Elections and Social Conflict in Africa, 1990–2009

Abstract

Proponents of democratization often claim that liberal institutions have a palliative effect on the level of conflict within societies. Critics, however, suggest that the instruments of democracy, especially elections, can spark political violence, particularly in weakly institutionalized settings. Using the newly available Social Conflict in Africa Database (SCAD), we examine the relationship between executive elections and social conflict in Africa for the period 1990–2009. We also assess the conditions which make elections more or less violent. We examine elections in (1) countries faced with armed conflict, (2) post-conflict settings, (3) elections in autocracies, and (4) in relatively poor countries. We also look at characteristics of elections themselves, including the margin of victory, the presence of observers, and allegations of vote fraud. Results show that while elections can sometimes spark violence, free and fair elections in genuinely democratic contexts are much less conflict prone, while illiberal elections are especially problematic. We do not find that current or recent armed conflict on a country’s territory makes elections more violent.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    But, they are not uniquely so. Wilkinson (2004) argues that with respect to India, ethnic riots allow politicians to play on the fears of voters and thus mobilize support for candidates and parties.

  2. 2.

    See, http://projectvote.org/voter-intimidation.html, for examples. Access date, March 9, 2012.

  3. 3.

    Although SCAD data exist for more recent years, our other independent variables limit our analysis to 2009.

  4. 4.

    In all, only 182/7,321 (or 2.5 %) of the events were so imputed.

  5. 5.

    Given the nature of media coverage, this becomes particularly important. Legislative elections in remote, rural districts may find less reporting than those in urban centers. Therefore, high-profile, nationwide, executive elections ensure comparability across cases.

  6. 6.

    We note that 92 of 144 elections in our sample are in non-democracies.

  7. 7.

    Multiple-round elections make the computation of margin of victory more difficult as the margin of victory is given for both rounds of the election in the data. To do so, we include the victory margin for the first election for the months up to and including the first round; the margin of victory for the second round is used for the second election month and subsequent months. When dropping cases with multi-round elections, our results do not change significantly.

  8. 8.

    SCAD searches are based on five keywords, “protest,” “riot,” “strike,” “violence,” and “attack”. In order to create the media coverage variable, we use Boolean operators to search for articles that do NOT contain these words.

  9. 9.

    In additional models, reported in the Appendix, we follow Cederman et al. (2012) and include measures for the first and second competitive elections following a civil war. A competitive election is defined as one in which the opposition is allowed, more than one party is legal, and there was a choice of candidates after the ballot. This variable is never significant and does not change our main results. However, as our period of observation begins in the 1990s, our results are not directly comparable, as most countries had prior experience with elections.

  10. 10.

    AIC and BIC tests indicate that additional lags are unnecessary.

  11. 11.

    In alternative models, not shown, we include an indicator for 3 and 7-month election periods. This is simply a dummy variable which includes the 1 and 3 months before, during, and after the election, respectively. Doing so does not alter the statistical significance of our results, although the magnitude of the coefficients decreases with longer periods, as less violent pre and post periods dilute the main effect of the election month.

  12. 12.

    However, in models reported in the Appendix, we change the democracy threshold to polity >0. We find significant interactive effects between this measure and elections for all of our dependent variables, providing strong evidence that even minimally democratic institutions reduce social conflict.

References

  1. Acemoglu D, Robinson JA. Economic origins of dictatorship and democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Almond G, Verba S. The civic culture: political attitudes and democracy in five nations. Newbury Park: SAGE Publications, Inc.; 1963.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Banks A. Cross-national time-series data archive. Databanks international. Jerusalem, Israel. www.databanksinternational.com. 2011.

  4. Barnes S. The contribution of democracy to rebuilding post-conflict societies. Am J Int Law. 2001;95(1):86–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Beaulieu E, Hyde SD. In the shaodw of democracy promotion: strategic manipulation, international observers, and election boycotts. Comp Polit Stud. 2009;42(3):392–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Brancati D, Snyder JL. Rushing to the polls: the causes of premature postconflict election. J Confl Resolut. 2011;55(3):469–92.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bratton M. Vote buying and violence in nigerian election campaigns. Elect Stud. 2008;27(4):621–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Buhaug H, Cederman L-E, Rod JK. Disaggregating ethno-nationalist civil wars: a dyadic test of exclusion theory. Int Organ. 2008;62(3):531–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Carothers T. The ‘Sequencing’ fallacy. J Democr. 2007;18(1):12–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Cederman L-E, Gleditsch KS, Hug S. Elections and ethnic civil war. Comp Polit Stud. 2013;46(3):387–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Collier P. Wars, guns, and votes: democracy in dangerous places. New York: Harper; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Collier P. Post-conflict recovery: how should strategies be distinctive? J Afr Econ. 2009;18(1):99–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Collier P, Vicente PC. Violence, bribery, and fraud: the political economy of elections in Sub-Saharan Africa. Public Choice. 2012;153(1–2):117–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Collier P, Vicente PC. Votes and violence: evidence from a field experiment in Nigeria. Working Paper. CSAE (University of Oxford). 2008.

