik (2009), ‘The Cost of Shame: International Organization and Foreign Aid in the Punishment of Human Rights Violators’, Journal of Peace Research, 46 (1): 79–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehoucq, Fabrice (2003), ‘Electoral Fraud: Causes, Types, and Consequences’, Annual Review of Political Science, 6: 233–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitsky, Steven and Way, Lucan A. (2010), Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes After the Cold War, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindberg, Staffan (2006), Democracy and Elections in Africa, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindberg, Staffan (2009), Democratization by Elections: A New Mode of Transition, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (1993), ‘Assessment of the October 11, 1992 Election in Cameroon’, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Norris, Pippa (2013), ‘Does the World Agree about Standards of electoral Integrity?: Evidence for the Diffusion of Global Norms’, Electoral Studies, 32 (4): 576–88.Google Scholar
Norris, Pippa, Frank, Richard W., and Martinez i Coma, Ferran (2013), ‘Assessing the Quality of Elections’, Journal of Democracy, 24 (4): 124–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pastor, Robert A. (1998), ‘Mediating Elections’, Journal of Democracy, 9 (1): 154–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posner, Daniel N. and Young, Daniel J. (2007), ‘The Institutionalization of Political Power in Africa’, Journal of Democracy, 18 (3): 126–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santa-Cruz, Arturo (2005), International Election Monitoring, Sovereignty, and the Western Hemisphere Idea: The Emergence of an International Norm, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Simpser, Alberto (2013), Why Governments and Parties Manipulate Elections: Theory, Practice and Implications, New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpser, Alberto and Donno, Daniela (2012), ‘Can International Election Monitoring Harm Governance?’, Journal of Politics, 74 (2): 501–13.Google Scholar
Sjoberg, Fredrik M. (2014), ‘Autocratic Adaptation: The Strategic Use of Transparency and the Persistence of Election Fraud’, Electoral Studies, 33: 233–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takougang, Joseph (1993), ‘The Demise of Biya's New Deal in Cameroon, 1982–1992’, Africa Insight, 23 (2): 91–101.Google Scholar
Zakaria, Fareed (1997), ‘The Rise of Illiberal Democracy’, Foreign Affairs, 76 (6): 22–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziblatt, Daniel (2009), ‘Shaping Democratic Practice and the Causes of Electoral Fraud: The Case of Nineteenth-Century Germany’, American Political Science Review, 103 (1): 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar