Why do democracies agree with contested illiberal regimes on the creation of regional institutions for election monitoring? This article tackles this puzzle by analyzing the creation of the Union of South American Nations’ (UNASUR) Electoral Council (ECU) and its electoral “accompaniment” missions. The case of the ECU is particularly relevant, since its missions allowed for the legitimization of illiberal electoral practices in a region predominantly populated by democratic states that have pursued democracy consolidation through regional cooperation. We show that the emergence of the ECU resulted from the interaction of the following conditions: Venezuela’s leadership; the mobilization of the transgovernmental network of South American electoral authorities; and the interaction between different sets of state preferences regarding election observation, which reached an equilibrium around an institutional design that did not impose a diminution of sovereignty on the contracting states. The article sheds light on the genesis of sovereignty-protective institutional designs, showing how they allow for the reconciliation of non-coincident preferences even in a sensitive field like election observation. The article also contributes to the literature on international election observation by explaining why democratic states may favor the emergence of monitoring mechanisms that contribute to the erosion of democracy in a region. In so doing, the article adds to the literature on regime-boosting regionalism, illuminating the conditions under which democratic regional organizations (ROs) create institutions that can boost illiberal regimes’ legitimacy. In particular, our findings show that secondary powers, like Venezuela, can strategically exploit transgovernmental networks’ mobilization to pursue their domestic and geopolitical interests (including illiberal ones) within ROs.
AbbottKWSnidalD (1998) Why states act through formal international organizations. Journal of Conflict Resolution42(1): 3–32.
2.
AlcañizI (2016) Environmental and Nuclear Networks in the Global South: How Skills Shape International Cooperation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3.
AltmanD (2019) Citizenship and Contemporary Direct Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4.
AmbrosioT (2008) Catching the ‘Shanghai spirit’: how the Shanghai cooperation organization promotes authoritarian norms in central Asia. Europe-Asia Studies60(8): 1321–1344.
5.
BörzelTAVan HüllenV (2015) Governance Transfer by Regional Organizations: Patching Together a Global Script. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
6.
BurgesSW (2009) Brazilian Foreign Policy after the Cold War. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida.
7.
CameronMA (2018) Making sense of competitive authoritarianism: lessons from the Andes. Latin American Politics and Society60(2): 1–22.
8.
CampbellJLQuincyCOssermanJ, et al. (2013) Coding in-depth semistructured interviews: problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement. Sociological Methods & Research42(3): 294–320.
9.
ClosaC (2021) Planning, implementing and reporting: increasing transparency, replicability and credibility in qualitative political science research. European Political Science20: 270–280.
10.
ClosaCPalestiniS (2018) Tutelage and regime survival in regional organizations’ democracy protection: the case of Mercosur and UNASUR. World Politics70(3): 443–476.
11.
CoeBN (2019) Sovereignty in the South: Intrusive Regionalism in Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
CoppedgeMGerringJKnutsenCH, et al. (2021) V-Dem [Country–Year/Country–Date] Dataset v11.1. Varieties of Democracy Project. Available at: https://doi.org/10.23696/vdemds21
14.
DaxeckerUESchneiderG (2014) Electoral observers: the implications of multiple monitors for electoral integrity. In: NorrisPFrankRWMartinez i ComaF (eds) Advancing Electoral Integrity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 73–93.
15.
De la TorreC (2017) Hugo Chávez and the diffusion of Bolivarianism. Democratization24(7): 1271–1288.
16.
DebreMJ (2021) The dark side of regionalism: how regional organizations help authoritarian regimes to boost survival. Democratization28(2): 394–413.
17.
DebreMJMorgenbesserL (2017) Out of the shadows: autocratic regimes, election observation and legitimation. Contemporary Politics23(3): 328–347.
18.
DestradiS (2012) India as a democracy promoter? New Delhi’s involvement in Nepal’s return to democracy. Democratization19(2): 286–311.
19.
DiamondLPlattnerMWalkerC (eds) (2016) Authoritarianism Goes Global: The Challenge to Democracy. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
20.
DonnoD (2010) Who is punished? Regional intergovernmental organizations and the enforcement of democratic norms. International Organization64(4): 593–625.
FeldmannAMerkeFStuenkelO (2019) Argentina, Brazil and Chile and democracy defence in Latin America: principled calculation. International Affairs95(2): 447–467.
23.
FlemesDWehnerL (2015) Drivers of strategic contestation: the case of South America. International Politics52(2): 163–177.
24.
GerringJ (2004) What is a case study and what is it good for?The American Political Science Review98(2): 341–354.
25.
GerringJ (2008) The mechanismic worldview: thinking inside the box. British Journal of Political Science38(1): 161–179.
26.
HeineJWeiffenB (2014) 21st Century Democracy Promotion in the Americas: Standing Up for the Polity. London; New York: Routledge.
27.
HydeS (2011) The Pseudo-Democrat’s Dilemma: Why Election Observation Became an International Norm. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
28.
