recent elections and statistics

8/8/2019 Recent Elections and Statistics

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/recent-elections-and-statistics 1/35

AP®

Comparative

Government &Politics:Recent Elections from

Around the World

2008Curriculum Module



AP® Comparative Government and Politics

Curriculum Module: Recent Elections from

Around the World

Table of Contents

Editor’s Introduction ........................................................... 1James Wehrli

Ravenscroft School and North Carolina State University

Raleigh, North Carolina

The 2007 National Elections in Nigeria ....................... 2Minion K. C. Morrison and Dursun Peksen

University of Missouri–Columbia

Columbia, Missouri

The British Electoral System and the 2005British Elections ................................................................. 11Suzanne Bailey

Grissom High School

Huntsville, Alabama

The Upcoming Russian Elections:Is Democracy Dead?...........................................................20Karen Waples

Cherry Creek High School

Greenwood Village, Colorado

An Activity on Electoral andRepresentative Systems .................................................24Benwari Singh

Cherry Creek High School

Greenwood Village, Colorado

Contributors Biographies.................................................31



Curriculum Module: Recent Elections from Around the World

1

Recent Elections from Around the World

Editor’s Introduction

James Wehrli Ravenscroft School and North Carolina State University

Raleigh, North Carolina

Tis curriculum module or AP® Comparative Government and Politics contains ourpieces that take as their point o departure recent or upcoming elections in mid-2007.Conceptual understanding o electoral processes and the ability to teach about recentelections are critical elements o a successul AP Comparative Government and Politics

course.Te articles on the United Kingdom, Nigeria, and Russia examine the important

political institutions, electoral processes, political actors, and signifcant eventssurrounding elections. Te authors were asked to briey describe the election process andits rationale or each country, identiy the major contenders or the leadership election(i.e., prime minister, president, other), describe the party system o this country, describeany existing or recent obstacles (arising rom institutional arrangements, current events,or other circumstances) acing elections in this country, and provide a prognosis or theoutcome and the ramifcations or the country. Te ourth article, an elections lessonplan, touches on all o the AP Comparative Government and Politics countries in broadterms and with specifc details to help students see the impact that the electoral process has

on each country’s political dynamics.Tis work, along with the others, should reinorce the multi-dimensional nature o

elections, regardless o the country. Tese pieces were written with AP students and theirteachers as the intended audience. You may choose to assign them directly to yourstudents or use them as background material to supplement your lessons. Please note thatalthough Mexico and Iran have had recent elections as well, they were not included in thisunit because separate articles or another AP Comparative Politics and Governmentspecial ocus project discuss these elections.

Since this curriculum module provides you with the most current inormation onthe state o aairs in AP countries that have experienced or will soon experience electionsand discusses many o the themes ound within the AP Comparative Government and

Politics course, I hope these articles will be a valuable supplement to your textbook andthe other instructional materials you already use.




2

The 2007 National Elections in Nigeria

Minion K. C. MorrisonUniversity of Missouri–Columbia

Columbia, Missouri

Dursun PeksenUniversity of Missouri–Columbia

Columbia, Missouri

IntroductionNigeria is a highly ragmented society that has proved volatile since its 1960independence. It was ormed as a political unit by the British colonial power between

1900 and 1914.1 Tis ateul decision orced a unity on a diverse population, which wasadministered in a division that corresponded to three major ethno-regional groups—Hausa-Fulani in the North, Ibo in the Southeast, and Yoruba in the Southwest. ObaemiAwolowo, longtime Yoruba leader, captured the diculty: “Nigeria is not a nation. It is amere geographical expression . . . Te word ‘Nigerian’ is merely a distinctive appellationto distinguish those who live within the boundaries o Nigeria rom those who do not.”2

Complementary to the ethno-regional conict associated with its creation, Nigeriahas aced continuing political turmoil, economic crises, and regular military authoritarianrule. Te military has dominated the political arena or 30 o the 47 years o independence. Civilian governments have been mere interludes—the First Republic(1960–1966); the Second Republic (1979–1983), an aborted Tird Republic (a ew monthsin 1993); and the Fourth Republic (1999 orward), the longest period o stable civilian rulein the country’s political history. Each civilian period beore was ended by a military coup,a product, in part, o military predation and civilian political instability.

Te Election Process or National LeadershipNigeria’s First Republic eatured a Westminster-type, ederal system. However, every republic since has used a United States-style ederal presidential system. Te currentmulti-party democratic system has a strong executive branch, a bicameral legislature(Senate and House o Representatives), and an independent judiciary. Tere are 36 states,plus the capital territory (Abuja).

Te Nigerian electoral system is frst-past-the-post (FPP), with winnersdetermined by a plurality o votes cast. Districts are single member with votes cast orcandidates rather than parties. National elections are held to select the president and thelegislature. In order to win the presidency one must also ulfll a “regional” requirementby attaining 25 percent o the votes in two-thirds o the regions. I no candidate meets

1 Oladimeji Aborisade and Robert Mundt. 2001. Politics in Nigeria. New York: Longman, 7.2 Darren Kew and Peter Lewis. 2007. In William Joseph, et al. Introduction to Politics o the Developing

World . 4th ed. Boston: Houghton-Miin.




3

this regional requirement in the initial poll, then a “runo” is required between the toptwo vote-getters in another election round. Presidential candidates must be Nigerian-borncitizens, no younger than 40 years old. Te president is elected by popular vote and canserve a maximum o two terms o our years each.

Members o both houses o the legislature are also elected by popular vote or a

our-year term. Te House o Representatives, the lower house, has 360 seats determinedby population. Te Senate has 109 seats (three rom each o 36 states plus one rom thecapital district). Te country has instituted special rules to try and obviate the tendenciesto ethnic division. It has gone rom three ethno-regional divisions to its current 36 states.Presidents must acquire one-ourth o their votes in two-thirds o each state and thecapital district; and parties must reect membership in two-thirds o the states. Tissystem has been in place since the return o civilian rule in 1999.

Te Nigerian Party System and Party Activity Since the frst general elections in 1960, multiple parties have vied or political power.Tis multi-party system has eatured three to our parties in this heterogeneous and

ragmented society o over 250 ethnic groups. Major parties have been regionally concentrated, some reecting a religious divide between Islam and Christianity (moresalient since a number o northern Muslim states adopted Shari’a law in 2000 and 2001).

Until the Second Republic, when the state frst began to try and engineer partisanstability at the national level, parties ormed according to the old colonial administrativedivisions. Te oversized North had its parties (Northern Peoples’ Congress—NPC, andNorthern Elements’ Progressive Union—NEPU). Te Southeast had its National Councilo Nigeria and Cameroons (NCNC) and the Southwest had its Action Group (AG). Teseparties were led respectively by prominent regional fgures.

Since 1979, eorts have been made to produce parties or national competition

with broad membership across the country. In addition to the two-thirds rule, parties arenow required to register the names o their ocials; to open membership irrespective o sex, religion, or ethnic grouping; and to bar the use o sectarian names and logos. TeIndependent National Electoral Commission (INEC), an independent state agency established by the 1999 Constitution to organize, conduct, and supervise all elections andmatters regarding all electoral oces, was given a strong role in organizing party aairs.

Te environment continues to produce many parties, but very ew are able toeectively compete nationally because o their regional, ethno-religious support bases. In2003, 31 parties participated in the national parliamentary elections and 19 feldedcandidates or the presidential race. In April 2007, 51 parties were registered with theINEC; 25 o those parties nominated candidates or the presidential race.3 In the last two

national contests, three parties (some the product o mergers) have been prominent: theruling People’s Democratic Party (PDP), the All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP), and theAction Congress (AC).

Te PDP was ormed as a centrist party with the purpose o bringing togethermany o Nigeria’s ethno-religious and geopolitical interests. While it has a neoliberalstance on economic policies (avoring ree-market processes), it avors conservativepolicies, especially on social issues such as homosexual relations. In all three national

3 Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) o Nigeria. “Political Parties.”




4

elections o the Fourth Republic, the PDP won landslide victories in parliamentary andpresidential elections and continues to dominate the political arena.4 Olusegun Obasanjo,a Yoruba rom the Southwest, was the presidential choice in 1999 and 2003; and UmaruMusa Yar’Adua, a Northerner, was selected as the 2007 presidential candidate.

Te ANPP is a conservative, Islamic-based party, popular especially among

Muslims o the North. However, it does have some alliances in the Middle-Belt states andin the Southeast.5 Muhammadu Buhari, a ormer military government leader rom theNorth, was the presidential candidate in both 2003 and 2007.

