When a dictator holds elections, it is for their own gain

2024 is going to be the largest election year in world history, when more than four billion citizens are going to the ballot box. In the EU, 27 member countries are electing new representatives to the European Parliament, and the USA is voting on who will be leading the superpower as president for the next four years. 

It is, however, not only in democratic countries that election campaigns are going to unfold. The most common form of government in the world is electoral autocracy – a form of government in which the establishment is formally elected based on multiparty elections but where fundamental democratic rights are lacking, such as freedom of the press, freedom of association, and electoral justice. 

44% of the world’s population lives in electoral autocracies. This is the greatest amount ever. Russia, Pakistan, India, Hungary, and many others are among the states that belong to this category. 

But why are elections held in these states when, formally speaking, they are not democracies? DIPD has looked into research on the topic and found some of the primary reasons that autocracies hold elections and the role they play in maintaining the power of the regime. 

International legitimacy 

Elections in autocracies appear outwardly irreconcilable with a dictatorship, but they are neither rare nor necessarily undermining for the regimes. 

Behind the electoral charade, autocratic leaders hide a series of strategic considerations, which serve as tools for maintaining power and control. Research shows that autocracies that hold elections have been found to be more sustainable in the long term than those without.  

Autocratic leaders often seek international legitimacy and recognition. By holding elections, they send a signal that they follow democratic norms, despite the process being marred by irregularities and manipulation. 

By holding multi-party elections, the regime can demonstrate its engagement in a democratisation process, which often grants access to a wide range of international forums that dictators find attractive to participate in. Holding an election thus becomes a ticket to sit at the long and round tables. 

The illusion of influence 

Autocratic leaders can use election results to confirm the legitimacy of their government and leadership. This gives them the opportunity to enact policies and decisions with reference to popular support, even if the realised support is doubtful. 

With an overwhelming electoral “victory” to bolster them, a head of state can easier devolve, for example, the free press and independent judiciaries, under the cover of executing the “will of the people.” 

Elections serve as a method to canalise dissatisfaction and create the illusion of political participation. By allowing a limited democratic space, autocratic leaders avoid potential social unrest. Despite the elections often being predetermined, they give the population a feeling of having influence over their leaders. 

Sharing the loot 

Many researchers point to authoritarian elections as an institutional tool that dictators use to include the country’s elites, party members, or powerful groups in society. For dictators, an election can be a quick method of ‘sharing the loot’ between elite groupings. 

Elites can view elections as a more “fair” or “effective” method of sharing the country’s important positions rather than arbitrary appointments. Meanwhile, the dictator can secure that the most “popular” and powerful elites are connected to the regime. 

Finally, the elections help incumbent government leaders dissuade potential desserts among members of the elite. When the regime “wins” sweeping election victories, it functions as a signal to members of the regime’s elite that resistance is useless.  

Strangling the opposition 

Political elections can also serve to incorporate parts of the opposition into the regime and, through that, strangle it. By allowing candidates and parties that do not support the regime to compete in local and parliamentary elections, dictators can divide opposition forces through internal competition over monetary gains and political influence.  

Research shows that elections in autocracies create different incitements for opposition parties, which can be against the regime but simultaneously desire to hold executive power. By conducting elections and stipulating rules on which candidates and parties are allowed to run, the regime creates “divided structures of competition,” which consist of the excluded, who cannot run, and those who can, who then become more closely invested in the regime.  

The regime will usually allow only weak or loyal opposition figures to participate. In that way, the leader has secured a challenge but not a threat. 

Elections as a source of information 

Elections can also be a source of important information for autocrats. Election results can help the regime’s incumbent leaders take the temperature on the population and identify areas with high support and places where the support for the opposition is stronger without losing control. 

Armed with this information, leaders can turn their attention towards opposition strongholds and either punish them after the election, buy their support, or threaten them into changing loyalty. 

Additionally, elections give autocrats information about how skilled their local officials are. Low support at certain polling stations signals that the local official is incompetent or unpopular amongst the residents of the region, which can then be rectified. 

The electoral period as a window of oppression 

The electoral period itself opens a strategic window for autocratic leaders to oppress the opposition. Political opponents can be imprisoned, and other methods can be used to eliminate threats to the regime while public attention is turned towards the election. Through that, potential challengers are strangled, and the status quo is maintained. 

Behind the seemingly democratic façade of the autocratic election-charades complex are hidden motives. For autocratic leaders, the elections are a power play that balances keeping internal control, creating an illusion of legitimacy, and avoiding potential unrest amongst the population. 

The elections constitute a key element in the autocratic toolbox for keeping and strengthening their grasp on power. 

It is, however, important to remember that electoral autocracies are a very broad category, with major variations in the form of government from state to state. Citizens in Hungary, for example, continue to have far more civil rights and democratic influence than those in Russia. 

The potential

Elections in autocracies are not purely negative. Even non-democratic elections have the potential to create positive change in the population.

Sources

• Brownlee J. Authoritarianism in an Age of Democratization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007. 
• Gandhi, Jennifer & Lust, Ellen. (2009). Elections Under Authoritarianism. Annual Review of Political Science. 12. 
• Geddes (1999) What Do We Know About Democratization After Twenty Years? Annual Review of Political Science. 2.
• Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Democracy Report 2023.

Political campaigns can facilitate dialogue between the establishment and citizens. This is commonly seen in autocracies, where local elections are freer than the national ones. Concrete election promises are made by candidates, and a space appears for conversation about local needs. 

In contexts where there is political competition for some of the seats, it creates an opportunity for citizens to hold some officials accountable and change posts. 

Even if the election is limited to a choice between two evils, it does give a small amount of co-influence and contribute towards building a culture of critically considering public officials and their work. 

Finally, an election puts a spotlight on the democratic conditions of a country, both internally in the nation and in global society. Opposition movements and election observers get a window where they can raise awareness about electoral transgressions and democratic deficiencies in society. The increased consciousness and critical consideration can cause other states to sanction the regime and motivate the population to mobilise for democracy.