KelleyJ (2012) Monitoring Democracy: When International Election Observation Works, and Why It Often Fails. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
29.
KeohaneRO (1984) After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
30.
KeohaneROMorseJC (2014) Contested multilateralism. The Review of International Organizations9: 385–412.
31.
KeohaneRONyeJS (1974) Transgovernmental relations and international organizations. World Politics27(1): 39–62.
32.
KhadiagalaGMNganjeF (2016) The evolution of South Africa’s democracy promotion in Africa: from idealism to pragmatism. Cambridge Review of International Affairs29(4): 1561–1581.
33.
KneuerMDemmelhuberTPeressonR, et al. (2019) Playing the regional card: why and how authoritarian gravity centres exploit regional organisations. Third World Quarterly40(3): 451–470.
34.
KoremenosBLipsonCSnidalD (2001) The rational design of international institutions. International Organization55(4): 761–799.
35.
KrippendorffK (2004) Reliability in content analysis: some common misconceptions and recommendations. Human Communication Research30(3): 411–433.
36.
LeglerTTiekuT (2010) What difference can path make? Regional democracy promotion regimes in the Americas and Africa. Democratization17(3): 465–491.
37.
McConnelSMcCoyJMcCarthyM (2015) Challenging the norm? International election accompaniment in Nicaragua and Venezuela. América Latina Hoy70: 109–132.
38.
McCoyJ (2006) International responses to democratic crisis in the Americas, 1990-2005. Democratization13(5): 756–775.
39.
MalamudA (2003) Presidentialism and Mercosur: a hidden cause for a successful experience. In: LaursenF (ed.) Comparative Regional Integration: Theoretical Perspectives. Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 53–74.
40.
MalamudA (2011) A leader without followers? The growing divergence between the regional and global performance of Brazilian Foreign policy. Latin American Politics and Society53(3): 1–24.
41.
MansfieldEDPevehouseJC (2006) Democratization and international organizations. International Organization60(1): 137–167.
42.
MarcouxCUrpelainenJ (2013) Non-compliance by design: moribund hard law in international institutions. Review of International Organizations8(2): 163–191.
43.
MattliW (1999) The Logic of Regional Integration: Europe and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
44.
MijaresVMNolteD (2018) Regionalismo posthegemónico en crisis. Foreign Affairs Latinoamérica18(3): 105–112.
45.
MoravcsikA (1998) The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
46.
MoravcsikA (2000) The origins of human rights regimes? Democratic delegation in postwar Europe. International Organization54(2): 217–252.
47.
MorseJCKeohaneRO (2014) Contested multilateralism. The Review of International Organizations9(1): 385–412.
NolteD (2010) How to compare regional powers: analytical concepts and research topics. Review of International Affairs36(4): 881–901.
50.
NolteD (2018) Costs and benefits of overlapping regional organizations in Latin America: the case of the OAS and UNASUR. Latin American Politics and Society60(1): 128–153.
51.
ObydenkovaAVLibmanA (2019) Authoritarian Regionalism in the World of International Organizations: Global Perspective and the Eurasian Enigma. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
52.
PevehouseJC (2002) With a little help from my friends? Regional organizations and the consolidation of democracy. American Journal of Political Science46(3): 611–626.
53.
PevehouseJC (2005) Democracy from Above: Regional Organizations and Democratization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
54.
PlanchueloV (2017) OAS electoral observations vs. UNASUR accompaniment in the last elections in Venezuela. América Latina Hoy75: 127–148.
55.
PoastPUrpelainenJ (2013) Fit and feasible: why democratizing states form, not join, international organizations. International Studies Quarterly57(4): 831–841.
56.
PutnamRD (1988) Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games. International Organization42(3): 427–460.
57.
RaustialaK (2002) The architecture of international cooperation: transgovernmental networks and the future of international law. Virginia Journal of International Law43(1): 1–92.
58.
SlaughterA (2004) A New World Order. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
59.
SöderbaumF (2004) The Political Economy of Regionalism: The Case of Southern Africa. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
60.
SolingenE (2008) The genesis, design and effects of regional institutions: lessons from East Asia and the Middle East. International Studies Quarterly52(2): 261–294.
61.
StoddardE (2017) Authoritarian regimes in democratic regional organisations? Exploring regional dimensions of authoritarianism in an increasingly democratic West Africa. Journal of Contemporary African Studies35(4): 469–486.
62.
TanseyO (2007) Process tracing and elite interviewing: a case for non- probability sampling. Political Science & Politics40(4): 765–772.
63.
TanseyO (2016) The problem with autocracy promotion. Democratization23(1): 141–163.
ThompsonA (2010) Rational design in motion: uncertainty and flexibility in the global climate regime. European Journal of International Relations16(2): 269–296.
66.
ThurnerWPBinderM (2009) European Union transgovernmental networks: the emergence of a new political space beyond the nation-state?European Journal of Political Research48(1): 80–106.
Von SoestC (2015) Democracy prevention: the international collaboration of authoritarian regimes. European Journal of Political Research54(4): 623–638.
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.
