• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

UC San Diego UC San Diego Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title Protesting the contest : election boycotts around the world, 1990-2002 Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1h22t7g6 Author Beaulieu, Emily Ann Publication Date 2006 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO Protesting the Contest: Election Boycotts around the World, 1990-2002 A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science by Emily Ann Beaulieu Committee in charge: Professor Gary W. Cox, Chair Professor Clark C. Gibson Professor Mathew McCubbins Professor Matthew Shugart Professor Carlos Waisman 2006 The dissertation of Emily Ann Beaulieu is approved, and it is acceptable in quality and form for publication on microfilm: _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ Chair University of California, San Diego 2006 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Signature Page ….……………………………………………………… iii Table of Contents ……………………………………………………… iv List of Figures ………………………………………………………….. v List of Tables …………………………………………………………… vi Acknowledgements …………………………………………………….. vii Vita ……………………………………………………………………... viii Abstract …………………………………………………………………. x Introduction ……………………………………………………………... 1 A Typology of Election Boycotts ……………………………………….. 14 The Causes of Election Boycotts ……………………………………….. 36 Appendix 3a—Description of Data and Variables ……………… 72 Appendix 3b—Expansion of Figure 3.2 Payoffs ……………….. 75 Appendix 3c—The Cost of Conditional Party Finance ………… 77 The Immediate Effects of Major Election Boycotts …………………….. 83 Appendix 4a—Description of Data and Variables ……………… 112 The Long-Term Consequences for Democracy …………………………. 114 Appendix 5a—Description of Data and Variables ……………… 155 Jamaica and the Dominican Republic …………………………………… 157 Conclusion ………………………………………………………………. 203 References ………………………………………………………………. 217 iv LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1: Annual percentage of boycotted elections ………………………….. 5 Figure 2.1: A typology of election boycotts ……………………………………. 31 Figure 3.1: Fearon’s model of elections as a coordination mechanism ………... 40 Figure 3.2: Boycott model ……………………………………………………… 48 Figure 4.1: Registered voter turnout in Ghana …………………………………. 91 Figure 4.2: Registered voter turnout in Bangladesh …………………………… 91 Figure 4.3: Registered voter turnout in Belarus ……………………………….. 92 Figure 4.4: Registered voter turnout in Cameroon ……………………………. 92 Figure 5.1: Major boycotts and their consequences for democracy …………… 124 Figure 6.1: Average voter turnout in Jamaican elections ……………………… 173 Figure 6.2: 1893 turnout compared to average turnout in six districts, by level of PNP dominance …………………………………………………. 174 v LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1: Logit regression results for causes of election boycotts …………… 67 Table 4.1: The effect of major boycotts on voter turnout …………………….. 102-03 Table 4.2: The effect of major boycotts on election violence ………………… 105 Table 4.3: Major boycotts and opposition participation in election violence … 106 Table 4.4: Two-way comparison of major boycotts and opposition initiated election violence ………………………………………………… 107 Table 4.5: Major boycotts and opposition initiation of election violence …… 108 Table 5.1: Two-way comparison of major boycotts and political reform …… 129 Table 5.2: Two-way comparison of major boycott and monitor presence at the next election ……………………………………………….. 133 Table 5.3: Logit regression for probability of reform before next election …. 144 Table 5.4: Logit regression for probability of monitors invited to next election 145 Table 5.5: Linear regression—electoral unfairness at the next election ……… 146 Table 5.6: Logit regression for probability incumbent party is returned to office in the next election ………………………………………………… 148 Table 5.7: Logit regression for probability boycott is followed by democratic breakdown ………………………………………………………… 149 Table 6.1: Four interview subjects ……………………………………………. 