Although parties and elections are thought of as defining features of democracy, most authoritarian governments also rely on political parties and hold elections.Theories of democratic politics see elections as the means by which citizens hold politicians accountable for the quality of governance.Citizens may have insufficient information to monitor politicians closely and, in any event, must choose on infrequent occasions among packages of policy promises (parties) that may not reflect their own views or interests very well, but they can at a minimum oust incompetent, unsuccessful, or simply unpopular leaders in routine low-cost ways.Citizens in authoritarian regimes only rarely have this option.Authoritarian elections do not choose government leaders or the set of policies that the government will follow.Generally speaking, citizens cannot throw the bums out.Changes in leadership and policy choices are decided upon by elite actors such as military officers and high-level party officials, not citizens.Nevertheless, a substantial majority of authoritarian governments holds elections, devotes substantial resources to its support party, and spends heavily on pre-election political campaigns.
These observations raise several questions. If party formation is not motivated by the need to compete effectively in order to win elections, as standard democratic theories of parties claim, why are they created and maintainedIf elections do not choose leaders and, indirectly, policies, what function do they perform?
Since I cannot rightfully ask you to read all 30 pages of this analysis, your task is to read the first five pages, carefully skim the rest and analyze the tables at the end. Then you must type a one page essay, single-spaced essay which responds to Geddes’ research question (in bold above). Bring your essay to class.
