Double standards: the verdicts of western election observers in sub-Saharan Africa
Double standards: the verdicts of western election observers in sub-Saharan Africa
复制标题
双重标准：西方选举观察员对撒哈拉以南非洲地区的判断
DOI：
10.1080/13510347.2018.1534099
复制
发表时间：
2018
期刊：
影响因子：
3.2
通讯作者：
S. Dodsworth
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
S. Dodsworth
本文旨在检验西方选举观察家是否对撒哈拉以南非洲的选举实行“双重标准”。它表明，它们确实：从统计数据来看，在1991年至2012年期间，与其他地方举行的同等质量的选举相比，西方选举观察员声称撒哈拉以南非洲的选举中发生重大欺诈行为的可能性较小。尽管控制了通常被认为会影响观察员判断的其他因素，如西方国家的战略利益，但这种差异仍然存在。然而，随着时间的推移，情况有所变化。在1991年至2001年期间，双重标准的部分原因是“进步偏见”，一种倾向，容忍有缺陷的选举，改善了以前举行的选举。从2002年到2012年，观察家们对双重标准的应用更难解释。在此期间，分析指出了一些阻碍西方观察员指控舞弊的因素，包括引发选举暴力的风险以及保护与战略伙伴关系的愿望。报告还指出了使选举舞弊指控更有可能发生的因素，包括过去舞弊指控所开创的先例，以及出乎意料的更高水平的外国援助。然而，这些因素都不能解释区域差异。
ABSTRACT This article tests whether Western election observers apply a “double standard” to elections in sub-Saharan Africa. It demonstrates that they do: Western election observers were statistically less likely to allege that significant fraud had occurred in an election in sub-Saharan Africa, than an election of the same quality held elsewhere, throughout the period from 1991 to 2012. This discrepancy exists despite controls for other factors commonly thought to influence the verdicts of observers, such as the strategic interests of Western countries. Yet, there is variation over time. Between 1991 and 2001, the double standard is partly explained by “progress bias,” a tendency to tolerate flawed elections that improved on those held previously. From 2002 to 2012, observers’ application of a double standard is much harder to explain. In that period, the analysis points to several factors that discourage Western observers from alleging fraud, including the risk of triggering electoral violence and a desire to protect relationships with strategic partners. It also identifies factors that make allegations of electoral fraud more likely, including the precedent set by past allegations of fraud and – unexpectedly – higher levels of foreign aid. None of these factors, however, account for the regional discrepancy.