Research framework and broader academic knowledge base
Serbia: documented application of the same framework
When does a 'guaranteed vote' become pressure or blackmail?
Asking for a “safe voice” becomes pressure or blackmail when political support is no longer voluntary, but is associated with work, help, treatment, contract, permission or safety.
It is not necessary for someone to openly say “voting or losing your job”: it is enough for the mediator to ask for lists, photos, attendance at a gathering or information about family members and for people to believe that he can enforce the sentence. The secrecy of the vote does not then take away the pressure, because the government can punish the very disobedience, the refusal to promise the vote or the weak result of the entire working environment. The border is therefore in the freedom of choice. Political persuasion offers a reason to vote.
Fear and surveillance are difficult to prove. It is necessary to distinguish rumors from real threats, monitoring of people and the possibility that the punishment will actually be carried out.
Works supporting this answer, with their evidence type and an explanation of how they relate to the claim.
Explain how the system works
Stokes, S. C., Dunning, T., Nazareno, M. i Brusco, V. (2013), Brokers, Voters, and Clientelism, Cambridge University Press.
- Contribution to this answer
- Stokes and co-authors show how local mediators can associate work, assistance or other benefits with political support and how they try to assess who to trust. This relationship can also produce pressure when formal voting remains secret.
review more research
Hicken, A. (2011), „Clientelism“, Annual Review of Political Science 14: 289–310.
- Contribution to this answer
- Hicken separates clientelism from general corruption: the key is a targeted, conditioned relationship in which the concrete benefit is given in exchange for political support. This explains how pressure can arise around elections without direct control of the ballot.
critical review of more research
Hicken, A. i Nathan, N. L. (2020), „Clientelism’s Red Herrings: Dead Ends and New Directions in the Study of Nonprogrammatic Politics“, Annual Review of Political Science 23: 277–294.
- Contribution to this answer
- Hicken and Nathan warn that clientelism does not require that the party can really check how the individual voted. Personal connections, repeated exchange and expectation of reciprocity can maintain the system even under secret voting.
data from a large number of countries
Bhasin, T. i Gandhi, J. (2013), „Timing and Targeting of State Repression in Authoritarian Elections“, Electoral Studies 32(4): 620–631.
- Contribution to this answer
- Bhasin and Gandhi show that the authoritarian government strategically chooses who to pressure: it targets opposition leaders and activists more often before the elections, while the wide pressure on voters can be more politically expensive while their votes are still needed.
Study of Serbia
Petrović, V. (2026), „Under Pressure: The Politics of Clientelism and Coercion in Serbia“, Democratization.
Petrović, V. (2026), “Under Pressure: The Politics of Clientelism and Coercion in Serbia”, Democratization.
- Contribution to this answer
- Petrovic shows how benefits and coercion can be combined in the same political relationship in Serbia: access to work or public resources can be at the same time a reward for support and a source of fear of loss.
Is a relevant source missing? Send it to us.
Suggest a source or report an error in this answer →