Josh Tucker, a professor of political science at NYU, raises an interesting question: how much electoral fraud should we expect rulers in competitive authoritarian regimes to engage in? If you were a ruler concerned with keeping your power, should you go for only a little bit of fraud (ensuring, for example, a 2-4% margin of victory over the opposition), or for a large margin of victory (e.g., win with 77% of the votes, as in the recent mayoral elections in Sochi, Russia)?
What do you think?
(Make sure to check out the link to the Sochi elections; interesting how the repertoire of "election distortion activities" evolves).
(cross-posted)
One would assume that the leaders would wish for the elections to give as close as possible the illusion of open, free and fair elections, and would therefore attempt to be only as fraudulantly as was necessary to ensure their own victory. At least that way the fraud would not be quite as obvious. The larger the victory margin, the more ammunition the opposition has to claim that the election has been rigged.
ReplyDeleteThat's what you would think, but apparently rulers often engage in "excessive" fraud - large margins of victory and so on. Are they acting irrationally? Or do they have other objectives in view?
ReplyDeleteA little bit of fraud, such as to ensure a margin of victory of 2-4% over the opposition, may only give the opposition false hope and lead them to contest the next election more fiercely.
ReplyDelete'Excessive' fraud - ensuring a large margin of victory - may demoralize the opposition and make successive elections easier for the incumbent regime. Thus, with excessive fraud, the incumbent regime is thinking ahead and intent on a secure hold on power.
Of course, excessive fraud is not subtle and incumbents run the risk of being exposed.
As the mayoral election results in Sochi, Russia demonstrate, a large margin of victory can be a sign of immense state power, and lead to demoralisation of the opposition.
ReplyDeleteWould it depend on the regime's foreign relations also? For example, a ruler may be obliged to engage in minimal fraud if they were conscious of international aid continuing or appearing reasonably democratic to outsiders for various reasons.
ReplyDelete