Facing an absolute dominance o the ruling PDP in the 2003 elections, the ActionCongress (AC) was created in September 2006, as the result o the merger o the Allianceor Democracy (AD), the Justice Party, the Advanced Congress o Democrats, and severalother minor parties. In addition to the Northern leadership and supporters, the AC hasattracted support rom the Southwest-dominant AD to achieve some multiethnic range. Itis known as a progressive party open to dierent political thoughts on social andeconomic issues and represents itsel as an alternative to conservative parties in Nigeria.Born as a product o a major disagreement in the ruling party, it selected Atiku Abubakaras its presidential candidate aer he split rom the ruling PDP while serving as thecountry’s vice president.

Tere is a bewildering array o minor and region-based parties that come and go inthe current republic. Tey range across the political spectrum rom liberal (e.g., FreshDemocratic Party) to communist parties (e.g., Communist Party o Nigeria). Te mostnotable o these are the parties that replicate in some ways the old three-way ethno-regional-religious divisions. As noted, the AD in some ways reects a Yoruba base; the AllProgressive Grand Alliance (APGA) is more or less in the Ibo (Southeast), while in theNorth there are several regional organizations.6 In the main elections, these parties areunable to inuence little at the national level when operating independently, but can

have an impact on state and local elections. Although the AD has strong support amongthe Ibos, it has not had a strong inuence at the ederal level or in controlling stategovernments.

Road to the April 2007 National ElectionsSince the return o civilian rule in 1999, Nigeria has successully gone through threeelection cycles or the frst time ever within a single republic. Obasanjo, a retired generaland ormer military ruler,7 won the presidency twice (1999 and 2003), occasioning thecurrent election contest on April 21, 2007.

Tese elections were deemed crucial or Nigeria’s democracy or several reasons.Tey were the third consecutive, uninterrupted national elections in a single republic in

the country’s history. More importantly, these elections were a test o normal successionsince Obasanjo had reached his term limit. Tis was also an opportunity to get beyond the

4 International Crisis Group. (March 2007). “Nigeria’s Elections: Avoiding a Political Crisis.” Crisis Group

Arica Report No. 123, 2–4.5 Kew and Lewis, 292.6 Dino Mahtani. “Nigerian Elections: Political Parties” Financial Times. April 2, 2007; Kew and Lewis, 292.7 As military leader Obasanjo (1976–1979) replaced coup maker and junta leader Murtala Muhammad

(1975–1976), who was assassinated. Te ormer voluntarily returned power to civilians.




5

widely reported aws o virtually all previous elections with the exception o those held in1999 and 2003 which were interrupted by the military. Moreover, beyond Nigeria’sinternal political dynamics, the execution o ree and air elections would represent a goodexample or neighboring democratizing countries.8

Tere were, however, a ew major issues that threatened ree and air elections. Te

most serious obstacle was the eort to engineer the continuation o incumbent PresidentObasanjo. Tough he denied it, the president was widely believed to be behind the eortsto amend the constitution to permit a third term. From early 2005, Obasanjo’s supporterscampaigned to change the constitution to allow him to secure another term. Tesemachinations generated harsh criticism rom the opposition groups, the military establishment, the media, and the public. It also caused a rupture within the PDP,involving several inuential party members, most notably, Vice President AtikuAbubakar.9 Among other things, it was alleged that Obasanjo was attempting to avoid theunwritten understanding that the next president should be rom the North, allowing therotation o executive power among ethno-religious groups. In any case, the eort ailed.On May 18, 2006, the Senate voted to block the proposed constitutional change.10

Subsequently, in an eort to maintain strict control over the PDP nominations,Obasanjo went aer his vice president, with whom he was now in major conict. Terelations between Obasanjo and Abubakar had turned into a eud with Abubakar’s stanceagainst the constitutional change and his public expression o interest in running or thepresidency. In 2006, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFFC), agovernment agency established by Obasanjo to battle corruption, published a reportaccusing Abubakar o misusing o ce and state unds designated or petroleumtechnology. Using the report as evidence, Obasanjo sought to impeach the vice presidentand bar him rom running or the presidency. Although the Senate rejected theimpeachment, support or Abubakar waned in the party. He moved to the AC, securingits presidential nomination in 2006.11

Another major controversy regarded the credibility o the INEC because o concerns over the inuence the president had over the itsince the ederal governmentcontrolled its unds. For instance, the president was believed to have inuenced thecommission’s decision to disqualiy Abubakar’s candidacy on the basis o the EFFC report.Te Supreme Court later unanimously overruled this.12 Te INEC’s ability to deliver acredible poll was also questionable due to its ailure to ully complete voter registrationbeore the January 2007 deadline. Moreover, during the election itsel, other issues aroseor the INEC, especially amidst the controversies about what the ballot would look like.Tere were questions about the suciency o logistical support, ballots, equipment, and voter support services, inter alia, to cause concern that all those who were eligible could

actually vote.13

8 International Crisis Group, 1–2.9 International Crisis Group, 2.10 “Nigerian Senate Blocs Bid or 3rd Presidential erm,” Washington Post , May 16, 2006.11 International Crisis Group. 5–7.12 “Nigeria Court Rules in Favour o VP Abubakar.” Reuters, April 16, 2007.13 International Crisis Group, 13–15.




6

Major Presidential Candidates or the 2007 ElectionsAmid the controversies and concerns about the success o the third national elections o the Fourth Republic, 25 candidates’ names appeared on the ballot or the presidential race.Yet, only three o these candidates—Atiku Abubakar, Muhammadu Buhari, and UmaruMusa Yar’Adua—emerged as strong contenders. Yar’Adua, the PDP candidate, was a

governor o the northern state o Katsina since May 1999, and the younger brother o Obasanjo’s ormer deputy during his military rule. Yar’Adua’s success in winning thePDP’s nomination was largely attributed to President Obasanjo’s support. Following theselection, opposition groups portrayed Yar’Adua as the “puppet” o Obasanjo. Yar’Adua’ssupporters, on the other hand, touted him as a perect candidate, being one o the ewgovernors without major political scandals or corruption charges.14

In the end, Obasanjo was seen as the chie beneactor or Yar’Adua’s ascendancy.However, there were other considerations. He was a northerner, conscious o theunwritten agreement regarding presidential rotation among the regions, who couldpresumably continue that region’s support or the party. Even so, another controversy about his health orced Yar’Adua on the deensive. His chronic kidney problem causedquestions about his ftness, orcing his public announcement o recovery and readiness orcampaigning.15

Te ANPP oered the same candidate, Muhammadu Buhari, who stood in 2003.He was a ormer military government leader with signifcant contacts and resources tocontinue his eorts at the presidency. Buhari is also a Northerner, like Yar’Adua. Aer hisshort-lived political leadership ollowing a 1983 coup, Buhari moved on to serve as apetroleum administrator.16 Beore the elections, many believed him to be in competitionagainst Yar’Adua.

Abubakar was the fnal strong presidential candidate, ollowing his breakaway rom the ruling party. He had a number o actors in his avor; perhaps the most

important was the visibility and notoriety he had attained as vice president. He had been aounder o the PNP with Obasanjo and was seen by many as the heir apparent, until heran aoul o the president. So, he had appeal, contacts, and some resources or mounting acampaign. In addition, he was able to pull together important orces in creating the ACand had standing in the important northern region.

Te 2007 Presidential Election ResultsTe 2007 presidential election results announced by the INEC are reported in able 1.Tree candidates received a large majority o the votes. According to the results releasedby the INEC on April 23, 2007, Yar’Adua o the ruling PDP was the winner, receivingapproximately 69 percent (24.8 million) o the votes. Buhari (ANPP) was second with

approximately 19 percent (6.6 million) o the votes. Vice President Abubakar (AC) was inthird place receiving approximately 7 percent (2.6 million) o the votes. Te electionresults were meant to be another landslide victory or the ruling PDP and their candidate.As shown in able 1, all but one o the other candidates (Kalu) rom the smaller partiesreceived less than 1 percent o the votes.

14 “Nigeria party picks its candidate.” BBC News, December 17, 2006.15 “Candidate wants to squash health rumors.” Reuters. January 5, 2007.16 Ocial Web site o Muhammadu Buhari: http://www.buhari.org/.




