Week 5: Beatriz Magaloni (2005) Voting for Autocracy
This is another well-written book. A part of me wished I had been born earlier so that I would have written such an amazing dissertation but oh well. In our obsession with elections we have given very little attention to autocratic elections. What allows for the survival of hegemonic parties who stay in power for decades. Part of the puzzle is why have elections in authoritarian regimes? Why did the PRI have elections? Why is Robert Mugabe calling for elections? Are the elections always fraudulent if not when do politicians use fraud and how do they calculate the benefits for doing so.
The first observation that she makes is that hegemonic parties do not win with small margins of the vote. In fact they are violating both the space and size laws (Laver and Schofield 1991). The size law states that parties will form minimal winning coalitions 50+1 enough to get major policies passed. But in hegemonic governments they are aiming to win with over 60% of the vote enough to make sweeping changes that require a super majority. Evidence from the ME (Ghaddi, Lust-Okar) suggests that parties in the middle east want large majorities so that they can control constitutional amendments. Magaloni argues that the PRI needed a super majority win to look strong and build voter confidence. Having a super majority makes it easier for the parties to distribute patronage i.e. jobs to their favored constituencies. If the PRI looked strong the opposition would not field strong candidates, the PRI could use their control of resources to co-opt the opposition as they have done and has been done elsewhere.
These parties don’t always use fraud, they will use it when the need it the most in the 1988 election the PRI clearly stuffed the ballot boxes. I do think that hegemonic parties might as well stuff the boxes because the opposition is most likely going to accuse them of stuffing the boxes wether or not they do this.
WHO supports the PRI-
They get their support from the voters who depend on them the most the rural voter and the poor voters who need government aid.
What does the NGO mean for todays hegemonic parties
-I think it’s great for them. Look at museveni he claims credit for work that the NGO’s are doing and just says well I brought them here.
I also think that unless the NGO’s are local they are not catering to the same client. NGO’s come back home and give their fancy reports and Museveni and co. claim the credit for mosquito nets delivered by the NGO.
The opposition
- the opposition fails for a number of reasons in these countries
1. The ruling party can bring them into the fold. Look at MDC in Zimbabwe they have been given cars, houses, they are now part of the government and not the opposition
2. They are not united. In Japan even though the LDP is the least popular party it is the most united it rarely splinters and yet opposition parties are breaking of left right and center. The opposition in Zambia’s 1991 elections was great the formed the MMD an oversize coalition which guaranteed a win.
3. They field weak candidates- they can not provide patronage, they can not make credible promises. Clever parties win when they are working with a dumb hegemonic party e.g. in Senegal instead of holding to name brand leaders the DP let them go and form their own party. The PRI was really good at punishing defectors or giving them things to stay happy, ZANU PF is another great example. The party formed from a coalition of two big parties post 1980 has pretty much remained intact whilst the opposition has splintered of.
4. Resource poor – in most centralized clientelisti governments, parties have to be able to deliver pork. Without access to the state pots the opposition cannot do that.
5. They have a limited view-they are only campaigning in urban areas. They have to expand their zone of influence go for an all country strategy.
The acknowledgments sections comes highly recommended.
ReplyDelete