Electoral Violence and the Legacy of Authoritarian Rule in Kenya And
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Journal of Peace Research 2020, Vol. 57(1) 111–125 Electoral violence and the legacy ª The Author(s) 2019 of authoritarian rule in Kenya and Zambia Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/0022343319884983 journals.sagepub.com/home/jpr Johan Brosche´ Department of Peace and Conflict Research, Uppsala University Hanne Fjelde Department of Peace and Conflict Research, Uppsala University & Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO) Kristine Ho¨glund Department of Peace and Conflict Research, Uppsala University Abstract Why do the first multiparty elections after authoritarian rule turn violent in some countries but not in others? This article places legacies from the authoritarian past at the core of an explanation of when democratic openings become associated with electoral violence in multi-ethnic states, and complement existing research focused on the immediate conditions surrounding the elections. We argue that authoritarian rule characterized by more exclusionary multi- ethnic coalitions creates legacies that amplify the risk of violent elections during the shift to multiparty politics. Through competitive and fragmented interethnic relations, exclusionary systems foreclose the forging of cross-ethnic elite coalitions and make hostile narratives a powerful tool for political mobilization. By contrast, regimes with a broad-based ethnic support base cultivate inclusive inter-elite bargaining, enable cross-ethnic coalitions, and reduce incentives for hostile ethnic mobilization, which lower the risk of violent elections. We explore this argument by comparing founding elections in Zambia (1991), which were largely peaceful, and Kenya (1992), with large-scale state-instigated electoral violence along ethnic lines. The analysis suggests that the type of authoritarian rule created political legacies that underpinned political competition and mobilization during the first multiparty elections, and made violence a more viable electoral strategy in Kenya than in Zambia. Keywords authoritarianism, elections, ethnicity, Kenya, violence, Zambia Introduction We argue that an important step for understanding this underexplored variation lies in the varying strategies The shift to multiparty politics in sub-Saharan Africa in chosen by political leaders in how to consolidate political the early 1990s raised hopes for democratization across a support during authoritarian rule. The institutional continent where most countries had limited experience setup of the authoritarian regimes across much of Africa of competitive elections. The transition gave rise to looked similar, for example, in the dominance of a single ‘founding’ elections, viewed as critical junctures on the party. Yet, how leaders sought to retain the support of a path to democracy. In some of these elections, as in ruling coalition within the authoritarian framework dif- Malawi and Benin, there were only isolated incidents fered significantly. One salient aspect is to what extent of violence, while electoral contests were far from peace- ful in, for instance, Coˆte d’Ivoire and Nigeria. Why do the first multiparty elections after authoritarian rule turn Corresponding author: violent in some countries but not in others? [email protected] 112 journal of PEACE RESEARCH 57(1) ethno-regional interests were represented in the ruling context of electoral contests.1 Second, we tally with coalition. A majority of states resorted to some form an emerging literature highlighting how institutional of ethnic inclusion to accommodate ethnic grievances choices during authoritarian rule generate legacies that and undermine regime challengers (Rothchild & structure political choice when democratic openings Foley, 1988). However, regimes pursued inclusion occur.2 While previous research recognizes ethnic to different extents, and we argue that the degree conflict as a critical challenge to democracy in of inclusion matters. Specifically, in the context of multi-ethnic settings and unpacks different measures multi-ethnic societies, leaders that rule by means of to counter such conflicts, it is less recognized that a narrower ethnic support base, what we refer to as strategies to address conflict in heterogeneous societies exclusionary approaches, create interethnic relations were also prevalent during authoritarian rule. Third, characterized by competition and fragmentation. by uncovering dynamics where the electoral contest With the introduction of multiparty elections, such remained peaceful, we contribute to the existing case dynamics heighten the risk of electoral violence by study literature, which focuses mainly on violent foreclosing the forging of cross-ethnic elite coalitions elections.3 