7

Te election and its results created a frestorm in Nigeria and around the world.Te opposition parties, civil society groups, and oreign observers commonly agreed thatthe April 2007 election was seriously awed and perhaps raudulent, representing one o the worst elections in Nigeria’s history. Te major losing contenders, Buhari andAbubakar, publicly rejected the results and claimed that the election was rigged in avor o

the ruling PDP. Te local and international groups monitoring the conduct o theelections also claimed that the elections were awed and poorly managed by the INEC.17 Te United States, the European Union, and other countries immediately expressed theirdisappointment with the elections. For instance, in a U.S. State Department press release,the election process was openly described as “seriously awed.”18 Even incumbentPresident Obasanjo, in a nationwide public address, admitted that the elections “had notbeen perect,” although the INEC chairman said the polls had been “ree and air.”19

Several irregularities were reported during the election, such as the claim by monitors that voting was delayed or did not occur at all in many areas. Other chargesincluded inadequate security against violence and intimidation at the polling units, ballotstung, raud, and logistical ailures at the polls. Based on the election results, the frst

civilian-to-civilian transer o power was scheduled to occur on May 29, 2007. While thereare several legal challenges being mounted by candidates, a heavy burden is being placedon the ragile judicial institutions o a country where military interventions have alwaysentered crises o this magnitude. It remains to be seen how the country will weather thisserious challenge to its young democracy.

17 “Monitors, opposition reject Nigeria poll,” Reuters, April 23, 2007.18 Te U.S. State Department, “Nigeria’s election,” Press Statement, April 27, 2007.19 “Huge win or Nigeria’s Yar’Adua,” BBC News, April 23, 2007




8

Online Resources:

Ocial Web site o the Federal Republic o Nigeriahttp://www.nigeria.gov.ng/

Independent National Electoral Commission o Nigeriahttp://www.inecnigeria.org/

Constitution o the Federal Republic o Nigeria, 1999:http://www.nigeria-law.org/ConstitutionOTeFederalRepublicONigeria.htm

Arican Elections Database—Nigeriahttp://aricanelections.tripod.com/ng.html

Reuters—Aricahttp://arica.reuters.com/top/news/

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) World Factbook—Nigeriahttps://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/actbook/print/ni.html

BBC News—Aricahttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/arica/deault.stm

Te New York imes—Aricahttp://www.nytimes.com/pages/world/arica/index.html

Stanord University, Arica South o the Sahara (access to all major daily newspapers in Lagos):http://www-sul.stanord.edu/arica/nigeria/nigerianews.html

Nigeria.com (current inormation on art, entertainment, and news)http://www.nigeria.com/




9

Introductory Textbook Readings on Politics

in Nigeria

Kew, Darren, and Peter Lewis. 2007. “Nigeria.” In Introduction to ComparativePolitics (4th edition), edited by William A. Joseph, Mark Kassellman, and JoelKrieger. Boston, MA: Houghton Miin Company. 519–575.

Kohli, Atul, and Amrita Basu. 2007. “India.” In Introduction to Politics o theDeveloping Countries (4th edition), edited by William A. Joseph, Mark Kassellman,and Joel Krieger. Boston, MA: Houghton Miin Company. 247–305.

Mund, Robert J., and Oladimeji Aborisade. 2006. “Politics in Nigeria.” InComparative Politics Today (8th edition), edited by Garbriel Almond, Russell J.Dalton, G. Bingham Powell Jr., and Kaare Strom. New York: Pearson Longman.686–738.




10

able 1. Presidential Election Results, April 21, 2007

Candidate* Party Number o Votes % o Votes

Aminu Garbarti Abubakar NUP 4,355 00.0

Atiku Abubakar AC 2,567,798 07.3

Lawrence Famakinde Adedoyin APS 22,459 00.1

Mojisola Adekunle-Obasanjo MMN 4,309 00.0

Olapade Agoro NAC 5,692 00.0

Christopher Pere Ajuwa AD 89,511 00.3

Attahiru Dalhatu Baarawa DPP 289,324 00.8

Muhammadu Buhari ANPP 6,607,419 18.6

Alhaji Aliyu Habu Fari NDP 21,974 00.1

Orji Uzor Kalu PPA 608,833 01.7

Galtima Baboyi Liman NNPP 21,665 00.1

Iheanyinchukwu Godswil l Nnaji BNPP 11,705 00.0

Arthur Nwankwo PMP 24,164 00.1

Osagie Obayuwana NCP 8,229 0.00

Isa Odidi ND 5,408 0.00

Chukwuemeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu APGA 155,947 00.4

Emmanuel Osita Okereke 22,592 00.1

Sunny Joseph Okogwu RPN 13,566 00.0

Chris Okotie FDP 74,049 00.2

Maxi Okwu CPP 14,027 00.0

Brimmy Asekharuagbom Olaghere NPC 33,771 00.1

Ambrose Owuru 24,164 00.1

Akpone Solomon NMDP 5,666 00.0Umaru Musa Yar’Adua PDP 24,784,227 69.9

otal 35,420,854

Party Names:* AC - Action Congress * AD - Alliance or Democracy

* ANPP - All Nigeria Peoples Party * APGA - All Progressives Grand Alliance

* APS - Arican Political System * BNPP - Better Nigeria Progressive Party

* CPP - Citizens Popular Party * DPP - Democratic Peoples Party

* FDP - Fresh Democratic Party * NAC - National Action Council

* NCP - National Conscience Party * ND - New Democrats

* NDP - National Democratic Party * NMDP - National Majority Democratic Party

* MMN - Masses Movement o Nigeria * NNPP - New Nigeria Peoples Party

* NPC - Nigeria Peoples Congress * NUP - National Unity Party

* PDP - Peoples Democratic Party * PMP – People’s Mandate Party

* PPP - Peoples Progressive Party * RPN - Republican Party o Nigeria

Source: Independent National Electoral Commission, Nigeria (http://www.inecnigeria.org/)* Candidates’ names are listed in alphabetical order.




11

The British Electoral System and the 2005

British Elections

Suzanne BaileyGrissom High School

Huntsville, Alabama

Overview Te United Kingdom o Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a nation-state with aunique position in the study o comparative politics. ypically, most textbooks thatemploy a case study approach invariably begin with Great Britain because theevolutionary nature o its institutions provides a ascinating portrait o the challengesassociated with governance.

British challenges include:

• Great Britain is a unitary state that has undergone signifcant devolution to itssub-national units o Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.

• Great Britain’s Westminster Model, which employs a usion o powers, isundergoing change as the new Prime Minister (PM), Gordon Brown, proposeshistoric adjustments to the role o Parliament in policymaking by recommendingthe surrender o 12 executive powers to the legislature. (See Brown’s speech to theHouse o Commons on July 3, 2007.)

• Great Britain’s membership in the European Union provides an unprecedented

challenge to the sovereignty o the state.

An eective way to gain insight into these structural power dynamics o theBritish government is to study its electoral process. Te diculty o this ocus lies in thecomplexity o all o the dierent types o elections held in Great Britain. Although noteven approaching the sheer number o elections held in the United States, there areelections held in Great Britain or local, regional, national, and European oces. In 2007alone, there were local elections in England and Scotland, as well as elections or theNational Assembly in Wales, the Scottish Parliament, and the Northern IrelandAssembly. Although all o these elections have signifcant eects on the British citizenry,it is clear that the crucial election in Great Britain is or control o the House o

Commons. Tis is the case because the House o Commons exercises parliamentary supremacy according to the Westminster Model. Te most recent General Election heldwas on May 5, 2005. (See able 1)




12

able 1: Results o the 2005 General Election: Seats in the House o Commons

Party % o Votes # o Seats % o Seats +/- Seats

Labour 35.2 355 55 -47

Conservative 32.4 198 30 +33Liberal Democrat 22.0 62 10 +11

Democratic Unionist 0.9 9 1 + 4

Scottish National 1.5 6 <1 +2

Sinn Fein 0.6 5 <1 +1

Plaid Cymru 0.6 3 <1 -1

Others 6.8 8 1 -3

Voter urnout: 61.4% (+2.0%)(Source: British Electoral Commission)

1. Describe the electoral process and the rationale or using this process.

Te election process used in the House o Commons elections is the single-member district plurality system (SMDP) commonly reerred to in Great Britainas “frst-past-the-post” (FPP). Te Boundary Commission separates the entireUnited Kingdom into 646 parliamentary constituencies with each selecting asingle Member o Parliament. Te average constituency contains 68,500residents. A candidate or o ce must be at least 21 years old and a citizen o GreatBritain, the Commonwealth, or the Republic o Ireland. Te candidate must beauthorized by a political party nominating committee or be listed as anindependent.

