Home
> Authors > Commentary: U.S. Elections: Lessons for Emerging Democracies
Commentary: U.S. Elections: Lessons for Emerging Democracies
By
Charles Jackson
November 3, 2004
The sophistication of the conduct of United States elections
is unmatched. There are some fundamental lessons that can
be of immense benefit to countries in transition to democracy,
where elections often end in political turmoil.
The history of elections in emerging democracies around the
world, especially in Africa, is replete with violence. For example,
the 1927 elections of Liberia is recorded in the Guinness Book
of Records as the worst rigged elections ever, when the ballots
totaled more than the registered voters. Also the results of
the 1984 elections in Liberia, which incumbent President Samuel
Doe won in dispute, triggered the rebellion launched by Charles
Taylor. As recently as 1997, special elections in Liberia were
also held under a non-level playing field.
Adding to the chain of election controversies on the continent
was the re-election of Robert Mugabeof Zimbabwe and Gnassingbe
Eyadema of Togo, both of whom have been in power for more than
two decades. Thugs were deployed to intimidate opposing supporters.
These are only a few instances of what has taken place over the
years in the elections in the developing world. International
observers always describe the proceedings as “free
and fair,” but the consequence is only more violence.
Although the conduct of U.S. elections may have its own pitfalls,
there are no instances where campaigning was marred by serious
violence. Even so, ever since its first presidential elections
in 1789, problems have existed.
Issues such as missing absentee ballots, removal of names from
precincts lists, newly registered voters not on polling lists,
provisional lists that may never be counted, badly designed ballots
and possibly faulty electronic voting machines are among the
problems America has faced.
Yet there has never been any serious incident of violence. Those
who have suffered wrongdoing have sought redress through the
courts. Judicial systems in many developing countries are arguably
too weak to investigate and bring justice to aggrieved parties.
Hence, people have taken the law into their own hands.
By exercising their First Amendment rights, the American media
play a key role in the U.S. election process. Both the Democrat
and Republican parties, and their presidential candidates, are
thoroughly examined. Not only that, but other candidates in local
elections are also placed under the microscope of the media.
Issues are put into proper perspective for the electorate to
discern which candidate represents the best option.
Sadly to say, in many third world countries the majority of
the media reduce themselves to reprinting public relations newsletters,
effectively serving as a mouthpiece of political party organs
just to get some “bread and butter.”
The beauty of U.S. elections is the relatively level playing
field in media coverage. Candidates, both incumbents and challengers,
receive roughly equal news coverage. In developing countries,
the incumbent makes wide use of the state media to his or her
advantage.
Another key issue is the level of tolerance during the political
process. In U.S. elections, political rallies are not disrupted
and campaign posters not ruined. In the developing world, opposition
leaders hire thugs to disrupt opposition rallies, order supporters
beaten and posters torn apart. Insults are hurled in a high-pitched,
emotional manner as if there is war.
In the U.S., Vote tabulation is also handled in keeping with
the law. At the close of elections, ballots are counted and (except
in highly unusual instances, such as the 2000 presidential election)
the returns released immediately. But in the developing world,
election law, even if it exists, is violated. The results are
rigged extensively to suit the desire of the incumbent to remain
in power.
While the conduct of U.S. elections is not perfect, the instances
mentioned above can be a good lesson for countries in transition.
After all, no country can make progress when it’s engulfed
in violence. And no country wants to remain in perpetual violence.
The more a nation begets violence, the more underdeveloped it
is likely to be; and its people will continue to live in abject
poverty.
(Charles Jackson is Knight Fellow at Stanford University. He
is a Liberian journalist and has been living in exile in Ghana)
Contact Charles Jackson at jackson2@stanford.edu
