A Comparative Analysis of the Dynamics of Electoral Violence and Low Voter Turnout in the Context of a Democratic Election
Chapter One
Objectives of the Study
This study aims to achieve the following specific objectives:
- To analyze the historical context and contributing factors leading to electoral violence in democratic elections.
- To examine the factors influencing low voter turnout in democratic elections.
- To explore the potential interplay between electoral violence and low voter turnout in the context of democratic elections.
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
Conceptual Review
Electoral Violence: Defining and Classifying
Electoral violence, a multifaceted phenomenon, encompasses a range of disruptive actions that can significantly impact the democratic process. Types of electoral violence include intimidation, manipulation, and physical violence (Birch et al., 2020). Intimidation involves the use of threats, coercion, or fear-inducing tactics to influence electoral outcomes (Burchard, 2020). Aytac and Stokes (2019) emphasize the importance of understanding such tactics in the broader context of citizen behaviour, shedding light on the psychological aspects of electoral violence.
Manipulation, as demonstrated in studies by Bratton (2018), involves various forms of electoral malpractices such as vote buying. This type of electoral violence distorts the true reflection of the electorate’s will, compromising the integrity of the electoral process. Bratton’s work in Nigeria highlights the prevalence of vote buying and its implications for the democratic process, emphasizing the need for effective countermeasures.
Physical violence, a more overt and destructive form of electoral violence, involves acts of aggression, harm, or even loss of life during election periods (Burchard, 2015). The study by Collier and Vicente (2022) on votes and violence in Nigeria provides empirical evidence of the immediate and tangible consequences of physical violence on the electoral choices made by citizens. Such violence creates an environment of fear and insecurity, directly impacting citizens’ ability to freely express their political will.
The factors contributing to electoral violence are diverse and interconnected, encompassing political, socio-economic, and cultural dimensions. Political factors, including competition for power and resources, can intensify rivalries between political actors and their supporters (Burchard, 2015). Baba’s (2018) exploration of executive dominance in Nigeria sheds light on how power imbalances can contribute to heightened political tensions, creating a conducive environment for electoral violence.
Socioeconomic factors, such as poverty and inequality, also play a role in fueling electoral violence (Burchard, 2020). The study by Blattman (2019) in Uganda demonstrates the link between war, poverty, and political participation. Understanding these socio-economic dynamics is crucial for developing targeted interventions aimed at addressing the root causes of electoral violence.
Cultural factors, deeply ingrained in societal norms and values, can influence the acceptance or rejection of electoral violence (Cheibub et al., 2020). The work of Canetti et al. (2016) on exposure to violence and support for compromise suggests that cultural ethos can shape citizens’ responses to electoral violence. Acknowledging these cultural dimensions is essential for crafting context-specific strategies to mitigate electoral violence.
The consequences of electoral violence on democratic processes are profound and enduring. Birch, Daxecker, and Hoglund (2020) underscore the detrimental impact of electoral violence on the credibility of elections, eroding public trust in democratic institutions. Furthermore, Daly’s (2019) study on violent actors winning postwar elections highlights how electoral violence can perpetuate a cycle of insecurity and instability, impeding the consolidation of democracy.
Low Voter Turnout: Conceptualization and Determinants
Low voter turnout, a critical aspect of electoral dynamics, requires thorough conceptualization to understand its dimensions and implications for democratic governance. The definition and measurement of low voter turnout involve assessing the percentage of eligible voters who do not participate in an election (Dinas et al., 2019). This conceptualization provides a quantitative basis for analyzing voter engagement and identifying trends across different electoral contexts.
The factors influencing voter turnout are multifaceted, encompassing social, political, and individual dimensions. Social factors include demographic characteristics, socioeconomic status, and education levels (Bratton, 2018). Studies by Moehler (2019) on election losers and winners in Africa shed light on how socio-economic factors shape citizens’ participation, influencing the overall voter turnout in a given society.
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
The methodology employed in this research was carefully designed to address the objectives of the study, which sought to conduct a comparative analysis of the dynamics of electoral violence and low voter turnout, exploring their interplay and impact on democratic elections. This chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the research design, population of the study, sampling technique and sample size justification, sources and methods of data collection, data analysis approach, and ethical considerations.
