Jessen & Richter (Eds.) (2 page)

Non-Competitive Elections in 20th Century

Dictatorships: Some Questions and

General Considerations

Ralph Jessen and Hedwig Richter

Elections make the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship.

Not the only difference, of course, but nevertheless a decisive one. Any

acceptable definition of a democratic order includes the following: univer-

sal suffrage, a secret ballot, and competing candidates. These are the essen-

tial prerequisites for the legitimization of a political regime. Regardless of

all critical considerations concerning limits of representation which could

hamper democracy, the elitist isolation of the political class, or the socially, economically or culturally biased structure of the electoral system, elections

are considered to be a cornerstone of popular sovereignty.

However, despite this, elections were and are not limited to liberal de-

mocracies. In fact most of the 20th century dictatorships put a great deal of

effort into arranging general elections and referenda. For example, the

Soviet government along with other governments in the Eastern Bloc

countries regularly called their populations out to vote in general, equal,

direct and secret elections. No effort was spared in enticing the voters to

the ballot box. During the 1960s millions of Soviet citizens came together

in hundreds of thousands of election meetings to take part in the elections

for the Supreme Soviet. In Moscow thousands of shows, dance perform-

ances and concerts were put on in order to entertain the voters. In the

polling stations play areas and buffets were set up. Around 15 per cent of

the total population took part in the Soviet election campaigns as agitators

and canvassers (see Tsipursky, Bohn, Smith, Heumos in this volume;

Jacobs 1970, 62–68). Of course, with regard to influencing the composi-

tion of the parliament, or even the government, all of this remained quite

meaningless. Yet, why did dictatorships stage these “elections without

choice” (Hermet et al., 1978) if their function as “institutionalized proce-

dures for the choosing of office holders by some or all of the recognized

members of an organization” was not being fulfilled in the slightest

(Rokkan 1968, 6; see also Lipset and Rokkan 1967)?

10

R A L P H J E S S E N A N D H E D W I G R I C H T E R

Why did political regimes, which were radically opposed to liberal de-

mocracy, imitate one of the crucial features of that antagonistic system?

This is the main question which this volume of essays seeks to answer, and

it is based on the assumption that fake democratic elections cannot simply

be dismissed as trivial propaganda phenomena, but rather are a source of

valuable insights into the functioning of dictatorships in the 20th century.

20th Century Dictatorships

Juan Linz distinguishes between democratic, authoritarian and totalitarian

regimes (Linz 1975, 2000). This typology has been adopted by many politi-

cal scientists and historians—despite the fact that the different types of

authoritarian
regime make it difficult to bring them all under one common term, and also despite the criticism of different aspects of the theory of

totalitarianism. For as much as one might regard the term totalitarianism as

problematic given its normative connotations, its fixation on the structures

of a regime, and its relative blindness to social and cultural practices, a

typological classification of the main different types of dictatorship is es-

sential (Jessen 1995; Bessel and Jessen 1996). This is even more so the case

in respect to elections.

Political scientists dealing with this topic have quite rightly highlighted

the close relationship between the form and function of the elections, and

the type of political regime. In this respect the determining classification

criteria are institutionalization and the practice of political competition.

Thus, Dieter Nohlen distinguishes between competitive elections in demo-

cratic systems, semi-competitive elections in authoritarian systems, and

non-competitive elections in totalitarian systems (Nohlen 2009, 26 f).

Steven Levitsky and Lucan A. Way have also arrived at a similar trichot-

omy in their differentiation between democracy, competitive authoritarian

regimes and closed authoritarianism (Levitsky and Way 2002, 2010). Oth-

ers have put forward even more strongly differentiated typologies (Howard

and Roessler 2006; Smith 2006).