168 vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Field research in Jamaica and the Dominican Republic was made possible by a Dissertation Improvement Grant from the National Science Foundation. (Award ID# 0418519) This entire process was made possible by my family: my parents, Ann & John Beaulieu, and my husband, Matt. It is only with your love, support and encouragement that I made it through. Thank you. vii VITA Education B.A. University of Washington, 2000 (International Studies – with Honors) B.A. University of Washington, 2000 (French) M.A. University of California, San Diego, 2003 (Political Science) Ph.D. University of California, San Diego, 2006 (Political Science) Dissertation Title Protesting the Contest: Election Boycotts around the World, 1990-2002 Committee: Gary W. Cox (chair), Mat McCubbins, Clark Gibson, Matthew Shugart, Carlos Waisman (Sociology) Additional Education Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR), Summer Program in Quantitative Methods, 2002 Presenting Data and Information, by Edward Tufte, 25 January 2005 Honors & Awards Graduate Fellow, American Academy of Political and Social Science, 2005. National Science Foundation, Dissertation Improvement Grant, 2004. (award ID: 0418519) UCSD Center for Iberian and Latin American Studies, Dissertation Grant, 2004. UCSD Dean’s Travel Fund Grant, 2004. UCSD Mark Twain Fellowship, 2000-2004. Working Papers “Cheating Incumbents, International Observers, and Election Boycotts: Evidence of the Second Image Reversed after the Cold War” co-authored with Susan Dayton Hyde (revise and resubmit from the Journal of Politics) Papers Presented “Birth Pangs or Death Throes? The consequences of election boycotts for developing democracies” (Presented at the Society for Comparative Research annual retreat, New Haven, Connecticut, 6 May 2006) viii “Les Boycotts des Elections et leurs consquences pour la démocratie” (Presented at the University of Montreal 19 January 2006) “Protesting the Contest: The Causes and Consequences of Election Boycotts” (Presented at Reed College 28 November 2005) “The Ballot and the Bullet: Understanding Separatist Strategies” co-authored with Kathleen Gallagher Cunningham (Presented at the 2005 American Political Science Association annual meeting, Washington D.C.) “Healthy Relationships: How Changes to the Current Structure of Healthcare in America would help individuals achieve Gender Equity in Marriage” co-authored with Nicole Speulda (Presented at the 2005 American Political Science Association annual meeting, Washington D.C.) “Why not boycott? Public finance of political parties and party election boycotts” (Presented at the 2004 Western Political Science Association annual conference, and the 2004 Midwest Political Science Association annual meeting, Chicago) Teaching Experience Lecturer, University of California, San Diego, Winter 2006 Elections in the Developing World Visiting Professor, University of San Diego, Fall 2004 Political Science Research Methods Teaching Assistant, University of California, San Diego, 2001-2003 Introduction to Comparative Politics Power & Justice – Introduction to Political Theory Research Experience Research assistant for Clark Gibson, 2001 Research Interests Political protest and non-standard strategies Elections and electoral systems Democratization Feminist Political Theory Languages French fluency (written and spoken) Spanish proficiency (written and spoken) ix ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION Protesting the Contest: Election Boycotts around the World, 1990-2002 by Emily Ann Beaulieu Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science University of California, San Diego, 2006 Professor Gary W. Cox, Chair Why do political parties boycott elections and what do election boycotts mean for democracy in developing countries? To answer these questions, I differentiate between major and minor boycotts to study the causes and consequences of those boycotts most likely to affect democratization. Using an original data set, I find distinct causes for each type of boycott. While major boycotts are motivated by electoral unfairness and a strong opposition, minor boycotts seek to obtain international attention for particularistic x interests, without sacrificing monetary gain. In addition to a distinction between types of boycott, an original dataset, and the most systematic examination of election boycott causes to date, this dissertation also contributes the first study of the effects of election boycotts. I find that major boycotts have consequences both for the elections in which they occur and for democracy in developing countries more generally. With respect to boycotted elections, this study finds a distinction between those types of boycotts that are peaceful and those that engage in violence as part of their boycott campaign. Where the implications for democracy are concerned, I find that major boycotts stimulate political reform and encourage the future involvement of international election observers. These findings suggest that election boycotts do not represent death throes, but rather the birth pangs of democracy. xi INTRODUCTION From 1990 through 2002, opposition political parties in 44 countries boycotted a total of 66 national-level elections.1 When an election boycott occurred, the parties involved did not merely abstain from electoral competition;

Load more

  238

Copy Link