On election day, the voters are presented with a ballot listing the name o thecandidate and his/her party aliation, as applicable. Te winner o theparliamentary seat is the candidate who receives the most votes; he/she does notneed to win a majority. One o the rationales or using this process is that it issimple and easy to understand. Although the party label is the determining actor,the voter in eect is choosing an individual to represent the constituency. In thisway the voter has a specifc contact individual at Westminster to listen to localconcerns, subsequently sustaining voter ecacy.

Another rationale is that the FPP system typically results in a clear majority party win, thereby enhancing the eectiveness o the government in pursuing its

legislative agenda. For example, in 2005, the Labour Party won 35.2 percent o thepopular vote, the lowest share o the vote ever by a winning party. However, the355 seats won gave them a majority and the right to have their leader become thePrime Minister. (See able 1) Consequently, the parties who compete successully in this system have a vested interest in keeping FPP and not initiating change,or that would diminish their representation in the House o Commons.




13

2. Describe recent changes to the election process.

Te election process described above has not changed signifcantly in recent years.However, there have been calls or system reorm or several reasons. One o themajor weaknesses in the FPP system are wasted votes—in particular, those orthird-party candidates such as the Liberal Democrats. For example, in 2005 theLiberal Democrats won 22 percent o the votes but only 10 percent o the seats inthe House o Commons. (See able 1) In an era with declining voter turnout, thisdisconnection between what the voters wanted and what they got is one reasonor the call or reorm by parties like the Liberal Democrats and interest groupssuch as Charter 88.

Another weakness o the system is how it inates the support o the majority party. In 1992, the Conservative Party won a majority o 336 seats with only 42percent o the popular vote. Consequently, as part o their l997 Maniesto, theLabour Party promised that i elected they would appoint a commission onelectoral reorm with a subsequent reerendum. Te Jenkins Report, issued in l998,

called or the adoption o a proportional system o elections or the House o Commons. However, no action was taken on this report because the Labour Party,in charge or the frst time since l979, did not want to upset the status quo. Incontrast, the Labour government, under the leadership o ony Blair, did set upproportional representation systems or elections to the European Parliament, theScottish Parliament, the National Assembly or Wales, and the Northern IrelandAssembly.

3. Describe the major importance o this election.

Te power to decide what to change or not change in the British political systemdetermines the importance o the House o Commons election. Te reason or this

is that the party that wins the majority o the seats (324) is then able to select itsleader to be the Prime Minister (PM) o Great Britain. Te PM has the power tochoose a cabinet selected rom party Members o Parliament to orm agovernment which then controls the legislative agenda. Tis usion o executiveand legislative power is extremely e ective. T e PM has the power to declare war,call or reerenda, propose legislation, and decide when to call or elections. Tislatter power is based on the act that the House o Commons does not sit or afxed term; thereore, the PM is responsible or deciding when during a fve-yearperiod to dissolve the legislature and seek and win a new term.

Te PM knows that his or her party will support these initiatives in order tomaintain party discipline and the power associated with being the majority party.Correspondingly, in order to wield these powers, the PM must retain theconfdence o his or her party as well. Although it is rare or the PM to step downduring a legislative term, Margaret Tatcher did so in l990 and ony Blair in2007. I a PM vacancy occurs during a term, the parliamentary party uses aninternal selection process to choose their leader rom among the Members o Parliament currently serving in the legislature.




14

4. Identiy the major contenders or leadership.

o exercise the power o a British PM, one must frst lead his or her party to victory in the General Election while winning their own constituency seat as well.Te party is careul to have their leader represent a party-sae seat which the party has historically won by a large margin. Te major contenders in the 2005 electionwere ony Blair (Labour), Michael Howard (Conservative), and Charles Kennedy (Liberal Democrat).

• ony Blair was the incumbent PM—an energetic, visionary leader who hadreworked his party’s image in l994 to be that o New Labour, a party that was notmerely the extension o the rades Union Congress, but a party that couldrepresent all o Great Britain. His historic victory in 1997 over John Major wasollowed by extensive changes to the political system including: devolution toScotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, abolishing the hereditary peers in theHouse o Lords, and creation o an independent Bank o England. Aer callingor elections in 2001, ony Blair easily beat the Conservatives, under the

leadership o William Hague, and continued his reorm agenda. However, Blair’sdecision to support President Bush on the war in Iraq proved to be unpopular.Blair suered in popularity ratings and the discontent o the citizenry wasreected in the General Election o 2005. Te Labour Party’s popular vote o 35percent was lower than those o previous years and not high compared to theConservative Party’s showing o 32 percent and the Liberal Democrats’ 22percent. Labour won 356 seats—a loss o 47 seats. (See able 1) Consequently,despite winning a historic third term or his party, ony Blair was pressured toannounce his retirement in 2007 in avor o his Chancellor o the Exchequer,Gordon Brown.

• Michael Howard, an MP since 1983, had served in numerous cabinet positionsincluding Home Secretary and Shadow Chancellor beore being chosen as theConservative Parliamentary Leader. Howard was credited with eective leadershipagainst Blair, especially by ocusing the debate about the election on the issues o war leadership and immigration. Although his Conservative Party had done wellagainst Blair, Michael Howard resigned as party leader aer the 2005 election.

• Charles Kennedy was also a longtime MP beore taking control o the LiberalDemocrats rom Paddy Ashdown in 1999. An outspoken critic o the war,Kennedy led his party to a total o 62 seats, the highest number that the LiberalDemocrats had ever received. With this political success, Kennedy chose to remainleader o his party aer the election, but he was fnally orced out o his position in

2006 because o his well-publicized problems with alcohol.




15

5. Describe the party system.

Tis leadership competition shows that the British party system is a two-plus party system. Troughout most o modern British history, there have been twodominant parties that have succeeded in orming governmental majorities. Since1945, these two parties have been the Labour and Conservative parties with theLabour Party currently orming the Government and the Conservative Party inopposition. Tere are, however, more than two parties represented in the House o Commons, which is why the term, two-plus system, is used. Other parties that areable to win seats in this FPP system include ideological parties, such as the LiberalDemocrats, and regional parties, such as the Scottish National Party and the WelshPlaid Cymru.

6. Explain the underlying oundation o the party system.

Te oundation o the British party system is primarily pragmatic. Early politicalparties ormed as parliamentary organizations and developed into massorganizations as surage opportunities were extended. For example, the LabourParty was ormed specifcally to represent trade union members. In act, the party system as a whole reects class identifcation, which is the major social identifer inGreat Britain. However, ideological concerns are important as well, specifcally noted by Margaret Tatcher’s concentration on “conviction politics” or theConservative Party in l979. Additionally, regional issues actor into thedevelopment o parties, such as the Scottish National Party that avors anindependent Scotland.

7. Identiy the major parties contesting the election.

Te major parties competing in the House o Commons elections are the LabourParty, the Conservative Party, and the Liberal Democrats. Signifcant regionalparties are the Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru (Wales), the DemocraticUnionists (Northern Ireland), and Sinn Féin (Northern Ireland). Obviously, notall the parties compete or each o the 646 seats. In act, a historical battle betweenLabour/Conservative or Conservative/Liberal Democrat exists in many constituencies.




