The theory of democratization by elections holds that elections—even when flawed—can, over time, have an independent causal effect on democratic transitions. Despite the recent growth of this literature, questions remain about the global scope of the argument and its structural preconditions. We show that, in Southeast Asia, elections are almost always the culmination rather than the cause of democratization, and use case materials from seven Southeast Asian countries to illustrate the mechanisms that lead from democratization to elections. Our argument has implications both for Southeast Asian democratization and for existing scholarship from other world regions.
AlvarezM.CheibubJ.LimongiF.PrzeworskiA. (1996). Classifying political regimes. Studies in Comparative International Development, 31, 3-36.
2.
AspinallE. (2005). Opposing Suharto: Compromise, resistance, and regime change in Indonesia. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
3.
BarrM. (2012). The bonsai under the banyan tree: Democracy and democratisation in Singapore. Democratization, 21, 29-48.
4.
BeaulieuE. (2014). Electoral protest and democracy in the developing world. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
5.
BeckT.ClarkeG.GroffA.KeeferP.WalshP. (2001). New tools in comparative political economy: The database of political institutions. World Bank Economic Review, 15, 165-176.
6.
BertrandJ. (2013). Political change in Southeast Asia. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
7.
BoixC.MillerM.RosatoS. (2012). A complete data set of political regimes, 1800–2007. Comparative Political Studies, 46, 1523-1554.
8.
BrancatiD. (2016). Democracy protests: Origins, features, and significance. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
9.
BrattonM.van de WalleN. (1994). Neopatrimonial regimes and political transitions in Africa. World Politics, 46, 453-489.
10.
BrattonM.van de WalleN. (1997). Democratic experiments in Africa: Regime transitions in comparative perspective. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
11.
BrownleeJ. (2002). And yet they persist: Explaining survival and transition in neopatrimonial regimes. Studies in Comparative International Development, 37, 35-63.
12.
BrownleeJ. (2009). Portents of pluralism: How hybrid regimes affect democratic transitions. American Journal of Political Science, 53, 515-532.
13.
BunceV. (2003). Rethinking recent democratization: Lessons from the post communist experience. World Politics, 55, 167-192.
14.
BunceV.WolchikS. (2010). Defeating dictators: Electoral change and stability in competitive authoritarian regimes. World Politics, 62, 43-86.
15.
BunceV.WolchikS. (2011). Defeating authoritarian leaders in postcommunist countries. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
16.
BurtonM. G.HigleyJ. (1987). Elite settlements. American Sociological Review, 52, 295-307.
17.
CheesmanN.SkidmoreM.WilsonT. (Eds.). (2012). Myanmar’s transition: Openings, obstacles and opportunities. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
18.
CheibubJ.GandhiJ.VreelandJ. (2010). Democracy and dictatorship revisited. Public Choice, 143, 67-101.
19.
ChuaB. (1995). Communitarian ideology and democracy in Singapore. London, England: Routledge.
20.
CoppedgeM.GerringJ.LindbergS.SkaaningS.TeorellJ.AltmanD.. . . WilsonS. (2017). “V-Dem [Country-Year/Country-Date] Dataset v7”: Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Project. Retrieved from at https://www.v-dem.net/en/data/data-version-7-1/ (accessed 12 February 2018).
21.
DahlR. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and opposition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
22.
DonnoD. (2013a). Defending democratic norms: International actors and the politics of electoral misconduct. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
23.
DonnoD. (2013b). Elections and democratization in authoritarian regimes. American Journal of Political Science, 57, 703-716.
24.
EdgellA.MechkovaV.AltmanD.BernhardM.LindbergS. (2015). When and where do elections matter? A global test of the democratization by elections hypothesis, 1900-2012. V-Dem Working Paper 2015:8. Retrieved from SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2638285 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2638285 (accessed 12 February 2018).
25.
EmmersonD. (1995). Region and recalcitrance: Rethinking democracy through Southeast Asia. The Pacific Review, 8, 223-248.
26.
Escriba-FolchA. (2013). Accountable for what? Regime types, performance, and the fate of outgoing dictators. Democratization, 20, 160-185.
27.
FinerS. (1985). The retreat to the barracks: Notes on the practice and the theory of military withdrawal from the seats of power. Third World Quarterly, 7, 16-30.
28.
FukuokaY. (2015). Who brought down the dictator? A critical reassessment of so-called “people power” revolutions in the Philippines and Indonesia. The Pacific Review, 28, 411-433.
29.
