 |
Degrees and Patterns of Party Competition in Electoral Autocracies
| |
| | Unformatted Document Text:
19
5) displays slightly lower scores of presidential competitiveness (see Table 7).
Mexico in 1982, Niger in 1996, Paraguay in 1983 and 1988, Senegal in the 1980s, Tunisia in 1989 and 1994, Zambia in 1996, and Zimbabwe in 1990 intuitively correspond very well to the idea of “hegemonic” electoral authoritarianism. Overall, the group looks quite homogenous in its levels of competitiveness. Only the somewhat higher degrees of legislative competitiveness in Paraguay 1989, as well as the somewhat higher degrees of presidential competitiveness in Ghana 1992, Madagascar 1989, Niger 1996, and Tanzania 1989 weaken the monochrome picture of elections tightly controlled by hegemonic parties. In addition, Mali in 1997 and Senegal in 1988 displayed similarly low levels of competitiveness, but did not qualify as authoritarian regimes (see Table 8).
Cluster 5: Quarter-Competitive Autocracies
The fifth and last cluster (N=6) is the least democratic. Nevertheless, it shows an interesting divergence between legislative and presidential races. Presidential races are the least competitive of all clusters. On average, only one and a half “effective” candidates compete in presidential contests (
ENC
= 1.5). The Molinar index does not even
register the heroic “half” candidate running against the winner (
ENC L
=
1.05). Accordingly, on average, the winners of presidential election outdistance their nominal competitors by 70.4 percent of valid votes. Legislative contests, by contrast, show mean scores of competitiveness close to the average of our sample total of 58 concurrent elections. On average, the mayor party earns considerable margins of victory in terms of legislative seats (
MARGIN L
= 36.5 percent), but it commands only bare
absolute majorities (
MD
= 3.3 percent) (see Table 7).
The elections in this cluster seem to belong to an “incongruent” kind of authoritarian regimes that maintain tight control over the center of the political system, the presidency, but allow for spaces of legislative contestation. Since presidential elections are usually more important, and seen as more important, than legislative contests, we baptize these regimes as “quarter-competitive.” Calling them “semi-competitive” or “semi-hegemonic” might exaggerate the political relevance of party-systemic competitiveness circumscribed to the legislative arena. Besides, the label of “quarter-competitiveness” seems to be quite appropriate for the cases that were included in this group: Nicaragua in 1984, Romania in 1990, Georgia in 1995, Kazakhstan in 1999, Cameroon in 1997, and Bangladesh in 1986 (see Table 8).
|
| | Authors: Schedler, Andreas. |
|
| |
|
|
19
5) displays slightly lower scores of presidential competitiveness (see
Table 7).
Mexico in 1982, Niger in 1996, Paraguay in 1983 and 1988, Senegal in
the 1980s, Tunisia in 1989 and 1994, Zambia in 1996, and Zimbabwe in
1990 intuitively correspond very well to the idea of “hegemonic”
electoral authoritarianism. Overall, the group looks quite homogenous in
its levels of competitiveness. Only the somewhat higher degrees of
legislative competitiveness in Paraguay 1989, as well as the somewhat
higher degrees of presidential competitiveness in Ghana 1992,
Madagascar 1989, Niger 1996, and Tanzania 1989 weaken the
monochrome picture of elections tightly controlled by hegemonic parties.
In addition, Mali in 1997 and Senegal in 1988 displayed similarly low
levels of competitiveness, but did not qualify as authoritarian regimes
(see Table 8).
Cluster 5: Quarter-Competitive Autocracies
The fifth and last cluster (N=6) is the least democratic. Nevertheless, it
shows an interesting divergence between legislative and presidential
races. Presidential races are the least competitive of all clusters. On
average, only one and a half “effective” candidates compete in
presidential contests (
ENC
= 1.5). The Molinar index does not even
register the heroic “half” candidate running against the winner (
ENC L
=
1.05). Accordingly, on average, the winners of presidential election
outdistance their nominal competitors by 70.4 percent of valid votes.
Legislative contests, by contrast, show mean scores of competitiveness
close to the average of our sample total of 58 concurrent elections. On
average, the mayor party earns considerable margins of victory in terms
of legislative seats (
MARGIN L
= 36.5 percent), but it commands only bare
absolute majorities (
MD
= 3.3 percent) (see Table 7).
The elections in this cluster seem to belong to an “incongruent” kind of
authoritarian regimes that maintain tight control over the center of the
political system, the presidency, but allow for spaces of legislative
contestation. Since presidential elections are usually more important, and
seen as more important, than legislative contests, we baptize these
regimes as “quarter-competitive.” Calling them “semi-competitive” or
“semi-hegemonic” might exaggerate the political relevance of party-
systemic competitiveness circumscribed to the legislative arena. Besides,
the label of “quarter-competitiveness” seems to be quite appropriate for
the cases that were included in this group: Nicaragua in 1984, Romania in
1990, Georgia in 1995, Kazakhstan in 1999, Cameroon in 1997, and
Bangladesh in 1986 (see Table 8).
|
|
 Convention | | Convention is an application service for managing large or small academic conferences, annual meetings, and other types of events! | | Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. | | Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! | | Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! | | Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. | | Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! | | Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! | | Click here for more information. |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