and by contributing to more competitive intercom- munal relations. In this context, leaders can gain politically by resorting to electoral tactics that rest Motivation on hostile group narratives. By contrast, strategies that An extensive literature acknowledges the challenges of rely on a more broad-based ethnic support base, here introducing elections in multi-ethnic societies with lim- called inclusionary approaches, are more likely to pro- ited democratic experience (c.f. Mansfield & Snyder, duce interethnic relations that alleviate the risks of 1995; Cederman, Gleditsch & Hug, 2013). Elections violence in founding elections by fostering inclusive hold the potential for fueling violence in ethnically inter-elite bargaining and by contributing to more divided societies when leaders suddenly become reliant amicable intercommunal relations, thereby lowering on securing popular support (Mann, 2005; Snyder, incentives for hostile out-group mobilization. 2000), and the ballot box offers no institutional protec- We explore this argument by comparing founding tion for the minority against majority rule. Electoral elections in Kenya (1992) and Zambia (1991), end- violence, levied to influence electoral results or to protest ing authoritarian single-party rule in both countries. announced results, often erupts along ethnic lines as This comparison poses a puzzle. In both countries, electoral dynamics tilt towards ‘ethnic head counts’ the leaders warned about the dangers of reintrodu- (Chandra, 2004; Kuhn, 2015). Many studies probe how cing multipartyism: Zambia’s president Kenneth institutional provisions may reduce the risk of violence in Kaunda claimed that electoral competition would multi-ethnic states, such as formal power-sharing, propel ‘Zambia into the “Stone Age politics” of eth- minority guarantees, quotas, and electoral rules that nic violence’ (Bratton, 1992: 85); while Kenya’s pres- secure broad political representation (Horowitz, 2000; ident Daniel arap Moi declared that multiparty Lijphart, 1977; Reilly, 2001; Sisk, 1996; Fjelde & elections would ‘usher in tribal conflict and destroy Ho¨glund, 2016). While this research recognizes the national unity’ (Barkan, 1993: 90). However, while often deep historical roots of politicized ethnicity, it pri- Kenya experienced electoral violence resulting in at marily explores institutional engineering within the least 1,500 deaths, Zambia’s elections were largely free from violence. Our analysis suggests that the different strategies used for building and maintaining 1 For example, type of electoral institutions (Fjelde & Ho¨glund, a multi-ethnic ruling coalition during the authoritar- 2016; Salehyan & Linebarger, 2014), institutional weakness ian era represent one vital component for explaining (Salehyan & Linebarger, 2014; Hafner-Burton, Hyde & Jablonski, 2014), electoral uncertainty (Wilkinson, 2004), land insecurity this variation. (Klaus & Mitchell, 2015), or international observers (Daxecker, The contribution of this article is threefold. First, the 2012; Smidt, 2016). focus on legacies from an authoritarian past advances 2 See LeBas (2011) on opposition party strength, Riedl (2014) on research on electoral violence by explicating how elec- party system institutionalization, Bratton & van de Walle (1997) on toral violence can have deep historical underpinnings. To patterns of political behavior, and Cook & Savun (2016) on civil conflict. date, most literature approaches the causes of electoral 3 Existing cross-country comparisons focus on violent elections only violence from a short-term analytical vantage point, (e.g. Boone & Kriger, 2012; Klopp & Zuern, 2007), or within-case focusing on the immediate dynamics or institutional variations (Klaus & Mitchell, 2015). Brosche´ et al. 113 framework of formal democratic institutions.4 We know Where ethnicity is politically salient, the task of less about how the political dimensions of interethnic coalition-building tends to focus on inclusion or exclu- relations evolve from the period of authoritarianism to sion of ethnic groups (Wimmer, Cederman & Min, electoral democracy, and what consequences they have 2009; Bormann, 2019). Across Africa’s post-colonial for violent or peaceful electoral conduct. authoritarian regimes, building dominant coalitions Scholarship focusing more generally on regime char- required balancing the need for ethnic inclusion to acteristics and political violence primarily highlights the ensure cooperation, with the risk of facing violent chal- capacity of authoritarian regimes to repress dissent, lenges from excluded groups (Roessler, 2016). In these including ethnic challengers (e.g. Muller & Weede, weakly institutionalized states, elites sought to solidify 1990). This literature posits that the potential for ethnic their rule through political