What is the role of opposition parties’ behaviour in institutionalising democratic elections in electoral autocracies? What are the effects of opposition choices on the transformation of electoral authoritarian regimes to democracies? This paper, published in the Journal of Contemporary African Studies, uses data from 210 African elections to examine the effects of opposition behaviour on democratisation. By choosing to contest elections and accepting the outcome in electoral autocracies, opposition parties can play a crucial role in the transition to democracy.
The behaviour of opposition parties is analysed in two respects – opposition participation and losers’s acceptance. Participation by opposition parties in free and fair elections may seem a given, just as boycotts may be expected in flawed elections. However, opposition parties may also participate in flawed elections to press for concessions from authoritarian rulers. Equally, they may boycott free elections in order to discredit the ruling regime when they have little chance of winning. On the other hand, losing parties may challenge results in order to undermine their rivals. Thus, challenging results should not be taken at face value as substantiating allegations of irregularities.
In electoral authoritarian regimes, opposition participation and acceptance of results does not seem to safeguard against breakdown. However, in transitional elections – elections held in electoral autocracies before they transform into democratic regimes – the picture is more positive.
- Opposition parties’ presence and abidance by the rules of electoral contest do not automatically lead to democracy. However, they are perhaps necessary preconditions. Opposition parties participated in almost all of the elections covered in this study and accepted the results immediately in more than 75 per cent of cases.
- Popular participation and political competitiveness are to some degree determined by opposition behaviour. When opposition parties contest elections in authoritarian regimes, voter turnout and the frequency of turnover increase, whilst winning shares decrease.
- There are no significant differences in voter turnout and competitiveness between fair and flawed elections.
The limited duration of electoral regimes in contemporary Africa means that results should be viewed with caution. Nevertheless some broad recommendations can be made:
- Policymakers should be aware that in political development terms, there is no longer one Africa, but three. The first group of countries consists of long-standing democracies. The second and largest group consists of electoral autocracies, some of which have seen their electoral regime break down one or more times over the past dozen years. The third, smaller group consists of closed authoritarian and dysfunctional states.
- Policymakers need to understand better the dynamics of opposition behaviour and its role in protracted transitions to democracy. Elections are not the end of a process but a step towards attaining democracy.
- Most political systems combine democratic and undemocratic features. Country-specific analyses are necessary but wider assessments can be useful. Policymakers could look at one very specific partial regime whilst also comparing across countries to understand how less-than-democratic states evolve to become democratic.
