Why can some electoral authoritarian regimes remain cohesive while others suffer elite defections? Why do some regimes win elections with comparative ease while others rely on manipulation and violence? In his highly original comparative study of three African cases, Yonatan L. Morse explores the diverse ways that authoritarians compete. His rich historical analysis traces how legacies of authoritarian party building—coupled with variation in international patronage—shape the electoral strategies of authoritarian incumbents in a multiparty era. The result is a contextually sensitive analysis of authoritarian diversity and, as such, an important contribution to both the comparative politics and Africanist literatures.
In identifying his outcome of interest, Morse differentiates several types of electoral authoritarian competition, selecting his case studies to ensure representation of each. Tanzania with its ruling party—the Tanganyika African National Union, later rechristened Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM)—stands out as a “tolerant hegemony,” a regime that enjoys strong electoral support without resorting to manipulation. The rule of the Cameroon People's Democratic Movement, meanwhile, exemplifies a “repressive hegemony,” a regime that uses a high level of electoral manipulation but, in exchange, wins a high vote
To continue reading, see options above.
Join the Academy of Political Science and automatically receive Political Science Quarterly.
Ukraine, Russia, and the West
Publishing since 1886, PSQ is the most widely read and accessible scholarly journal with distinguished contributors such as: Lisa Anderson, Robert A. Dahl, Samuel P. Huntington, Robert Jervis, Joseph S. Nye, Jr., Theda Skocpol, Woodrow Wilsonview additional issues
Articles | Book reviews
CURRENT PERSPECTIVES ON AMERICAN POLITICS
The Academy of Political Science, promotes objective, scholarly analyses of political, social, and economic issues. Through its conferences and publications APS provides analysis and insight into both domestic and foreign policy issues.
With neither an ideological nor a partisan bias, PSQ looks at facts and analyzes data objectively to help readers understand what is really going on in national and world affairs.