Show simple item record

[journal article]

dc.contributor.authorAlderman, Petrade
dc.date.accessioned2024-05-17T13:24:04Z
dc.date.available2024-05-17T13:24:04Z
dc.date.issued2024de
dc.identifier.issn1868-4882de
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/handle/document/94166
dc.description.abstractHow can we ensure quality elections when the key institutions responsible for the organisation of polls are openly partisan and anti-democratic? In their 2017 paper, Birch and van Ham suggest that partisan electoral management bodies (EMBs) do not matter for the quality of polls so long as effective alternative oversight institutions exist, are active and independent. These institutions can make up for the EMBs’ shortcomings and ensure that a relatively high-quality election is still achieved. I argue that the notion of active and independent alternative oversight institutions leaves us guessing under which conditions it works. Adopting James’s network-based approach to electoral management, I show on the example of the 2019 Thai election that electoral governance networks that are characterised by high levels of political polarisation, the presence of entrenched authoritarian elites and formally independent EMBs that are too powerful make substitution untenable.de
dc.languageende
dc.subject.ddcPolitikwissenschaftde
dc.subject.ddcPolitical scienceen
dc.subject.otherWahlbeobachtungde
dc.titleAutocratic electoral management: Lessons from Thailandde
dc.description.reviewbegutachtet (peer reviewed)de
dc.description.reviewpeer revieweden
dc.identifier.urlhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/18681034231190940de
dc.source.journalJournal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs
dc.source.volume43de
dc.publisher.countryGBRde
dc.source.issue1de
dc.subject.classozpolitische Willensbildung, politische Soziologie, politische Kulturde
dc.subject.classozPolitical Process, Elections, Political Sociology, Political Cultureen
dc.subject.thesozThailandde
dc.subject.thesozThailanden
dc.subject.thesozautoritäres Systemde
dc.subject.thesozauthoritarian systemen
dc.subject.thesozpolitisches Systemde
dc.subject.thesozpolitical systemen
dc.subject.thesozWahlde
dc.subject.thesozelectionen
dc.subject.thesozGovernancede
dc.subject.thesozgovernanceen
dc.subject.thesozNetzwerkde
dc.subject.thesoznetworken
dc.subject.thesozpolitische Elitede
dc.subject.thesozpolitical eliteen
dc.subject.thesozSüdostasiende
dc.subject.thesozSoutheast Asiaen
dc.rights.licenceCreative Commons - Namensnennung 4.0de
dc.rights.licenceCreative Commons - Attribution 4.0en
ssoar.contributor.institutionGIGAde
internal.statusformal und inhaltlich fertig erschlossende
internal.identifier.thesoz10042351
internal.identifier.thesoz10046573
internal.identifier.thesoz10040669
internal.identifier.thesoz10034501
internal.identifier.thesoz10054891
internal.identifier.thesoz10053141
internal.identifier.thesoz10041891
internal.identifier.thesoz10036844
dc.type.stockarticlede
dc.type.documentZeitschriftenartikelde
dc.type.documentjournal articleen
dc.source.pageinfo3-25de
internal.identifier.classoz10504
internal.identifier.journal193
internal.identifier.document32
internal.identifier.ddc320
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1177/18681034231190940de
dc.description.pubstatusVeröffentlichungsversionde
dc.description.pubstatusPublished Versionen
internal.identifier.licence16
internal.identifier.pubstatus1
internal.identifier.review1
internal.dda.referencehttps://unapi.k10plus.de@@1885511566
ssoar.urn.registrationfalsede


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record