Research Design
The research design plays a pivotal role in shaping the trajectory of the study, providing a structured framework for data collection and analysis to achieve the predefined research objectives. In this context, the chosen research design aligns with the comparative nature of the investigation, emphasizing the importance of quantitative survey research. According to Saunders et al. (2019), a quantitative survey research design is well-suited for studies aiming to draw numerical data from a sizable sample size. This approach facilitates a systematic and standardized data collection process, offering the advantage of statistical analysis for robust comparisons.
The quantitative survey research design was deemed appropriate for this study due to its ability to generate numerical data, enabling the application of statistical methods to uncover patterns and trends across diverse democratic contexts. As highlighted by Saunders et al. (2019), this design allows for the collection of structured data through instruments such as questionnaires, enabling researchers to quantify responses and analyze them quantitatively. This emphasis on numerical data is particularly pertinent when exploring complex phenomena like electoral violence and low voter turnout, where statistical analysis can provide valuable insights into patterns and variations across different democratic settings.
Moreover, the quantitative survey research design contributes to the generalizability of findings, allowing researchers to draw broader conclusions that may be applicable beyond the specific contexts studied. This aligns with the comparative approach of the research, emphasizing the need to uncover insights that transcend individual cases. In summary, the chosen research design, as guided by Saunders et al. (2019), is instrumental in structuring the study for effective data collection and analysis, ensuring a systematic and quantitative exploration of electoral violence and low voter turnout in diverse democratic contexts.
Population of the Study
The target population for this research comprised individuals who had direct experience with democratic elections. Given the diversity of democratic contexts explored in the literature review, a broad target population of 1200 respondents was selected to ensure representation from various socio-political settings. This inclusive approach aimed to capture a comprehensive understanding of the dynamics of electoral violence and low voter turnout across different regions and electoral systems.
CHAPTER FOUR
DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
Data Presentation
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary of Findings
The research findings reveal a nuanced understanding of the dynamics surrounding electoral violence and low voter turnout in the context of democratic elections. Tables 4.5 to 4.8 focus on historical and contextual factors contributing to electoral violence, shedding light on respondents’ perceptions. A substantial proportion (67.3% combined between “Strongly Agree” and “Agree” in Table 4.5) recognizes a historical correlation between past conflicts or violence and the occurrence of electoral violence. This underscores the importance of historical context in shaping contemporary electoral dynamics, emphasizing the need to address underlying tensions and conflicts.
Table 4.6 delves into socioeconomic disparities within a region as a significant factor contributing to the likelihood of electoral violence. Respondents largely agree (73.1% combined between “Strongly Agree” and “Agree”) that these disparities intensify the risk of electoral violence, highlighting the interconnectedness between social and economic factors and the stability of democratic processes.
Moving to Table 4.7, the influence of diverse ethnic and cultural groups on the risk of electoral violence is examined. A substantial majority (68.3% combined between “Strongly Agree” and “Agree”) acknowledges that the presence of diverse groups intensifies the risk of electoral violence. This finding underscores the intricate relationship between cultural diversity and political stability, suggesting the need for inclusive policies to mitigate potential conflicts.
Table 4.8 explores the impact of periods of political instability on electoral violence. A significant majority of respondents (77.9% combined between “Strongly Agree” and “Agree”) perceive that transitions like government changes catalyze electoral violence. This emphasizes the fragility of electoral processes during times of political upheaval, urging for proactive measures to ensure the smooth transition of power.
Tables 4.9 to 4.12 shift the focus to factors influencing low voter turnout in democratic elections. Respondents’ views on limited accessibility to polling stations as a significant contributor to low voter turnout are captured in Table 4.9. A substantial majority (67.3% combined between “Strongly Agree” and “Agree”) acknowledges the impact of limited accessibility, signalling the need for improved infrastructure to facilitate citizen participation.
Moving to Table 4.10, widespread political apathy is explored as a major factor influencing low voter turnout. The majority of respondents (75.9% combined between “Strongly Agree” and “Agree”) recognize political apathy as a prevalent issue, emphasizing the importance of civic education and awareness campaigns to rekindle citizens’ interest in the democratic process.