16

able 2: Results o the 2005 General Election: Partisan Percentage o the PopularVote and Seats Won in the House o Commons

(Based on Actual Voter urnout)

Labour Conservative Lib-Dem Others urnoutRegion:

United Kingdom 35.2%355 seats

32.4%198 seats

22.0%62 seats

10.4%31 seats

61.2%

England 35.5%286 seats

35.7%194 seats

22.9%47 seats

5.9%2 seats

61.3%

Scotland 38.9%40 seats

15.8%1 seat

22.6%11 seats

22.7%7 seats

60.8%

Wales 42.7%29 seats

21.4%3 seats

18.4%4 seats

17.6 %4 seats

62.6%

Northern Ireland 100%

18 seats

62.9%

Source: Parliament Research Paper 05/3http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2005/rp05-033.pd

able 3: Results o the 2005 General Election: Partisan Identifcation by Demographic Groups (Percentage o the Demographic Group T at Voted or a

Particular Party)

(Based on MORI estimates)

Labour Conservative Lib-Dem Others urnout

Gender:

Men 34% 34% 22% * 62%

Women 38% 32% 23% * 61%

Age:

18-24 38% 28% 26% * 37%

25-34 38% 25% 27% * 49%

35-44 41% 27% 23% * 61%

45-54 35% 31% 25% * 65%

55-64 31% 39% 22% * 71%

65+ 35% 41% 18% * 75%

Social Class:AB (Managerial and Proessional) 28% 37% 29% * 71%

C1 (Supervisory and Clerical) 32% 37% 23% * 62%

C2 (Skilled Manual) 40% 33% 19% * 58%

DE (Unskilled Manual andUnemployed)

48% 25% 18% * 54%

Source: Parliament Research Paperhttp://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2005/rp05-033.pd




17

8. Characterize these major parties’ platorms and ideologies.

• Te Labour Party has been the majority party in the House o Commons sincel997. Aer being locked out o power rom l979 to l997, the party madesignifcant changes to its maniesto in 1997 to be more appealing to voters. ony Blair oered voters a “Tird Way,” one that was seen as a middle way betweensocialism and ree- market capitalism. Te party reduced the voting bloc power o the labor unions and promised not to reverse the privatization reorms begununder Margaret Tatcher. Te party has been successul in its eorts to build on itsnew consensus. Te 2005 Maniesto promises (www.labour.org.uk) includedproviding more choice in National Health Service (NHS) services, devolving morepower to Scotland and Wales, providing universal aordable child care, being the“heart” o a reormed Europe, improving education, and reducing asylumbacklogs. Te “Tird Way” or center-le position has been eective in gainingsupport or the Labour Party rom the Celtic Fringe (northern industrial areas), thepoor, women, students, and traditional union workers. (See able 2 and able 3)

• Te Conservative Party has long struggled between the conviction politics o Margaret Tatcher with its strong support or ree market policies and the oldconsensus ideology o “one nation” conservatism. Tis schism was not helped witha progression o party leaders who seemed dull next to the telegenic Mr. Blair. Te2005 Maniesto (www.conservatives.com) promised a center-right position withtough immigration standards, improved law and order, and new leadership toguide the British people. Tese promises appealed to traditional Conservative voters: wealthy, noble, rural dwellers, elderly, and white-collar workers. (See able3) In addition, 98 percent o all Conservative seats are in England. (See able 2)

• Te Liberal Democrats were ormed as a centrist party in l988 through a mergerbetween the Liberal Party and the Social Democrats. Teir 2005 Maniesto

(www.libdems.org.uk) emphasizes support or social programs, an integratedEurope, and specifcally, a statement against the war in Iraq. Te LiberalDemocrats have consistently attracted between 17 and 23 percent o the voteprimarily rom middle class, post-materialistic voters across the UK. (See able 2and able 3)

9. Summarize the ideologies o signifcant minor parties.

In contrast to the Liberal Democrats, there are parties that appeal to specifcnational voters. Te Scottish National Party (SNP; www.snp.org.uk) would like tosee an independent Scotland. Signifcantly, the SNP has control o the ScottishExecutive or the frst time because o their win in the 2007 elections or the

Scottish Parliament. Te Plaid Cymru in Wales (www.plaidcyrmu.org), ormed in1925, wants to preserve the Welsh language and culture and promote Welsh sel-determination. Northern Ireland parties are regional and religious in theirorientation. Sinn Fein (www.sinnein.org), or example, is linked with the IrishRepublican Army (IRA) and, thereore, is Catholic and nationalistic in itsorientation. Its leader is Gerry Adams, and although the party wins seats in theGeneral Election, MPs abstain rom taking their seats in the Commons. TeDemocratic Unionist Party (www.dup.org.uk) is Protestant and supports retainingits union with Great Britain. It was ormed in l971 by Ian Paisley and is the ourth




18

largest party in the House o Commons. It is noteworthy that the major threeparties do not compete in Northern Ireland whereas the Labour and LiberalDemocrat parties are very successul in Wales and Scotland. (See able 2)

10. Describe any current obstacles acing elections in this country.

Te existence o signifcant minor parties does have implications or the uture o elections in Great Britain. One consequence o this change is the lack o voteridentifcation with the two major parties. In 2005, Labour and Conservativeparties won only 67.6 percent o the popular vote, with third parties winning moreseats in the House o Commons than these parties had won beore. (See able 1)Lower voter turnout could also be associated with voter dealignment raising thepossibility o no party passing the post in the next election to orm aparliamentary majority. Devolution to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland hascreated elected legislative bodies in those nations that could ultimately decrease theeect o Westminster policymaking, and thereby the importance o the House o Commons election. As European Union consolidation continues, the importance

o European elections could someday also be more important to voters than they are now. Finally, aer voicing support or an elected House o Lords, the House o Commons could be creating a whole new set o important elections to capture voters’ interest.

11. Provide a prognosis or British elections.

In conclusion, the prognosis or the British election system is intriguing. As astrong democracy, elections in Great Britain are air, requent, and competitive.Tose characteristics will not change. What bears watching are the dynamicsbetween competing legislatures and changing party alignments. Historically, theHouse o Commons’ elections are the most important because the winning

majority party aer a general election chooses its leader to be Prime Minister—themost powerul oce in the country.

Te next general election is expected to be in 2009/2010, but could be as early asspring 2008. Te new Prime Minister, Gordon Brown o the Labour Party, willdecide the date. Brown was selected as Labour Party leader in an uncontested party selection process aer the ocial resignation o PM ony Blair in June 2007.Expected competitors in the next general election will be David Cameron, thenew vibrant, articulate leader o the Conservatives, and Sir Menzies Campbell, thedapper, persuasive leader o the Liberal Democrats. Early indications rom the2007 local and national elections are that the Labour Party will have a diculttime winning an unprecedented ourth term, as the party lost seats in both theScottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly. On the other hand, there are three newmajor party leaders and by the end o 2007, there will be new constituency boundaries, as the Boundary Commission will redraw them or a general electionor the frst time since l997. In addition, Gordon Brown has made historicsuggestions to improve voter turnout by lowering the voting age to 16 andmoving elections to the weekend. Perhaps voters will reward him withanother term.




19

Resources

Tese are excellent web sites on British elections:

Site includes summary results or all elections including general, local, national,and European elections.http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/elections/generalelection2005.cm

Focus on voter turnout: Election 2005: Engaging the Public in Great Britain.http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/fles/dms/Engaging_19456-14157__E__S__W__.pd

Democracy Cookbook: Resources or teachers/students on voting.http://www.dopolitics.org.uk/oolbox/toolbox-9.cm /

Site with acts about elections and election results.

www.parliament.uk

Gordon Brown’s constitutional reorms in pamphlet orm:http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/governanceoritain.htm

Parliament Research Paper 05/33: 153 page summary o 2005 election results.http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2005/rp05-033.pd

Jenkins report on proportional votinghttp://www.dca.gov.uk/rights/dca/voting/jenkins.pd

Vote 2005. Site includes election results; summaries o party maniestos;

commentary.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/constituencies/deault.stm

“Who Deserted Labor?” Analysis by David Cowlings, Editor, BBC PoliticalResearch, May 7, 2005.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/issues/4520847.stm

Gordon Brown’s constitutional reorms set out in summary article onJuly 3, 2007.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6258794.stm

Site includes election results, summaries o party maniestos, commentary.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/election2005/

“Women’s Support Gave Blair Edge,” by Sir Robert Worcester, Founder andChairman o the Mori polling frm.http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,,1479237,00.html




20

The Upcoming Russian Elections: Is Democracy

Dead?

Karen WaplesCherry Creek High School

Greenwood Village, CO

Overview Russia’s democratic institutions have always been rail, and the upcoming elections may be a test o whether they can survive. Tough ree and air elections are not the only necessary ingredient or a successul democracy, the current circumstances leading to thelegislative and presidential elections may urther dash any hope that Russia will developdemocratic roots. In recent years, Russia has been characterized as an illiberal or procedural

democracy (a system with competitive elections, but lacking civil rights and liberties), andinternational observers ear Russia is backsliding toward an authoritarian state, or, at best,a managed democracy (a system in which the ruling party takes steps to ensure control o the electoral process).

For example, President Vladimir Putin has made electoral changes that havesolidifed Russia’s position. Democracy “Russian-style” has meant less electoralcompetition and ewer civil liberties, and, in particular, less reedom o the press. Dumaelections are scheduled or December 2007, and the presidential election is scheduled orMarch 2, 2008. Although Putin has announced he will not seek the constitutional changesthat would permit him to run or a third consecutive term, Western observers and Russianintellectuals express much concern that the upcoming elections will serve as another step

away rom democracy and toward the consolidation o power in Russia.