  15. Collier P, Hoeffler A, Söderbom M. Post-conflict risks. J Peace Res. 2008;45(4):461–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Dahl RA. Polyarchy: participation and opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Davenport C. Human rights and the democratic proposition. J Confl Resolut. 1999;43(1):92–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Daxecker UE. The cost of exposing cheating: international election monitoring, fraud, and post-election violence in Africa. J Peace Res. 2012;49(4):503–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Daxecker UE. All quiet on election day? International election observation and incentives for pre-election violence in african elections. Electoral Studies, forthcoming. 2014.

  20. Delhey J. Who trusts? The origins of social trust in seven societies. Eur Soc. 2003;5(2):93–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Delhey J, Newton K. Predicting cross-national levels of social trust: global pattern or nordic exceptionalism? Eur Sociol Rev. 2005;21(4):311–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Diamond L. The spirit of democracy: the struggle to build free societies throughout the world. New York: Times Books; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Doyle MW. Liberalism and world politics. Am Polit Sci Rev. 1986;80(4):1151–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Dunning T. Fighting and voting: violent conflict and electoral politics. J Confl Resolut. 2011;33(3):327–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Fearon J. Ethnic and cultural diversity by country. J Econ Growth. 2003;8(2):195–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Fearon J, Laitin DD. Violence and the social construction of ethnic identity. Int Organ. 2000;54:845–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Flores TE, Nooruddin I. The effect of elections on post-conflict peace and reconstruction. J Polit. 2012.

  28. Gandhi J. Political institutions under dictatorship. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Gates S, Hegre H, Jones MP, Strand H. Institutional inconsistency and political instability: polity duration, 1800-2000. Am J Polit Sci. 2006;50(4):893–908.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Gleditsch NP, Wallensteen P, Eriksson M, Sollenberg M, Strand H. Armed conflict 1946–2001: a new dataset. J Peace Res. 2001;39(5):615–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Gurr TR. Why men rebel. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Harff B. No lessons learned from the holocaust? Assessing risks of genocide and political mass murder since 1955. Am Polit Sci Assoc. 2003;97:57–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Hartzell C, Hoddie M. Institutionalizing peace: power sharing and post-civil war conflict management. Am J Polit Sci. 2003;47(2):318–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Hegre H, Sambanis N. Sensitivity analysis of empirical results on civil war onset. J Confl Resolut. 2006;50(4):508–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Hegre H, Ellingsen T, Gates S, Gleditsch NP. Toward a democratic civil peace? Democracy, political change, and civil war, 1816-1992. Am Polit Sci Rev. 2001;95(1):33–48.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Heston A, Sumers R, Aten B. 2009. Penn World Table Version 6.3. Center for International Comparisons of Production, Income and Prices. University of Pennsylvania. August 2009.

  37. Höglund K. Electoral violence in conflict-ridden societies: concepts, causes, and consequences. Terrorism Polit Violence. 2009;21(3):412–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Hug S. Selection bias in comparative research: the case of incomplete datasets. Polit Anal. 2003;11(3):255–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Huntington S. Political order in changing societies. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Hyde S. The observer effect in international politics: evidence from a natural experiment. World Polit. 2007;60(1):37–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Hyde SD. Experimenting in democracy promotion: international observers and the 2004 presidential elections in Indonesia. Perspect Polit. 2010;8:511–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Hyde S. Catch us if you can: election monitoring and international norm diffusion. Am J Polit Sci. 2011a;55(2):356–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Hyde SD. The pseudo-democrat’s dilemma: why election monitoring became an international norm. Cornell University Press. 2011b.

