The role of domestic observers

Journal of Democracy

Volumn 8, Issue 3, 1997, Pages

  Nevitte, Neil ^a   Canton, Santiago A ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^b International Affairs   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 18744423973     PISSN: 10455736     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1353/jod.1997.0046     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Our use of the phrase "free, fair, and transparent" here simply reflects popular usage. Determining whether any transitional election qualifies as such is as much an art as a science. See the article by Jørgen Elklit and Palle Svensson on pages 32-46 above. For a useful overview of authoritarian regimes' motives in calling elections, see Samuel P. Huntington, The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991), especially ch. 4.
2. For a discussion of some of the important advances that have occurred in the technical aspects of undertaking "quick counts," see Jennifer McCoy, Larry Garber, and Robert Pastor, "Poliwatching and Peacemaking," Journal of Democracy 2 (Fall 1991): 102-14. Significant advances have also been made in the qualitative aspects of election observation. The most powerful strategies now entail the use of both qualitative and quantitative data, as in the Carter Center's monitoring of the 1992 Guyanese elections, the joint efforts of the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI) and the Civic Alliance in the 1994 Mexican presidential election, and the collaboration between NDI and Transparencia in the 1995 Peruvian elections.
3. As Huntington has rightly pointed out in The Third Wave, subtle theft of elections is now a larger problem than blatant theft. It is a far more attractive option for authorit arian regimes because it offers those regimes the chance both to effectively rig election outcomes and to increase their own legitimacy.
4. See Huntington, The Third Wave; and Juan J. Linz, The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes: Crisis, Breakdown, and Reequilibration (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978).
5. See Huntington, The Third Wave; and Juan J. Linz, The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes: Crisis, Breakdown, and Reequilibration (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978).
6. See Nicolas Arditto-Barletta, "Democracy and Development," Washington Quarterly 13 (Summer 1990): 165-75; Scott Mainwaring, The Catholic Church and Politics in Brazil, 1916-1985 (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1986); and Alfred Stepan, Democratizing Brazil: Problems of Transition and Consolidation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989).
7. See Nicolas Arditto-Barletta, "Democracy and Development," Washington Quarterly 13 (Summer 1990): 165-75; Scott Mainwaring, The Catholic Church and Politics in Brazil, 1916-1985 (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1986); and Alfred Stepan, Democratizing Brazil: Problems of Transition and Consolidation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989).
8. See Nicolas Arditto-Barletta, "Democracy and Development," Washington Quarterly 13 (Summer 1990): 165-75; Scott Mainwaring, The Catholic Church and Politics in Brazil, 1916-1985 (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1986); and Alfred Stepan, Democratizing Brazil: Problems of Transition and Consolidation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989).
9. Jonathan Fox, "The Difficult Transition from Clientelism to Citizenship: Lessons from Mexico," World Politics 46 (January 1994): 152-84.
10. Guillermo O'Donnell, "Illusions About Consolidation," Journal of Democracy 7 (April 1996): 36.
11. See Robert Putnam, Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994).
12. Ibid.
13. See Thomas Carothers, Assessing Democracy Assistance: The Case of Romania (Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1996).