Electoral Systems and Political Stability: A Comparative Analysis of Democracies and Authoritarian Regimes

This article compares critically electoral systems and Authoritarian regimes, with a view to unravel the system that promotes stability and the needed development in a society. Documentary sources were utilized in this work. The paper argues that electoral systems are critical determinants of political stability, but their effects differ dramatically between democracies and authoritarian regimes. While proportional systems generally promote stability in heterogeneous democracies through inclusion, and majoritarian systems can stabilize homogeneous democracies through decisiveness, authoritarian regimes use electoral systems to consolidate power rather than foster genuine representation. Yet authoritarian elections can backfire when opposition mobilization outpaces repression. Thus, electoral systems should be seen as conditional instruments whose success depends on broader political, social, and institutional contexts.

electoral systems are critical determinants of political stability

1. Adams, J., Clark, M., Ezrow, L., & Glasgow, G. (2011). Why parties change: Explaining party position shifts in Western democracies. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Bartolini, S., & Mair, P. (1990). Identity, competition, and electoral availability: The stabilisation of European electorates 1885–1985. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bogdanor, V. (2011). The coalition and the constitution. Hart Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Cox, G. W. (1997). Making votes count: Strategic coordination in the world’s electoral systems. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Duverger, M. (1954). Political parties: Their organization and activity in the modern state. Methuen. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Gandhi, J., & Przeworski, A. (2006). Cooperation, cooptation, and rebellion under dictatorships. Economics & Politics, 18(1), 1–26. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Gel’man, V. (2015). Authoritarian Russia: Analyzing post-Soviet regime changes. University of Pittsburgh Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Hale, H. E. (2010). Political parties and the power of the state in Russia. Europe-Asia Studies, 62(6), 991–1012. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Kitchelt, H., & Wilkinson, S. I. (Eds.). (2007). Patrons, clients, and policies: Patterns of democratic accountability and political competition. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Levitsky, S., & Way, L. A. (2010). Competitive authoritarianism: Hybrid regimes after the Cold War. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Lijphart, A. (1994). Electoral systems and party systems: A study of twenty-seven democracies, 1945– 1990. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Lijphart, A. (2012). Patterns of democracy: Government forms and performance in thirty-six countries (2nd ed.). Yale University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Magaloni, B. (2006). Voting for autocracy: Hegemonic party survival and its demise in Mexico. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Magar, E. (2018). Mexico’s party system under stress. Journal of Democracy, 29(4), 77–88. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Mainwaring, S., & Scully, T. R. (1995). Building democratic institutions: Party systems in Latin America. Stanford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Norris, P. (1997). Electoral engineering: Voting rules and political behavior. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Palshikar, S. (2014). Indian democracy. Journal of Democracy, 25(4), 20–32. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Renwick, A. (2021). Electoral system reform in the UK. Representation, 57(1), 45–59. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Reilly, B. (2001). Democracy in divided societies: Electoral engineering for conflict management. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Reynolds, A. (1999). Electoral systems and democratization in Southern Africa. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Reynolds, A., Reilly, B., & Ellis, A. (2008). Electoral system design: The new international IDEA handbook. International IDEA. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Rodan, G. (2004). Transparency and authoritarian rule in Southeast Asia: Singapore and Malaysia. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Rodrigues Sanches, E. (2018). Party systems in young democracies: Varieties of institutionalization in Sub-Saharan Africa. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Schedler, A. (2006). Electoral authoritarianism: The dynamics of unfree competition. Lynne Rienner. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Scarrow, S. E. (2015). Beyond party members: Changing approaches to partisan mobilization. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Southall, R. (2014). Democracy at risk? Politics and governance under the ANC. Democratization, 21(1), 1–24. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Suberu, R. T. (2019). Nigeria’s 2019 elections: A setback for democratic progress. Journal of Democracy, 30(4), 95–109. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Svolik, M. W. (2012). The politics of authoritarian rule. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• The Impact of Ownership Structure on Dividend Payout Policy of Listed Plantation Companies in Sri Lanka
• Urban Sustainability in North-East India: A Study through the lens of NER-SDG index
• Performance Assessment of Predictive Forecasting Techniques for Enhancing Hospital Supply Chain Efficiency in Healthcare Logistics
• The Fractured Self in Julian Barnes' Postmodern Fiction: Identity Crisis and Deflation in Metroland and the Sense of an Ending
• Impact of Flood on the Employment, Labour Productivity and Migration of Agricultural Labour in North Bihar