Research framework and broader academic knowledge base
Serbia: documented application of the same framework
How do we know that elections are no longer enough for a country to be democratic?
Elections are necessary for democracy, but they are not enough. The country is not really democratic if the opposition is allowed to be on the ballot, but it cannot freely organize, finance, speak in the media, protect its people from pressure and take power when it gets more votes.
It is important all the way to the elections and after them: who sets the rules, who uses state money, whether the courts resolve the objections independently and whether the defeated government accepts the result. Therefore, democracy is measured not only by counting the votes, but also by the rights, freedom of information, equal rules and the real uncertainty of the outcome. If the government can lose only on paper, the elections more confirm the existing power than they control it.
The division into ‘democracy’ and ‘non-democracy’ simplifies reality. It can hide how quickly, deeply and in what areas the country is going backwards.
Works supporting this answer, with their evidence type and an explanation of how they relate to the claim.
Development and verification of measurement methods
Cheibub, J. A., Gandhi, J. i Vreeland, J. R. (2010), „Democracy and Dictatorship Revisited“, Public Choice 143: 67–101.
Cheibub, J. A., Gandhi, J. i Vreeland, J. R. (2010), "Democracy and Dictatorship Revisited", Public Choice 143: 67–101.
- Contribution to this answer
- Cheibub, Gandhi and Vreeland show that it is not enough for elections to exist: the real possibility of the current government losing and leaving office is key. The regime with elections can still be a dictatorship if this shift is not real.
comparison of different types of systems
Wahman, M., Teorell, J. i Hadenius, A. (2013), „Authoritarian Regime Types Revisited: Updated Data in Comparative Perspective“, Contemporary Politics 19(1): 19–34.
Wahman, M., Teorell, J. i Hadenius, A. (2013), "Authoritarian Regime Types Revisited: Updated Data in Comparative Perspective", Contemporary Politics 19(1): 19–34.
- Contribution to this answer
- Wahman, Teorell and Hadenius show how broad the category of electoral authoritarian regimes is: holding multi-party elections does not remove major differences in actual competition and power distribution.
Development and verification of measurement methods
Teorell, J. i Lindberg, S. I. (2019), „Beyond Democracy–Dictatorship Measures: A New Framework Capturing Executive Bases of Power, 1789–2016“, Perspectives on Politics 17(1): 66–84.
- Contribution to this answer
- Teorell and Lindbergh show that direct elections can only be one of several sources of executive power. To understand the regime, we must also look at party, army, inheritance or parliamentary responsibility, and not just the electoral procedure.
review more research
Brancati, D. (2014), „Democratic Authoritarianism: Origins and Effects“, Annual Review of Political Science 17: 313–326.
- Contribution to this answer
- Brancati explains why autocrats organize elections and build parties and assemblies: these institutions can give them information, distribute benefits and stabilize the regime, so their existence is not evidence of democratic control of the government.
review more research
Little, A. T. i Meng, A. (2024), „What We Do and Do Not Know about Democratic Backsliding“, PS: Political Science & Politics 57(2): 224–229.
Little, A. T. i Meng, A. (2024), "What We Do and Do Not Know about Democratic Backsliding", PS: Political Science & Politics 57(2): 224–229.
- Contribution to this answer
- Little and Meng warn that different standards of democracy and autocracy can give different images of the same case. Disagreement and measurable uncertainty should therefore be openly displayed, not hidden behind a single label.
Is a relevant source missing? Send it to us.
Suggest a source or report an error in this answer →