  44. Hyde SD, Marinov N. Which elections can be lost? Polit Anal. 2012;20(2):191–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Ichino N, Schündeln M. Deterring or displacing electoral irregularities? Spillover effects of observers in a randomized field experiment in Ghana. J Polit. 2012;74(1):292–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Jarstad AK, Sisk TD. From war to democracy: dilemmas of peacebuilding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Kang S, Meernik J. Civil war destruction and the prospects for economic growth. J Polit. 2005;67(1):88–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Kelley J. Assessing the complex evolution of norms: the rise of international election monitoring. Int Organ. 2008;62(2):221–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Kelley J. Do international election monitors increase or decrease opposition boycotts? Comp Polit Stud. 2011;44(11):1527–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Kumar K. Postconflict elections and international assistance. In: Kumar K, editor. Postconflict elections, democratization, and international assistance. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Lake D. Powerful pacifists: democratic states and war. Am Polit Sci Rev. 1992;86(1):24–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Lehoucq F. Electoral fraud: causes, types, and consequences. Ann Rev Polit Sci. 2003;6(1):233–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Lijphart A. Democracy in plural societies: a comparative exploration. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Lijphart A. Patterns of democracy: government forms and performance in thirty-six countries. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Lindberg S. Democracy and elections in Africa. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Lipset SM. Some social requisites of democracy: economic development and political legitimacy. Am Polit Sci Rev. 1959;53(1):69–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Mansfield ED, Snyder J. Democratization and the danger of war. Int Secur. 1995;20(1):5–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Mansfield ED, Snyder J. Electing to fight: why emerging democracies go to war. MIT Press. 2005.

  59. Marshall MJ, Jaggers K. Polity IV project: political regime characteristics and transitions, 1800-2010. College Park: University of Maryland; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Ortiz D, Myers D, Walls E, Diaz M-E. Where do we stand with newspaper data? Mobil Int Q. 2005;10(3):397–419.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Paris R. Peacebuilding and the limits of liberal internationalism. Int Secur. 1997;22(2):54–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Paris R. At war’s end: building peace after civil conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Poe SC, Tate CN. Repression of human rights to personal integrity in the 1980s: a global analysis. Am Polit Sci Rev. 1994;88(4):853–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Posner DN. The political salience of cultural difference: why chewas and tumbukas are allies in Zambia and adversaries in Malawi. Am Polit Sci Rev. 2004;98:529–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Przeworski A. Democracy and the market: political and economic reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Przeworski A, Alvarez ME, Cheibub JA, Limongi F. Democracy and development: political institutions and well-being in the world, 1950-1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Reynal-Querol M. Ethnicity, political systems, and civil wars. J Confl Resolut. 2002;46(1):29–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Salehyan I, Hendrix CS, Hamner J, Case C, Linebarger C, Stull E, Williams J. Social conflict in Africa: a new database. Int Interact. 2012;38(4):503–511.

  69. Schultz K. Do democratic institutions constrain or inform? Contrasting two institutional perspectives on democracy and war. Int Organ. 1999;53:233–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Snyder J. From voting to violence: democratization and nationalist conflict. New York: Norton; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Taylor C, Pevehouse JC, Straus S. 2013. Perils of Pluralism: Electoral Violence and Competitive Authoritarianism in Sub-Saharan Africa. School for International Studies, Simon Frasier University. Simons Papers in Security and Development. No. 23/2013.

  72. Varshney A. Ethnic conflict and civic life: hindus and muslims in India. New Haven: Yale University Press; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Wilkinson SI. Votes and violence: electoral competition and ethnic riots in India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Zakaria F. “The rise of illiberal democracy.” Foreign affairs. 1997; 76.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Idean Salehyan.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 4 Regression results. Negative binomial analysis of elections and political and non-political conflict in Africa, 1990–2009
Table 5 Regression results. Negative binomial analysis of elections and social conflict in Africa, post-war period set to 6 months, 1990–2009
Table 6 Regression results. Elections interacted with conflict, democracy and GDP, post-war period set to 6 months, 1990–2009
Table 7 Regression results. African election attributes and social conflict, controlling for the first and second competitive election after a civil war, 1990–2009
Table 8 Regression results. Negative binomial analysis of elections and social conflict in Africa, democracy threshold set to polity 2 score > 0, 1990–2009

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Salehyan, I., Linebarger, C. Elections and Social Conflict in Africa, 1990–2009. St Comp Int Dev 50, 23–49 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12116-014-9163-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Africa
  • Elections
  • Violence
  • Protest