GandhiJ. (2015). Elections and political regimes. Government and Opposition, 50, 446-468.
30.
GeddesB. (1990). How the cases you choose affect the answers you get: Selection bias in comparative politics. Political Analysis, 2, 131-150.
31.
GeddesB.WrightJ.FrantzE. (2014). Autocratic breakdown and regime transitions: A new data set. Perspectives on Politics, 12, 313-331.
32.
GraingerM.ChameauC. (1998, September12-17). Demonstrations spread through capital. Phnom Penh Post, p. 1.
33.
HermetG.RoseR.RouquiéA. (Eds.). (1978). Elections without choice. New York, NY: John Wiley.
34.
HickenA. (2009). Building party systems in developing democracies. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
35.
HigleyJ.BurtonM. G. (1989). The elite variable in democratic transitions and breakdowns. American Sociological Review, 54, 17-32.
36.
HorowitzD. L. (2012). Constitutional change and democracy in Indonesia. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
37.
HowardM.RoesslerP. (2006). Liberalizing electoral outcomes in competitive authoritarian regimes. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 365-381.
38.
HughesC. (2003). The political economy of Cambodia’s transition, 1991-2001. London, England: Routledge.
39.
HuntingtonS. P. (1991). The third wave: Democratization in the late twentieth century. Normal: University of Oklahoma Press.
40.
HwangI.-W. (2003). Personalized politics: The Malaysian state under Mahathir. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
41.
HydeS. (2011). The pseudo-democrat’s dilemma: Why election observation became an international norm. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
42.
HydeS.MarinovN. (2012). Which elections can be lost?Political Analysis, 20, 191-210.
JayasuriyaK.RodanG. (2007). Beyond hybrid regimes: More participation, less contestation in Southeast Asia. Democratization, 14, 773-794.
45.
KelleyJ. (2012). Monitoring democracy: When international election observation works and why it often fails. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
46.
KnutsenC.NygårdH.WigT. (2017). Autocratic elections: Stabilizing tool or force for change?World Politics, 69, 98-143.
47.
KuhontaE.SlaterD.VuT. (Eds.). (2008). Southeast Asia in political science: Theory, region, and qualitative analysis. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
48.
LemkeD. (2003). African lessons for international relations research. World Politics, 56, 114-138.
49.
LevitskyS.WayL. (2010). Competitive authoritarianism: Hybrid regimes after the cold war. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
50.
LiebermanE. S. (2005). Nested analysis as a mixed-method strategy for comparative research. American Political Science Review, 99, 435-452.
51.
LindbergS. (2006). Democracy and elections in Africa. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
52.
LindbergS. (Ed). (2009a). Democratization by elections: A new mode of transition. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
53.
LindbergS. (2009b). A theory of elections as a mode of transition. In LindbergS. (Ed.), Democratization by elections: A new mode of transition (pp. 314-342). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
MabbettI.ChandlerD. (1995). The Khmers. Bangkok, Thailand: Silkworm Books.
56.
Maung Aung Myoe. (2014). The soldier and the state: The Tatmadaw and political liberalization in Myanmar since 2011. South East Asia Research, 22, 1-17.
57.
MillerM. (2015a). Democratic pieces: Autocratic elections and democratic development since 1815. British Journal of Political Science, 45, 501-530.
58.
MillerM. (2015b). Elections, information, and policy responsiveness in autocratic regimes. Comparative Political Studies, 48, 691-727.
59.
MoehlerD.LindbergS. (2009). Narrowing the legitimacy gap: Turnovers as a cause of democratic consolidation. Journal of Politics, 71, 1448-1466.
60.
MorgenbesserL. (2016a). The autocratic mandate: Elections, legitimacy and regime stability in Singapore. The Pacific Review, 30, 205-231.
61.
MorgenbesserL. (2016b). Behind the Façade: Elections under authoritarianism in Southeast Asia. Albany: State University of New York Press.
62.
MorgenbesserL. (2017). The failure of democratisation by elections in Cambodia. Contemporary Politics, 23, 135-155.
63.
MorgenbesserL. (2018). Misclassification on the Mekong: The Origins of Hun Sen’s personalist dictatorship. Democratization, 25, 191-208.
64.
MorgenbesserL.PepinskyT. (2017). States, neopatrimonialism, and elections: Democratization in Southeast Asia. Unpublished manuscript.
65.
NohlenD.GrotzF.HartmannC. (Eds.). (2001). Elections in Asia and the Pacific (a data handbook): Volume 2, Southeast Asia, East Asia, and the South Pacific. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
66.