Te Russian ConstitutionIn 1993, the frst post–Soviet-era Russian constitution created some hope ordemocratization. Although the Yeltsin presidency was not very democratic (he dissolvedthe Supreme Soviet by bombing its building to gain stronger presidential powers), somestructures were put in place that might have led to more democratization. Teconstitution, approved by reerendum, created a ederal system o government, withdemocratic procedures or electing ocials every our years at nearly all levels. Regionalgovernors were elected directly.

Te Russian legislature is bicameral. Te upper house, the Federation Council, has

two members rom each republic or region. It is elected indirectly; governors andprovincial legislatures choose its members. Employing a simplifed version o Germany’spersonalized proportional representation system, the 450 seats in the State Duma areselected using a mixed proportional and single-member district system. Hal o the Dumaare elected proportionally rom party lists, with seats going only to those parties who winat least 5 percent o the vote nationwide. Te other 225 seats are flled using a single-member district system. Te candidate with a plurality (the most, although not necessarily a majority) o votes in a district wins the seat. Tese single member district seats aresubject to less party control, and beore 2003 rom 60 to 110 independents were elected.




21

Russia has a dual executive, with a popularly elected president and a prime ministerwho is appointed by the president. Te French model is used to elect the Russianpresident. T is is a two-ballot system. In the frst round, any number o candidates may run. Voters even have the option o selecting “against all.” Te second round is a runo election two weeks later between the top two vote-getters and “against all.” Te winner

must secure a majority. Unlike the pattern that has developed in France where runo elections are the norm, in Russia only the 1996 election required a runo. In 2000 and2004, Putin won in the frst round, with more than 50 percent o the total vote. Tismeans Russian presidential elections have become less competitive.

Steps oward Consolidating One-Party PowerAlthough Russia’s initial electoral structure ostered procedural democracy, over the pastew years the government has made several changes which have the eect o consolidating power in the hands o President Putin and the political party that supportshim, United Russia.

Perhaps the most damaging policy has been government control o the mass

media and the repression o dissent. Te three major television stations (First Channel,RR, and NV) are controlled by the government or by Gazprom, a gas company inwhich the government has a substantial stake, and rom which the government receivessubstantial unding. Tese state-controlled stations give relentless and glowing coverageo the success o the government’s policies while emphasizing ailure and corruption inregions run by rival parties. Journalists critical o the government have been exiled, jailed,and orced to resign. For example, ollowing the Beslan school siege, the editor-in-chie o Izvestiya, one o Russia’s most reputable newspapers, was orced out because o hisnegative coverage o the government’s handling o the terrorist attack.

In addition, Putin’s political rivals have aced harassment and arrest. Beore the2003 Duma elections, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, a Yukos Oil executive, was arrested,supposedly because o shady business deals, but many believe the arrest was actually because o his opposition to Putin, support or rival political parties, and plan to runagainst Putin. Other individuals and prominent human rights groups have been subject totax inspections, lawsuits, and regulatory restrictions on eorts to hold meetings or rentoce space.

Most shocking were the purported assassinations o Putin’s critics, including theshooting death o respected journalist Anna Politkovskaya. In a country where mostkillings o journalists remain unsolved—one o the most dangerous places or journalistsoutside o Iraq—there is widespread suspicion, but no proo, that she was killed because o her anti-Kremlin writings. Te polonium poisoning o ex-KGB agent Alexander

Litvinenko—also amous or his criticism o the Putin administration—has led many tosuspect that someone in the government ordered his assassination.

Along with the repression o civil liberties, several structural changes to theelectoral system have damaged democracy. On September 13, 2004, Putin announcedsteps to end the direct election o local leaders, including regional governors and thepresidents o national republics. Tese ocials will now be appointed by the president,subject to approval by regional legislatures. In addition, beginning with the 2007elections, all 450 seats in the Duma will be elected using proportional representation. Tepercentage needed or a party to be awarded seats has been raised rom fve to seven.




22

Although proportional representation is not inherently undemocratic, this will make theparty system less competitive or two reasons. First, it will strengthen party control overcandidates, since parties generate the lists rom which proportional candidates are selected.Second, the move away rom single-member districts will discourage a two-party systemrom orming. It is not in United Russia’s interest to have a strong party against it, and

the change to proportional representation will dilute the opposition. Te change toproportional representation will have the biggest negative impact on the CommunistParty o the Russian Federation—United Russia’s closest competitor.

Finally, new and highly restrictive campaign laws have been put in place.Spending limits are set at very low levels, and this makes it dicult or parties to spendenough money to use the media to counteract the positive coverage o Putin given by state-sponsored television. Furthermore, parties may not ocially campaign or o ceuntil a month prior to the election. Tere are now more than 60 o cial reasons theKremlin may exclude candidates rom running. Te Federal Registration Service will notcertiy a party on the ballot until it has at least 50,000 members, and it must have severalregional chapters. Plus, a new early voting procedure allows ballot boxes to be brought to

voters in locations not monitored by election judges. Tis increases the potential or voting raud. Te procedure or selecting the feen-member election commission alsohas changed—with the Duma, the Federation Council, and the president each nominatingfve candidates. Tis will put the election commission frmly under the control o theruling party.

Recent Results and the Near FutureRecent regional elections demonstrate just how much United Russia has consolidatedpower. In the elections held on March 11, 2007, Yabloko, one o Russia’s major reormistpolitical parties, was disqualifed rom running in St. Petersburg. Fourteen regions heldelections, with parties avorable to the Kremlin winning an overwhelming number o seats. Te Communist Party captured 12.5 percent o the seats in regional assemblies,while A Fair (or Just) Russia (a new pro-Kremlin nationalist party) received 11.7 percento the vote. Parties opposed to the Kremlin decried the voting as unair, pointing to newrules that raised the minimum percentage or obtaining seats and lowering the minimum voter turnout or the election to be considered valid. Overall voter turnout was 39.1percent. Many consider these elections to be a precursor or the upcoming nationalelections.

It is too soon to determine who the presidential candidates will be, because theocial campaign does not begin until February o 2008. In addition, it is not clear whichparties will run because Russian parties are unstable, and there is limited continuity as to

which parties run rom one election to the next. Furthermore, ew Russian voters have aclear party identifcation.

United Russia is the party in power, and its platorm has concentrated on fghtingterrorism, quelling ethnic unrest (particularly in Chechnya), increasing law and order, andimproving the economy. Several men have been mentioned as potential successors toPutin, including Dmitry Medvedev (First Deputy Prime Minister), Sergei Ivanov (Deense Minister), Yuri Luzhkov (Mayor o Moscow), Boris Gryzlov (State Dumaspeaker), and Sergei Shoigu (Minister o Emergency Situations). An ocial candidate willbe announced at the United Russia conerence this all.




23

Reormist parties include Yabloko, Te Union o Right Forces, and A Fair (or Just)Russia, which is a coalition o Rodina (Motherland), the Party o Lie, and the Party o Pensioners. A leist party, the Russian People’s Democratic Union, has chosen ormerPrime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov as its presidential candidate. Tis party incorporates the“Committee 2008: Free Choice” platorm o ormer chess champion Garry Kasparov, o

Te Other (or Another) Russia Party, who wants to ensure that the upcoming election isree and air. Te Communist Party will probably nominate Gennady Zyuganov, thecurrent head o the party. On the right, anti-Semitic and polarizing Vladimir Zhirinovsky o the extremist nationalist Liberal Democratic Party is the likely nominee.

No matter which candidates are selected to run, the most obvious prediction is thatUnited Russia will control both the Duma and the presidency. Barring some sort o national emergency (which could be used as a pretext or remaining as president), Putinwill most likely leave o ce, having picked his own loyal successor and ensure at least aninormal role or himsel in government. (On September 12, 2007, at the request o thePrime Minister, Putin dissolved the government and appointed Viktor Zubkov as the newPrime Minister. Zubkov is not considered to be a candidate to replace Putin, and many

observers believe that with elections coming up, Putin wanted to have more say inmaking decisions, including cabinet appointments.) As in the recent regional elections,United Russia will likely hold a large majority in the Duma. While there may not bewidespread electoral raud, candidates rom other parties may be disqualifed romrunning.

