ECPR

Install the app

Install this application on your home screen for quick and easy access when you’re on the go.

Just tap Share then “Add to Home Screen”

ECPR

Install the app

Install this application on your home screen for quick and easy access when you’re on the go.

Just tap Share then “Add to Home Screen”

Democracy in the context of Clientelism: The Role of Electoral Laws in Bangladesh

Asia
Democratisation
Elections
Institutions
Social Capital
Voting
Adeeba Aziz Khan
University of Cambridge
Adeeba Aziz Khan
University of Cambridge

Abstract

Since 1991 elections in Bangladesh have been held every five years (except between 2007 to 2008), with an alternation of power until 2014. Yet, the democratic era in Bangladesh has seen escalating political violence prior to each election. The use of 'muscle politics', regular disruptions to daily life through hartals, curfews and aggressive politics of the streets is on the increase. This paper attempts to explore the reason behind electoral violence in Bangladesh and why substantive legal provisions, reforms and formal democratic institutions still remain ineffective in promoting democratic norms. This paper will show that the reason behind the failure of Bangladesh's electoral oversight mechanisms is the existence of institutional dualism in the form of patron-client networks. Voters in Bangladesh formulate preferences about candidates based on private distribution of resources (both economic and political) preferring the candidate who is willing to give them the most private gain rather than by comparing policy platforms or ideological positions. Electoral laws in place have no mechanism to regulate this type of patronage voting. While limitations are in place to regulate electoral campaigning, funding, candidate selection and so on, these transplanted laws fail to comprehend that electioneering in patron-client societies are taking place on a private level, often on the basis of implicit promises that cannot be regulated. In the patron-client relationships found in neo-patrimonial systems, vertical accountability is a matter of ensuring personal favours and benefits, often at the expense of public concerns and resources. This also makes it imperative for political parties to control state resources and elections become a 'zero-sum game'. This paper will argue that however substantive electoral laws may be, they fall short of bringing positive changes towards democratization due to the infiltration of clientelistic behaviour amongst actors in all sectors and levels.