Doctoral Dissertation Research in Political Science: Opposition Party Strategy in Electoral Authoritarian Regimes

在塞缪尔·亨廷顿所说的第三次民主化浪潮中，近100个国家开始了民主化进程。这些国家建立了民主制度，开始举行选举，许多国家放宽了对媒体以及公民权利和政治权利的限制。虽然许多东欧国家的民主化努力总体上是成功的，但非洲和中东的许多国家却辜负了人们的期望。事实上，在第三次民主化浪潮中，只有20%的国家成功转型。因此，存在着大量既不完全民主也不完全专制的国家。此外，这些半民主（或半独裁）国家在国家和地方各级定期举行选举，反对派团体参加选举并在国家立法机构中赢得一些席位。第三波转型的失败产生了一个有趣的现象：威权选举。我们不完全了解这些选举是否重要，如何重要，以及选举在民主过渡中的作用。专制选举是为进一步的民主化创造机会，还是仅仅维持专制政府？为了阐明选举在专制政权中的作用，本项目考察了抵制选举的原因和后果，以及随后的政权反应。确定各国政府对抵制反对党的要求作出反应的条件，将使我们能够确定那些促进民主化的选举，并确立将这些选举与阻碍民主化的选举区分开来的标准。虽然抵制越来越频繁，但文献尚未充分解释以下两个问题：(1)政党为什么决定抵制选举？(2)什么时候以及为什么抵制是一种成功的策略？本项目认为，为了回答这些问题并更好地解释抵制选举，我们需要考虑选举运作的制度（选举规则）和反对派政党内部存在的派系主义。在这个项目中，利用博弈论模型建立了一个抵制选举的理论。该模型用于建立选举规则与抵制选举之间关系以及党内派系主义与抵制选举之间关系的因果关系。然后使用定性和定量工具对从模型中得出的命题进行测试。该模型是根据2009年在约旦进行的研究得出的，将在阿尔及利亚进行三个月的实地研究，以评估从该模型中得出的建议。这些命题还将使用一个数据集进行测试，该数据集由1990年至2006年期间民主和专制政权的700多个国家级选举组成。考虑到非洲、亚洲和中东的大量国家现在正在举行选举，但他们的民主化努力却停滞不前，本研究是对文献的及时补充。该项目对约旦和阿尔及利亚的历史理解以及我们对民主转型的理解都有更广泛的影响。因此，更广泛的影响是双重的。首先，在约旦和阿尔及利亚实地工作期间收集的信息和数据将增加我们对这两个国家最近选举历史的理解，并解释和澄清反对派如何？美国最近的参与和不参与模式影响了这两个国家的民主转型。其次，在确定反对党行为的后果时，本项目将对民主转型过程得出更一般的结论。因此，这项研究不仅对加强我们对阿尔及利亚和约旦的理解很重要，而且通过对这些国家的广泛研究，文献将更好地理解选举在民主转型中的作用。

During what Samuel Huntington called the Third Wave of Democratization, nearly 100 countries began the process of democratization. These countries set up democratic institutions, began holding elections, and many liberalized restrictions on the media and on civil and political rights. Although the democratization efforts of many Eastern European countries have generally been successful, many countries in Africa and the Middle East have belied expectations. In fact, just 20% of countries democratizing under the third wave successfully transitioned. As a result, there exists a wide range of countries that are neither fully democratic nor fully authoritarian. Moreover, these semi-democratic (or semi-authoritarian) countries hold regular elections at the national and local levels in which opposition groups participate and win some seats in the national legislature. The failed transitions of the third wave have produced an interesting phenomenon: authoritarian elections. We do not fully understand whether and how these elections are important and the role of elections in democratic transitions. Do authoritarian elections create opportunities for further democratization or do they simply sustain authoritarian governments? In order to clarify the role of elections in authoritarian regimes, this project examines the causes and consequences of election boycotts, and the subsequent regime response. Determining the conditions under which governments respond to the demands of boycotting opposition parties will allow us to identify those elections that further democratization and establish the criteria that distinguish them from those elections that impede it. Although boycotts occur with increasing frequency, the literature has yet to sufficiently explain the following two questions: (1) Why do political parties decide to boycott an election? and (2) When and why are boycotts a successful strategy? This project argues that in order to answer these questions and better explain election boycotts, we need to account for the institutions under which elections operate (the electoral rules) and the existence of factionalism within opposition political parties. In this project, a theory of election boycotts is developed using a game theoretic model. The model is used to develop a causal account for the relationship between electoral rules and election boycotts and between intraparty factionalism and election boycotts. The propositions derived from the model are then tested using both qualitative and quantitative tools. The model was informed from research conducted in Jordan in 2009 and three months of field research will be undertaken in Algeria to evaluate the propositions derived from the model. The propositions will also be tested using a dataset consisting of over 700 national-level elections in both democratic and authoritarian regimes from 1990-2006. Given the vast number of countries across Africa, Asia and the Middle East that are now holding elections, but have stalled in their democratization efforts, the present study represents a timely addition to the literature. The project has broader implications for both the historical understanding of Jordan and Algeria, and also for our understanding of democratic transitions. The broader impact is thus twofold. First, the information and data collected during fieldwork in Jordan and Algeria will increase our understanding of the recent electoral histories of both countries, and explain and clarify how the opposition?s recent pattern of participation and non-participation has affected the democratic transition in both states. Second, in determining the consequences of opposition party behavior this project will have more general conclusions about the process of democratic transition. This study, therefore, is important not only for enhancing our understanding of Algeria and Jordan, but also through an extensive study of these countries, the literature will gain an improved understanding of the role elections play in democratic transitions.