In addition, state-sponsored media will be used to beneft candidates representingUnited Russia and disparage candidates rom other parties. Te switch to an entirely proportional system o electing the Duma should result in the ragmentation o smallerparties and the weakening o the Communist Party. As in the past two presidentialelections, it is unlikely that a runo will be necessary. Structural changes aimed atweakening other parties should ensure United Russia the presidency.

Te Long RunIt is much more dicult to predict what will happen to democracy in Russia in the longrun. While Russia has become less competitive, it is too soon to predict the completedemise o democracy. Tere are several possible scenarios or the uture. Te most likely,at least in the short run, is a continuation o managed democracy under the frm controlo United Russia, with Putin perhaps operating behind the scenes. Tere is even thepossibility that he will run or president again in 2012, because the Russian constitutiononly prohibits an individual rom serving two consecutive terms. Perhaps Russia willevolve into a one-party state based on patronage and the cooptation o dissidents, similar

to one-party rule in Mexico under the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PartidoRevolucionario Institucional or PRI). Another possibility is the establishment o a trueauthoritarian state, with all control lodged in a non-competitively “elected” president.While a history o authoritarian rule does not ensure this will occur, centralization is aeature o Russian political culture.

Other predictions or democracy in Russia in the long run are less dire. It ispossible that the regime’s political appointees will be unqualifed, and as a result theirpolicies may ail. I this is the case, the Russian citizenry will surely take notice and thegovernment may lose legitimacy. Furthermore, the Russian government is overly




24

dependent on oil revenues, and this market is notoriously unstable. An economicdownturn could also lead to a loss o legitimacy and desire or democratic change.Incentives o ered by other states and international organizations, particularly therequirement that a country must be democratic to join the European Union, might pushRussia toward democracy as well. Finally, Putin’s leadership relies to a large degree on

charisma. I a charismatic leader arises rom a rival party, the Russian electorate may very well support him.

Although democracy is waning in Russia, it may not be dead, because pollsindicate most Russians still support the idea o ree and air elections. Te upcomingelections are just one indication o the state o democracy in Russia, and while democracy is clearly being diminished in the short run, the next ten years will be a better indicator o whether or not it can survive.




25

References

“2008 Presidential Contenders.” Russian Lie 1 Jan. 2007.http://www.russianlie.net/article.cm?Number=1701.

Alexandrova, Lyudmila. “Some governor may rise to Russian presidency 2008-Putin.” ITAR-TASS 6 Apr. 2007.http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/prnt.html?NewsID=11599044.

Borisov, Sergei. “Russia: Putin’s Counter-Reormation.” Columbia International Aairs Online (Nov. 2004). Columbia International Aairs Online. Nov. 2004.Columbia UP.http://www.ciaonet.org/.

“‘Democracy,’ Russian Style: A defnition George Orwell might have liked.”Washington Post , 18 July 2006.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/17/AR2006071701297.html.

Hale, Henry. “Russia’s Elections and ‘Managed Democracy.’” AP Central .College Board.http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/members/courses/teachers_corner/36334.html.

Hauss, Charles. “Russia.” Comparative Politics: Domestic Responses to Global Challenges, 5th ed. Belmont, CA: Tomson Wadsworth, 2006. 226–263.

“Kremlin parties lead Russian vote.” BBC 12 Mar. 2007.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6438827.stm.

Mitchell, Neil J. “Illiberal Democracy and Vladimir Putin’s Russia.” AP Central .

College Board.http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/members/courses/teachers_corner/32074.html .

Petrov, Nikolai. “Elections in Russia’s Overmanaged Democracy.” CarnegieEndowment or International Peace (Apr. 2006).http://www.carnegieendowment.org/events/index.cm?a=print&id=882.

“Russia’s party barred rom polls.” BBC 28 Jan. 2007.http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/r/-/2/hi/europe/6308511.stm.




26

An Activity on Electoral and Representative

Systems

Benwari SinghCherry Creek High School

Greenwood Village, CO

Overview Electoral and representative systems do not happen by accident. Tey are designed toaddress important cleavages in a society. Te choices made about how to elect a country’sexecutive and legislative members can either ameliorate or exacerbate tensions within asociety. For example, the use o a single-member district plurality voting system orelections to the House o Commons in Great Britain leads to this legislative body being

dominated by two parties. Tis voting system avoids the problem o hyperpluralism (i.e.,too many interests/cleavages canceling each other out) that can occur when proportionalrepresentation is used, but since a plurality voting system gives a greater weight to largerparties, smaller parties and their corresponding constituencies can eel neglected andmarginalized. Tus, any voting system is a double-edged sword, solving some problemsand causing others.

In the AP Comparative Government and Politics course students need tounderstand how several dierent electoral and representative systems operate. However,more importantly, and perhaps more dicult or the average student, they need tounderstand why these systems evolved into their modern orms and how these systemswork to the advantage o some and the disadvantage o others in each o the countries

studied in the AP course.Nigeria provides an example o the impact o electoral and representative systems.

Te First Republic used a proportional representation and parliamentary system o government. Due to the reluctance o the ethnically based parties to work together, it wasnearly impossible to create a ruling coalition. In addition, the Prime Minister was seen asa representative o the ruling party, and not o the country as a whole. Tis instability ledto the overthrow o the First Republic and the frst period o military rule. Hopeully thislesson will help students understand that electoral systems are not created in a vacuum.

Instructional Delivery Tis lesson is a cooperative learning opportunity or the students. Tis lesson would

probably be best used early in the course as an overview o electoral and representativesystems beore the students have become too amiliar with the AP countries, their politicalhistories, or current regimes. However, the students do need a little basic knowledge o concepts important to these systems. Te important concepts or the students wouldinclude the ollowing:

• presidential system

• parliamentary system

• semi-presidential/mixed system




27

• unitary and ederal governments

• bicameral and unicameral systems

• single-member, frst-past-the-post (plurality) systems

• proportional representation

Te students will use these concepts to design an electoral and representativesystem based on a set o historical and current criteria in a fctional country. Tese criteriaare modeled aer fve o the AP countries, the United Kingdom, Russia, Nigeria, Mexico,and Iran.

eaching ProcedureDivide the class into fve groups. ell the students that they are going to design anelectoral and representative system or a fctional country. Quickly review the conceptslisted above with the students and tell them that their electoral and representative systemmust address the cleavages present in their country, according to the inormation they

receive. It may help to use the U.S. electoral and representative system as a model o addressing cleavages when designing governmental institutions. Each group should selecta reporter and a recorder. At the end o the time typically allotted to this lesson thereporter will give a report on the system their group created and the recorder will create awritten copy o the electoral and representative system. I you would like, each groupcould make a poster or some other type o visual representation o the system that they created.

AssessmentTis lesson really lends itsel to an inormal type o assessment. A class discussion o eachsystem created would allow the teacher to check or understanding o the impact o

electoral systems. One area or discussion that will most likely present itsel is thepossibility that the student systems will not match the actual ones in use by the APcountries. Tis should allow the teacher an opportunity to delve deeper into eachcountry’s electoral system and/or political history to explain the discrepancies and even topoint out where the students’ solutions might have helped to avoid some problem that thecountry currently aces partly as a result o the system it chose.

I a more ormal method o evaluation is desired the conceptual analysis questions(question number six on each exam) rom both the 2007 and 2006 exams address issuesregarding electoral and representative systems. Copies o these questions, their rubrics,and sample student responses are located at:

http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/members/exam/exam_questions/2087.html

Student Handout: Your Electoral SystemElectoral and representative systems do not happen by accident. Tey are designed toaddress important coinciding cleavages in a society. Te choices made about how to electa country’s executive and legislative members can either help ease tensions within asociety or they can increase tensions within that society.

Your task in this lesson is to create an electoral system that best fts thebackground inormation ound on your inormation sheet. When creating your system




28

consider how decisions about the ollowing concepts would help alleviate tensions in yoursociety or meet the criteria laid out in your inormation sheet. Te concepts that you haveto make decisions about include the ollowing:

• presidential system

• parliamentary system

• semi-presidential/mixed system

• unitary system

• ederal system

• bicameral legislature

• unicameral legislature

• single-member, frst-past-the-post system

• proportional representation

Each group should elect a recorder to create a written record o the system youcreate. Also, each group needs to elect a reporter to share your electoral and representativesystem with the class at the end o the period and the rationale or creating the system. Beprepared to deend your system against questions and challenges rom your classmates.You should have a rationale or each aspect o your electoral system.