For political scientists, an interest in elections which take place within

non-democratic frameworks has mainly been directed at
authoritarian
re-

gimes. These regimes were the focus of the pioneering 1978 study “Elec-

tions Without Choice” by Guy Hermet et al. Furthermore, the develop-

I N T R O D U C T I O N : N O N - C O M P E T I T I V E E L E C T I O N S 11

ments following the downfall of Communism in Europe have led to an

even greater focus on this area. The “Third Wave of Democratization”

(Huntington 1991) after 1989 resulted in stable democracies in only a few

Central and Eastern European countries. In most of the post-communist

states, different types of authoritarian regimes have established them-

selves—regimes which attempt to legitimize themselves by means of elec-

tions without there being any hope of fair competition (Wilson 2005). This

links the neo-authoritarian regimes of the post-communist world with

many states in Africa and Asia. Whether the latest upheavals in the North

African and Arabian areas will result in a fourth wave of democratization,

as some commentators have been quick to hope for, remains to be seen

(Olimat 2008; Grand 2011). However, skepticism would seem to be advis-

able.

Andreas Schedler has drawn the conclusion that the counter-move-

ments to the Third Wave of democratization have not produced different

forms of “defective democracies”, but rather a new type of regime, namely

that of “electoral authoritarianism”. Moreover, the relative stability of this

new type of regime is not due to the suppression of elections, but rather

the effective manipulation of the electoral system (Schedler 2002, 2006 a,

b). Although elections in this type of regime feature a minimum level of

inclusion, pluralism, competition, and openness, the rules of free and fair

elections are breached so systematically that they become instruments

wielded by the authoritarian elite to control and direct power (Schedler

2006 b, 2–6).

While political scientists are mainly interested in current phenomena of

“electoral authoritarianism”, this volume follows a different course. While

it does take inspiration from current problems, the essays mainly focus on

issues arising from historical research. Furthermore, the volume focuses on

the
totalitarian dictatorships
—in particular those in fascist Italy, National Socialist Germany, and the communist states between 1917 and 1991.1

Despite significant differences, these dictatorships had some common

features: they presented themselves radically modern, anti-traditional, and

——————

1 Due to the lack of a better alternative, here the term
totalitarian dictatorships
will be used in order to distinguish these regimes from the
authoritarian
dictatorships of the inter-war and post-war periods, as well as from the
neo-authoritarian
regimes of the present. The more open and normatively less loaded term “modern dictatorship” (Kocka 1999) is not appropriate here since the
neo-authoritarian
regimes of recent times cannot be labeled as either pre-modern or post-modern, but in fact also belong to
modernity
.

12

R A L P H J E S S E N A N D H E D W I G R I C H T E R

oriented towards a utopian concept of a
new society
. They were based on a strictly anti-liberal and anti-pluralist model of politics and society. This

model was connected to an ideal of homogeneity and purity, based on the

collective exclusion of
objective enemies
, as Hannah Arendt put it (Arendt 1951). Those included in the
Volksgemeinschaft
or
socialist society
would be integrated into a kind of
dictatorship of consent
. Under these regimes elections corresponded to the category of “zero-competition election” (Smith 2006).

While elections in authoritarian and neo-authoritarian regimes served as an

instrument of “non-democratic access to power” as Andreas Schedler aptly

defines it, in
totalitarian
dictatorships their primary function was as a means for the “non-democratic exercise of power” (Schedler 2006 b, 6). Whether

their function extended beyond this, still remains to be considered.

State of Research

Elections in the
totalitarian
dictatorships of the 20th century are not a prominent theme in historical research. Since they so clearly break the rules

of fair competition, it seems obvious that they should be discounted as

insignificant propaganda events. Secret police, violence, and terror as the

instruments used in the safeguarding of power appeared to be much more

worthy of attention. Moreover, the fact that elections and plebiscites took

place under Fascism and National Socialism only in the 1920s and 1930s,

while in the communist European regimes they were of significance up

until 1989, has led to an asymmetric division of academic interest. While

the elections in the right-wing dictatorships of the first half of the 20th

century have been a focus of
historical
research, the elections which took place under Communism usually were the subject of research conducted