(Re-)Conceptualizing electoral competitiveness

Democratization, consolidation, de-consolidation, de-democratization and autocratization studies are among the most fashionable research topics in political science. More and more research projects have been launched for measuring democracy, creating dozens of different databases, indices, with many different methodological backgrounds, from quantification of the key aspects of the political system and civic liberties (Freedom House, V-Dem) to the perceptions of experts about electoral integrity (EIP). Furthermore, single cases as country-studies become more and more relevant, again, and their results are available in many papers and books about the non-democratic regimes (competitive authoritarian hybrid regimes, electoral autocracies, competitive autocracies, constitutional autocracies, populist regimes, hybrid regimes, defected democracies, illiberal democracies – as you like). The most common, most popular definition for contemporary non-democratic regimes is probably ’competitive authoritarian hybrid regime’. Scholars find that in these kind of hybrid regimes real political competition is present in that sense the opposition parties run and may have a tiny chance to win, though the electoral contest is quite unfair and unequal, as the playing field of politics (including elections) is uneven. In this approach, competitiveness is a set of rules, features and behaviors practiced by the government and state authorities, and is quite close to the meaning and content of ’fair elections’. One could easily argue that fair elections are competitive ones, or, that the features of competitiveness result fair elections. However, this meaning of competitiveness denies the Sartorian one, where competition is a key, distinctive feature of democracy. Consequently, if something is not democratic, it cannot be competitive, and vice versa, if something is competitive, it cannot be non-democratic (authoritarian). Following his classic explanation, a distinctive feature cannot be a question of degree (how much?), but only a question of kind (either/or). And to make these even more confusing, in Electoral studies, competitiveness is usually referred as simply the level of contestation among the candidates (and also serves as an indicator of incumbency advantage). Whichever approach we take, it is clear that competitiveness has become a key concept of elections. This paper argues that we have to (re)conceptualize competitiveness as a core concept of electoral integrity, for avoiding the classic trap of conceptual over-stretching. After the analysis of the three abovementioned approaches of competitiveness, the paper explains the problem through the case study of Hungary, where the constant alteration of electoral rules and the changing environment of elections by the government (including media, advertisement market, electoral management bodies, law enforcement, and so on) has not only changed the social-political landscape of the country, but led it into a state of electoral autocracy. And, at this point, the question of competitiveness becomes essential: for the opposition, for international actors, for the society, because the nature of elections (whether it is still competitive or not) fundamentally affects the behavior and political strategy of all these actors, and therefore the chances of democratization by elections.