Between Polarization and Legitimacy: Misunderstood Stalemate of Electoral Governance in Contemporary Italy and Japan

The electoral governance in Italy and Japan has suffered from criticism of malpractices like corruption, vote-buying, miscalculations, and partisan management since the beginning of postwar democracies (Birch 2011). Nevertheless, the institutional designs of electoral governance in both countries, like the governmental model of the EMBs, have been mostly unchanged. Why has such troubled management experienced no major reform? The paper explores the postwar development of electoral management and the recent electoral reform attempts. The author argues that the high legitimacy of current institutional settings, both in public opinion and in elites' perceptions, paradoxically have crowded out the opportunities for the adoption of a more independent model of electoral governance as in other European and Asian countries. By combining quantitative analysis of public opinions and intensive interviews of officials at polling stations, officials at local and central EMBs, and politicians, the author argues that notwithstanding the comparative evaluation of Italian and Japanese electoral governance into a governmental model, the actual institutions have been more plural and democratic. The complex balances of mixed parties, such as the EMB in the administration, parliaments, political parties, judiciaries, and citizens, have given strong legitimacy to the Italian style of electoral management and a high degree of path dependency to the Japanese one. Sufficiently pluralized and democratized, the Italian and Japanese styles have survived throughout the postwar period, even though they have been requested for more reform to increase electoral integrity and to improve substantive voting rights. Despite the mounting troubles of electoral governance, the recent attempts for reforms have to follow path-dependent alternatives to curtail corruption and mismanagement. Theoretically, the paper sheds new light on the relationship between institutions and the discourse. Strong beliefs and discourses on the democratic nature of electoral governance across the various actors would crowd out the possibility of changing the equilibrium of existing electoral management institutions. Such legitimacy in public opinion and elites' perceptions should be vital to securing or restoring electoral integrity in increasingly polarizing democracies.