When Elections Do Not A Democracy Make: The 2010 Elections in Sudan
Trithart, Albert B.
2013
- Submitted in partial fulfillment of the degree Master of Arts in Law and Diplomacy at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. Since the end of the Cold War, elections have become a standard component of peace agreements ending civil wars. Multiparty elections have become the only internationally acceptable way to legitimize transitional institutions and authorities. But are elections an effective ... read moremeans of realizing democratic principles? Can elections cause democratization? While empirical studies can help answer this question, individual cases can elucidate the specific factors that underlie elections as democratizing agents. In this paper, I will focus on the case of Sudan's 2010 elections, which did not result in democratization. I ask two related questions: What were the reasons for including provisions for elections in the CPA? And why did these elections not contribute to democratization in Sudan as intended? This paper is divided into five main sections. First, I contextualize the discussion within the literature on democratization by elections. Second, I provide a brief background of the negotiations leading to the CPA, with particular attention to discussions related to the elections. Third, I turn to the first question posed above, assessing the rationale behind the provisions on elections in the CPA. Fourth, I turn to the second question, reassessing this rationale in light of events that occurred during the transition period. Finally, I offer conclusions as to how the elections might have contributed to democratization. I conclude that elections were necessary in order to achieve two goals: 1) to legitimize the possibility of unity and 2) to justify the exclusionary nature of bilateral negotiations. Elections could only achieve these goals if they were democratizing - if the elections did not contribute to a democratic outcome, they could neither legitimize unity nor accommodate all the groups excluded from negotiations. Despite a lack of democratic commitment from both the NCP and SPLM/A, it was not entirely unrealistic to hope that elections would be democratizing, based on assumptions made during CPA negotiations. Events following the CPA, however, undermined these assumptions. Neither the SPLM nor northern opposition parties seriously challenged the NCP in national elections. The SPLM focused on elections in southern Sudan, while northern opposition parties did not mobilize their supporters, resulting in a disorderly last-minute election boycott. Moreover, the international community did not follow through on its commitment to democratizing elections. Instead, international actors prioritized justice (through the International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant for President Omar al-Bashir) and peace (through a referendum on southern independence) over democracy. Finally, Sudan adopted a complex electoral system that inhibited power sharing. These post-CPA conditions undermined the prospects for democratizing elections.read less
- ID:
- f7623q32z
- Component ID:
- tufts:UA015.012.081.00005
- To Cite:
- TARC Citation Guide EndNote
- Usage:
- Detailed Rights