O’DonnellG.SchmitterP. C. (1986). Transitions from authoritarian rule: Tentative conclusions about uncertain democracies. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
67.
OrtmannS. (2011). Singapore: Authoritarian, but newly competitive. Journal of Democracy, 22, 153-164.
68.
OstwaldK. (2013). How to win a lost election: Malapportionment and Malaysia’s 2013 general election. The Round Table, 102, 521-532.
69.
OverholtW. (1986). The rise and fall of Ferdinand Marcos. Asian Survey, 26, 1137-1163.
70.
Peang-MethA. (1991). Understanding the Khmer: Sociological-cultural observations. Asian Survey, 31, 442-455.
71.
PepinskyT. (2009). Economic crises and the breakdown of authoritarian regimes: Indonesia and Malaysia in comparative perspective. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
72.
PlunkettM. (1994). The establishment of the rule of law in post-conflict peacekeeping. In SmithH. (Ed.), International peacekeeping: Building on the Cambodia experience (pp. 65-78). Canberra: Australian Defence Studies Centre.
73.
QuinlanD.PonniahK.BoyleD. (2013, September15). Tens of thousands take to streets. Phnom Penh Post, p. 1.
74.
RajahJ. (2012). Authoritarian rule of law: Legislation, discourse and legitimacy in Singapore. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
75.
RulandJ. (2001). Indonesia. In NohlenD.GrotzF.HartmannC. (Eds.), Elections in Asia and the Pacific (a data handbook): Volume 2, Southeast Asia, East Asia, and the South Pacific (pp. 82-102). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
76.
SchedlerA. (2002). The nested game of democratization by elections. International Political Science Review, 23, 103-122.
77.
SchedlerA. (2009). The contingent power of authoritarian elections. In LindbergS. (Ed), Democratization by elections: A new mode of transition (pp. 291-313). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
78.
SchedlerA. (2013). The politics of uncertainty: Sustaining and subverting electoral authoritarianism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
79.
SidelJ. (2008). Social origins of dictatorship and democracy revisited: Colonial state and Chinese immigrant in the making of modern Southeast Asia. Comparative Politics, 40, 127-147.
80.
SlaterD. (2003). Iron cage in an iron fist: Authoritarian institutions and the personalization of power in Malaysia. Comparative Politics, 36, 81-101.
81.
SlaterD. (2010). Ordering power: Contentious politics and authoritarian Leviathans in Southeast Asia. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
82.
SlaterD. (2012). Strong-state democratization in Malaysia and Singapore. Journal of Democracy, 23, 19-33.
83.
SlaterD.FennerS. (2011). State power and staying power: Infrastructural mechanisms and authoritarian durability. Journal of International Affairs, 65, 15-29.
SnyderR.MahoneyJ. (1999). The missing variable: Institutions and the study of regime change. Comparative Politics, 32, 103-122.
86.
StrangioS. (2014). Hun Sen’s Cambodia. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
87.
SundhaussenU. (1995). Indonesia’s new order: A model for Myanmar. Asian Survey, 35, 768-780.
88.
TaylorR. (1996). Introduction: Elections and politics in Southeast Asia. In TaylorR. H. (Ed.), The politics of elections in Southeast Asia (pp. 1-11). New York, NY: Woodrow Wilson Center Press.
89.
TaylorR. (2015). The armed forces in Myanmar politics: A terminating role?Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
ThompsonM. (1995). The anti-Marcos struggle: Personalistic rule and democratic transition in the Philippines. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
92.
ThompsonM. (1998). The Marcos regime in the Philippines. In ChehabiH.LinzJ. (Eds.), Sultanistic regimes (pp. 206-230). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
93.
TsebelisG. (1990). Nested games: Rational choice in comparative politics. Berkeley: University of California Press.
94.
van de WalleN. (2006). Tipping games: When do opposition parties coalesce. In SchedlerA. (Ed.), Electoral authoritarianism: The dynamics of unfree competition (pp. 77-92). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
95.
WahmanM. (2013). Opposition coalitions and democratization by election. Government and Opposition, 48, 3-32.
96.
WeissM. (2007). What a little democracy can do: Comparing trajectories of reform in Malaysia and Indonesia. Democratization, 14, 26-43.
97.
WrightJ.Escribà-FolchA. (2012). Authoritarian institutions and regime survival: Transitions to democracy and subsequent autocracy. British Journal of Political Science, 42, 283-309.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
