Political parties, election, Middle East, North Africa, Ellen Lust, Elections under authoritarianism: Preliminary lessons from Jordan, electoral system, parliament, Bullets over Ballots: Islamists groups the state and electoral violence in Egypt and Morocco, Hendrik Kraetzschmara, Francesco Cavatortab, Elections and Distributive Politics in Mubarak's Egypt, democratic illusion, Egyptian authorities, Lisa Blaydes, Lisa Balydes
This text is based on "Elections under authoritarianism: Preliminary lessons from Jordan" by Ellen Lust, "Bullets over Ballots: Islamist groups, the state and electoral violence in Egypt and Morocco" by Hendrik Kraetzschmara and Francesco Cavatortab and "Elections and Distributive Politics in Mubarak's Egypt" by Lisa Blaydes.
The three readings discussed here shed light on the functioning of electoral systems in authoritarian regimes. The authors show that elections in these contexts serve multiple purposes, including legitimizing the regime, distributing resources to political elites, and managing competition. The authors also highlight the role of factors such as clientelism, violence, and the absence of political parties in shaping electoral outcomes. While each author focuses on a different aspect of the issue, they all agree that elections in authoritarian regimes are not necessarily a sign of democratization, and can be used to reinforce the power of the regime. Overall, the readings provide a nuanced understanding of the complex relationship between elections and authoritarianism.
[...] The difference is that Morocco sees these elections as central to the regime's international legitimacy, and therefore wants them to be conducted peacefully and in accordance with standards. Elections and Distributive Politics in Mubarak's Egypt Finally, Lisa Blaydes, in chapter 3 "Elections and Elite Management" of her book Elections and Distributive Politics in Mubarak's Egypt, goes beyond the classical definition of elections as a way of democratically electing one's political representatives, demonstrating that they can have an entirely different role. [...]
[...] Elections are therefore a real challenge, and the response of each regime depends, according to the authors, on three factors: the centrality of the elected institution for authoritarian survival, the availability of alternative electoral tools and the expected response of the international community. To illustrate this idea, the authors analyze the cases of Egypt and Morocco. While the Egyptian authorities use violent repression against opposition candidates, forgoing any peaceful elections, the Moroccan authorities do not. Yet both regimes are undemocratic. [...]
[...] Then, we notice that Ellen Lust is the only one who deals more deeply with political parties and their almost political absence. Hendrik Kraetzschmara and Francesco Cavatortab are also the only ones to confront two countries with different dynamics, which is not the case for Ellen Lust and Lisa Balydes, who focus on a single country. This is a limitation of their analysis, as they talk about authoritarian, or non-democratic, regimes without presenting several ways in which these regimes approach elections. [...]
[...] These elections are highly competitive, and serve to strengthen pro-regime candidates against the opposition. For voters, voting is guided by clientelism, that is, the search for the candidate who can channel the most resources, but more importantly, direct them to them. This search for "wasta" (or mediation) also impacts their electoral participation, since if voters consider the candidates insufficiently connected to deliver the wasta, they do not vote. Ellen Lust also highlights the limited importance of parties in the face of individual candidates who are not coordinated with each other. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
