Autocratic Elections

Abstract

Do elections reduce or increase the risk of autocratic regime breakdown? This article addresses this contested question by distinguishing between election events and the institution of elections. The authors propose that elections stabilize autocracies in the long term but at the price of short-term instability. Elections are conducive to regime survival in the long run because they improve capacities for co-optation and repression but produce short-term instability because they serve as focal points for regime opposition. Drawing on data from 259 autocracies from 1946 to 2008, the authors show that elections increase the short-term probability of regime failure. The estimated effect is retained when accounting for the endogeneity of autocratic elections; this finding is critical, since some autocrats may or may not hold elections because of perceived effects on regime survival. The authors also find that this destabilizing effect does not operate in the long term. They find some, although not as strong, evidence that elections stabilize autocratic regimes in the medium to long term, despite their destabilizing immediate effects. These temporal effect patterns are present for both executive and legislative elections, and they are robust to using different measures, control variable strategies, and estimation techniques. In line with expectations, both effect patterns are much clearer for multiparty autocratic elections than for completely uncontested elections.

YouTube as Alternative Television in Russia: Political Videos During the Presidential Election Campaign 2018

“…While the institution of elections under authoritarianism that can also be regarded as an "input institution" (Toepfl, 2020) has been thoroughly explored by political scientists (Gandhi & Lust-Okar, 2009;Knutsen et al, 2017), the role of social media in authoritarian elections so far remains underresearched. This article aims at addressing this gap by exploring political communication on Russian YouTube during the presidential election of 2018.…”

Economic inequality, income, and their effects on electoral and civil society participation in authoritarian regimes

“…Therefore, civil society participation and electoral participation are two types of restricted political participation in contemporary authoritarian regimes, even when such types of participation are not directly connected to demands for democratization. Nevertheless, research shows that authoritarian regimes with multiparty elections are more likely to democratize after elections (e.g., Knutsen et al 2017;Wright and Escribà-Folch 2012). Therefore, elections and large-scale political mobilization in civil society can be major factors that affect the stability of authoritarian regimes (e.g., Hadenius and Teorell 2007;Knutsen et al 2017;Morgenbesser and Pepinsky 2019).…”

“…Nevertheless, research shows that authoritarian regimes with multiparty elections are more likely to democratize after elections (e.g., Knutsen et al 2017;Wright and Escribà-Folch 2012). Therefore, elections and large-scale political mobilization in civil society can be major factors that affect the stability of authoritarian regimes (e.g., Hadenius and Teorell 2007;Knutsen et al 2017;Morgenbesser and Pepinsky 2019). However, political participation in general does not necessarily affect the balance of power.…”

“…By investigating the determinants of political participation in autocracies, this study contributes to the literature on authoritarian elections (cf. Knutsen et al 2017;Levitsky and Way 2010;Schedler 2013). Third, it contributes to the research on the political behavior and trust of individuals under authoritarianism (cf.…”

Demokratiforskningen: Hvor står den,og hvor går den?

“…Spesielt har mange studier dreiet seg om betydningen av valg i diktaturer for blant annet regimeoverlevelse (f.eks. Knutsen, Nygård & Wig, 2017), men også på betydningen av institusjoner som regimepartier og parlamenter for hva slags politikk som føres i diktaturer (f.eks. Wright, 2008).…”