Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T02:29:34.061Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Opposition Coalitions and Democratization by Election1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 October 2012

Michael Wahman
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article critically assesses the argument that oppositional coordination creates democratization by elections. It argues that the previously acknowledged democratizing effect of pre-electoral coalitions is better described as an alternation effect, by which coordinated oppositional parties are more likely to win elections. The positive effect of oppositional coalitions is, however, short lived and intimately connected with cases where the election is won by the opposition. Evidence of potential endogeneity is presented, which shows that coalitions are more likely when there is a realistic chance of oppositional victories. These results were derived by utilizing an original dataset of 251 authoritarian elections in 86 countries from 1973 to 2004.

Type
Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 48 , Issue 1 , January 2013 , pp. 3 - 32
Copyright
Copyright © Government and Opposition Ltd 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Michael Wahman is a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Center for European Studies, University of Texas at Austin. Contact email: michael.wahman@utexas.edu.

1

Previous versions of this article have been presented at the University of Connecticut Conference on Democracy and Democratization, February 2009, and the ECPR General Conference, September 2009, at Potsdam University. The author is grateful to Axel Hadenius and Jan Teorell for their generous contribution of data and valuable comments. The author is also indebted to Merete Bech Seeberg, Inken von Borzyskowski, Marc Morjé Howard, Tony Ingesson, Peter Kingstone, Staffan I. Lindberg, Johannes Lindvall, Michael K. Miller, Mia Olsson, Anders Sannerstedt, Lisa Strömbom and two anonymous reviewers for excellent comments on previous drafts. Data and documentation are available upon request.