Country #1Tis country is a well-developed, post-industrial country. In terms o geographic area, thiscountry is very small. It has developed into a democracy over a long period o time withlittle strie during the process. ransitions were handled relatively smoothly and over along period o time when compared to other countries in the world. Tis country

ocially was created as a union between our dierent nations, thereore, there are someethnic dierences, but they are not a signifcant source o tension, though ethnicidentifcation is growing in importance. Te only other source o cleavage, and it isbecoming less a actor in politics, is class. Class dierences maniest themselves mostly ina social and cultural way (e.g., dress, dialect, sports, etc.). Major political parties areideologically based; however, there are several small, regionally based parties.

Country #2Tis country is also a post-industrial country, but has just recently recovered rom aserious, decade long contraction o its economy. Tis contraction coincided with the endo hundreds o years o autocratic and totalitarian rule, frst by a hereditary monarchy

ollowed by more than 70 years o single-party totalitarianism. Tereore, this country’speople have little experience with democracy, and a weak civil society exists within thiscountry. In act, the people seem to preer rule by strong, charismatic fgures. In addition,political parties are usually non-ideological, but rather based on popular and charismaticleaders. Tis creates a uid, multiparty system. Currently the ruling party has beenworking to consolidate power, including exerting inuence over the media, andimportant industries. Tey have been accused o assassinating political critics, but there is




29

no conclusive evidence to prove this. Corruption has been common, but appears to be onthe decline.

Tis country is also a very large country with lots o ethnic diversity. A ew o these ethnic groups have been very vocal about wanting greater autonomy. One has goneas ar as to wage a guerilla war against the government.

Country #3Tis country is an underdeveloped country; it is among the poorest countries in the worldtoday. Its economy is heavily dependent on commodity export as its main source o revenue. Tis country is a ormer European colony. It gained its independence less thanfy years ago. Te transition rom colony to independence has been rocky, at best. Temain sources o cleavage in this country are ethnicity and religion. Te country is hometo dozens o ethnic groups who do not necessarily get along with one another. Tere is very little mixing o the ethnic groups in this country; they tend to remain in theirhistorical homelands, urther exacerbating the tensions between groups. Tis country alsohas a lot o regional dierences in terms o economic production, climate, and

population. In addition to ethnicity, signifcant tension is also caused by language,religion, class, and gender. Political parties are generally based on these cleavages, withethnic-based parties being predominant. Tis country also has a growing population and acrumbling inrastructure.

Country #4Less than thirty years ago this country experienced a revolution in which an autocraticruler was overthrown and replaced by a theocracy. Tis country has an economy based oncommodity export (i.e., an economy based on the export o natural resources), and it is a“middle-income” country. Te standard o living in this country has improved since therevolution, but there are troubling economic problems that persist to this day. Inationand unemployment are still in the double digits and there is a pronounced split betweenthe educated middle-class and the uneducated laboring class.

While this country has several dierent ethnic groups living within its borders,religion serves as a cross-cutting inuence that diuses any tension that may existbetween ethnic groups. Religion is very important to most o the citizens o this country.Tere are two sources o cleavage in this country. Te frst is age. A majority o thecitizens were born aer the revolution and have, at best, a shaky allegiance to thetheocratic regime. Te second source o cleavage is gender. Te theocratic regime treatswomen as second-class citizens.

Country #5Tis country is a ormer colony, but earned its independence in the early nineteenthcentury. Te transition to independence was rocky, to say the least. Eventually acharismatic dictator was replaced by a one-party authoritarian state that maintained ruleor more than 80 years through cooptation and electoral raud. Te ruling party alwaysallowed other political parties to exist, but they did not win any important elections untilrecently. Now there are three parties vying or control o this country, one on the right o the political spectrum, the ormer ruling party, which is non-ideological, and one party onthe le.




30

Tere are a ew sources o cleavages in this country. One is region. Te northernpart o the country is more wealthy and educated than the southern portion o thecountry. A second source o cleavage is ethnicity. Tere is a small population o indigenous people who eel le out o recent economic prosperity. In act, there has beena low-level insurgency waged in the southern portion o the country over the previous

decade. One aspect that ties the country together is religion. More than 90 percent o thiscountry’s population practices the same religion.

Tis country is heavily reliant on the export o petroleum and payments rom itscitizens living abroad. In addition to this, its economy is extremely dependent on tradewith one nation, which has a history o meddling in this country’s internal aairs.




31

Contributors

James Wehrli, Editor, has taught AP Government and AP Economics at the RavenscroSchool in Raleigh, North Carolina, since 1999. He has also concurrently been an adjunct

lecturer in the political science and public administration departments in the School o Public and International Aairs at N.C. State University since 2004. He has been an APReader or Comparative Government and Politics since 1999, a able Leader since 2005and the content adviser/College Board Adviser or AP Comparative Government andPolitics since 2005. He holds a Ph.D. and M.A. in political science and an M.A. and B.Ain economics, all rom Binghamton University. In 2006 he received certifcation rom theNational Board or Proessional eaching Standards in secondary social studies/history.

Suzanne Bailey has been teaching AP Government and Politics since l989. Currently sheteaches AP Comparative and AP U.S. Government and Politics at Virgil I. Grissom HighSchool in Huntsville, Alabama. She serves as a member o the AP Comparative

Government and Politics Development Committee and has participated in the APReading since 2000. She earned National Board Certifcation in 2004 and is a 2006recipient o the Presidential Scholar eacher Recognition Award.

Minion K. C. Morrison is the Middlebush Proessor o Political Science at the University o Missouri–Columbia. He conducts research in comparative politics, with a specialinterest in the Tird World and West Arica. His current work ocuses on political partiesand ethnicity.

Dursun Peksen is a doctoral candidate at the University o Missouri–Columbia. Hespecializes in international relations and comparative politics. Peksen is currently

conducting research on natural disasters and civil war.

Benwari Singh has taught in a variety o settings since 1992. He has experience teachingAP U.S. History, AP U.S. Government and Politics, and AP Comparative Governmentand Politics. He served as a Reader or AP U.S. Government or three years and was aable Leader or the 2007 Reading. Mr. Singh graduated rom Metropolitan State Collegein Denver with a B.A. in American history and earned his master’s degree rom theUniversity o Northern Colorado.

Karen Waples has taught or 18 years and is the social studies department coordinator atCherry Creek High School. She has taught three AP classes: U.S. Government,

Comparative Government, and U.S. History, and been a Reader or all three exams. Shepresents both U.S. and Comparative Government 1-day workshops and week-longinstitutes as an endorsed College Board consultant, and is a reviewer o AP ComparativeGovernment and Politics resources or AP Central®. Her undergraduate degree is rom theUniversity o Denver; she has a law degree rom the University o Colorado.




NOTES

1. Oladimeji Aborisade and Robert Mundt. 2001. Politics in Nigeria. New York:Longman, p. 7.

2. Darren Kew and Peter Lewis. 2007. In William Joseph, et al. Introduction toPolitics o the Developing World . 4th ed. Boston: Houghton-Miin.

3. Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) o Nigeria. “PoliticalParties.”

4. International Crisis Group. March 2007. “Nigeria’s Elections: Avoiding a PoliticalCrisis.” Crisis Group Arica Report No. 123, p. 2-4.

5. Kew and Lewis, 292.

6. Dino Mahtani. “Nigerian Elections: Political Parties” Financial Times. April 2,2007; Kew and Lewis, p. 292.

7. As military leader Obasanjo (1976-1979) replaced coup maker and junta leaderMurtala Muhammad (1975-1976), who was assassinated. Te ormer voluntarily returned power to civilians.

8. International Crisis Group, p. 1-2.

9. International Crisis Group, p. 2.

10. “Nigerian Senate Blocs Bid or 3rd Presidential erm,” Washington Post , May 16,2006.

11. International Crisis Group. p. 5-7.

12. “Nigeria Court Rules in Favour o VP Abubakar.” Reuters, April, 16 2007.

13. International Crisis Group, p.13-15.

14. “Nigeria party picks its candidate.” BBC News, December 17, 2006.

15. “Candidate wants to squash health rumors.” Reuters. January 5, 2007.

16. Ocial website o Muhammadu Buhari: http://www.buhari.org/.

17. “Monitors, opposition reject Nigeria poll,” Reuters, April 23, 2007.

18. Te US State Department, “Nigeria’s election,” Press Statement, April 27, 2007.

19. “Huge win or Nigeria’s Yar’Adua,” BBC News, April 23, 2007

recent elections and statistics

Documents