References

Banks, A. (2009), Cross-national Time-series Data Archive (Jerusalem: Databanks International).Google Scholar
BBC News (2001), ‘Gambia's Elections: Candidates’ Profiles’, BBC News, 17 October, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1602897.stm.Google Scholar
Birch, S. (2002), ‘The 2000 Election in Yugoslavia: The Bulldozer Revolution’, Electoral Studies, 21(3): 499–511.Google Scholar
Birch, S. (2007), ‘Electoral Systems and Electoral Misconduct’, Comparative Political Studies, 40: 1533–1536.Google Scholar
Bogaards, M. (2007), ‘Measuring Democracy through Election Outcomes. A Critique with African Data’, Comparative Political Studies, 40(10): 1211–1237.Google Scholar
Bratton, M.van de Walle, N. (1997), Democratic Experiments in Africa: Regime Transition in Comparative Perspective (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Bunce, V.J.Wolchik, S.L. (2010), ‘Defeating Dictators: Electoral Change and Stability in Competitive Authoritarian Regimes’, World Politics, 62: 48–86.Google Scholar
Carothers, T. (2002), ‘The End of the Transition Paradigm’, Journal of Democracy, 13: 5–21.Google Scholar
Cheeseman, N. (2010), ‘African Elections as Vehicles for Change’, Journal of Democracy, 21(4): 139–153.Google Scholar
Collier, P.Hoeffler, A. (2009), Democracy's Achilles Heel or, How to Win an Election Without Really Trying, CSAE Working Paper 8/2009 (Oxford: CSAE).Google Scholar
Cox, G. (1997), Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World's Electoral Systems (New York: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Dahl, R.A. (1971), Polyarchy: Partcipation and Opposition (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).Google Scholar
Duch, R.M.Stevenson, R.T. (2008), The Economic Vote: How Political and Economic Institutions Condition Election Results (New York: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Gastil, R.D. (1990), ‘The Comparative Survey of Freedom: Experiences and Suggestions’, Studies in Comparative International Development, 25(1): 25–50.Google Scholar
Geddes, B. (1999), ‘What Do we Know About Democratization After Twenty Years?’, Annual Review of Political Science, 2(2): 115–144.Google Scholar
Gerring, J., Strom, T.C.Moreno, C. (2005), ‘Centeripetal Democratic Governance: A Theory and Global Inquiry’, American Political Science Review, 99(4): 567–581.Google Scholar
Golder, S.N. (2006), The Logic of Pre-electoral Coalition Formation (Columbus: Ohio State University Press).Google Scholar
Greene, K.F. (2007), Why Dominant Parties Lose: Mexico's Democratization in Comparative Perspective (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Hadenius, A.Teorell, J. (2007), ‘Pathways from Authoritarianisms’, Journal of Democracy, 18: 143–156.Google Scholar
Hale, H.E. (2005), ‘Regime Cycles: Democracy, Autocracy, and Revolution in Post-Soviet Eurasia’, World Politics, 58: 133–165.Google Scholar
Howard, M.M.Roessler, P.G. (2006), ‘Liberalizing Electoral Outcomes in Competitive Authoritarian Regimes’, American Journal of Political Science, 50(2): 365–381.Google Scholar
International Foundation for Electoral Systems (various editions), www.electionguide.org.Google Scholar
Inter-parliamentary Union report (various editions), www.ipu.org.Google Scholar
Kalandadze, K.Orenstein, M.A. (2009), ‘Electoral Protests and Democratization Beyond the Color Revolutions’, Comparative Political Studies, 42(11): 1403–1425.Google Scholar
Keefer, P. (2005), Database of Political Institutions: Changes and Variable Definitions (New York: World Bank).Google Scholar
Keesing's (various editions), Keesing's Record of World Events (Cambridge: Keesing's Worldwide).Google Scholar
Levitsky, S.Way, L. (2010), Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes after the Cold War (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindberg, S.I. (2006), Democracy and Elections in Africa (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press).Google Scholar
Long, S.J.Freese, J. (2005), Regression Models for Categorical Outcomes Using Stata, 2nd edn (College Station, TX: Stata Press).Google Scholar
Lust-Okar, E. (2006), ‘Elections Under Authoritarianism: Preliminary Lessons from Jordan’, Democratization, 13(3): 456–471.Google Scholar
Magaloni, B. (2006), Voting for Autocracy: Hegemonic Party Survival and its Demise in Mexico (New York: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Molina, I.Lehoucq, F.E. (1999), ‘Political Competition and Fraud: A Latin American Case Study’, Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 30(2): 199–235.Google Scholar
Neter, J., Wasserman, W.Kutner, M.H. (1989), Applied Linear Regression Models (Homewood, IL: Irwin).Google Scholar
O'Donnell, G.Schmitter, P. (1986), Tentative Conclusions about Uncertain Democracies (Baltimore, MD, and London: Johns Hopkins University Press).Google Scholar
Persson, T.Tabellini, G. (2005), The Economic Effects of Constitutions (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).Google Scholar
Pripstein Posusney, M. (2002), ‘Multi-party Elections in the Arab World: Institutional Engineering and Oppositional Strategies’, Studies in Comparative International Development, 36(4): 34–62.Google Scholar
Przeworski, A., Alvarez, M.E., Cheibub, J.A.Limongi, F. (2000), Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and Material Well-Being in the World, 1950–1990 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Rakner, L.Svåsand, L. (2004), ‘From Dominant to Competitive Party System: The Zambian Experience 1991–2001’, Party Politics, 10(1): 49–68.Google Scholar
Schedler, A. (2002a), ‘The Nested Game of Democratization by Elections’, International Political Science Review, 23(1): 103–122.Google Scholar
Schedler, A. (2002b), ‘Elections without Democracy: The Menu of Manipulation’, Journal of Democracy, 13: 36–50.Google Scholar
Suryadinata, L. (2007), ‘The Decline of Hegemonic Party System in Indonesia: Golkar after the Fall of Suharto’, Contemporary Southeast Asia: A Journal of International and Strategic Affairs, 29: 333–359.Google Scholar
Teorell, J. (2010), Determinants of Democratization: Explaining Regime Change in the World, 1972–2006 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Teorell, J.Hadenius, A. (2007), ‘Determinants of Democratization: Taking Stock of the Large-N Evidence’, in D. Berg-Schlosser (ed.), Democratization: The State of the Art, 2nd edn (Opladen and Farmington Hills, MI: Barbara Budrich Publishers): 69–85.Google Scholar
Teorell, J.Hadenius, A. (2009), ‘Elections as Levers of Democratization: A Global Inquiry’, in S.I. Lindberg (ed.), Democratization by Elections, A New Mode of Transitions (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press): 77–100.Google Scholar
Van de Walle, N. (2006), ‘Tipping Games: When do Oppositional Parties Coalesce?’, in A. Schedler (ed.), Electoral Authoritarianism, The Dynamics of Unfree Competition (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner): 77–94.Google Scholar
Wahman, M. (2011), ‘Offices and Policies: Why Do Oppositional Parties Form Pre-electoral Coalitions in Competitive Authoritarian Regimes?’, Electoral Studies, 30(4): 642–657.Google Scholar
World Bank (2009), ‘World Development Indicators’, http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators.Google Scholar