Table 4.11 addresses the potential role of complex electoral systems in contributing to confusion and lower voter turnout. Respondents largely agree (70.2% combined between “Strongly Agree” and “Agree”) that intricate electoral systems may impact voter turnout, suggesting the need for reforms to simplify voting procedures and enhance civic participation.
Finally, Table 4.12 explores the belief that citizens perceive their votes to have minimal impact, leading to low voter turnout. A significant majority (72.1% combined between “Strongly Agree” and “Agree”) supports this perspective, emphasizing the importance of fostering a sense of efficacy and impact among citizens to encourage electoral participation.
In essence, the research findings provide a comprehensive overview of the factors contributing to electoral violence and low voter turnout in democratic elections. Respondents’ perceptions underscore the need for context-specific interventions, ranging from addressing historical tensions and socioeconomic disparities to promoting civic education and simplifying electoral processes. These insights contribute valuable knowledge for policymakers, electoral commissions, and civil society organizations working towards the enhancement of democratic processes and the mitigation of electoral challenges.
Conclusion
The hypotheses testing aimed to scrutinize key aspects of electoral dynamics, focusing on historical factors contributing to violence, influencers of low voter turnout, and the potential relationship between electoral violence and voter turnout. The computed t-statistics for all three hypotheses exceeded the critical table value of 2.92, leading to the rejection of the null hypotheses.
The rejection of the first hypothesis, asserting that historical and contextual factors do not significantly contribute to electoral violence, emphasizes the need to consider past conflicts and contextual intricacies when addressing contemporary electoral challenges. Similarly, the null hypothesis suggesting that factors influencing low voter turnout, including voter apathy and distrust in institutions, do not significantly contribute, was rejected. This highlights the multifaceted nature of voter behaviour and calls for targeted efforts to address civic disengagement.
The third hypothesis, positing no statistically significant relationship between electoral violence and low voter turnout, was also rejected. The interplay between these two phenomena indicates a complex dynamic wherein violence can indeed influence citizens’ willingness to participate in the democratic process. This underscores the importance of creating an environment conducive to free and fair elections, promoting civic trust, and mitigating the impact of electoral violence on democratic engagement. Overall, the findings underscore the intricacies of electoral processes and call for comprehensive strategies to address the multifaceted challenges posed by electoral violence and low voter turnout.
Recommendations
Based on the findings of this study, the following recommendations were proposed:
- Enhance Civic Education Programs: Develop and implement comprehensive civic education programs aimed at informing citizens about the democratic process, electoral systems, and the importance of political participation. Fostering a well-informed electorate can contribute to reduced apathy and increased trust in democratic institutions.
- Strengthen Electoral Security Measures: Invest in robust electoral security measures to mitigate the impact of violence on democratic processes. This includes enhancing law enforcement capabilities, deploying security personnel strategically, and implementing technologies to monitor and prevent electoral violence.
- Promote Inclusivity and Diversity: Foster an inclusive political environment that acknowledges and embraces diverse ethnic and cultural groups. Promote dialogue and understanding among different communities to reduce the likelihood of electoral violence based on identity, fostering a more cohesive democratic society.
- Improve Accessibility to Polling Stations: Address logistical challenges related to voting by improving infrastructure and accessibility to polling stations. This can include implementing measures such as providing transportation options, particularly in areas with historically low voter turnout.
- Reform Electoral Systems for Clarity: Evaluate and, if necessary, reform electoral systems to enhance clarity and reduce confusion among voters. Simplifying ballot structures and procedures can contribute to increased voter confidence and understanding, potentially boosting voter turnout.
- Media Responsibility and Ethical Reporting: Collaborate with media outlets to ensure responsible reporting during electoral periods. Implement guidelines that discourage sensationalism and emphasize accurate, unbiased reporting to prevent media coverage from contributing to electoral violence and low voter turnout.
- Address Socioeconomic Disparities: Implement policies aimed at reducing socioeconomic disparities within regions, addressing root causes of tension and potential triggers for electoral violence. Economic empowerment programs can contribute to long-term stability and civic engagement.
- Post-Election Reconciliation Initiatives: Develop and implement post-election reconciliation initiatives to heal societal divisions following instances of violence. These programs should promote dialogue, truth and reconciliation processes, and community-building efforts to foster a sense of unity and shared purpose in the aftermath of contested elections.
Contribution to Knowledge
This study significantly contributes to the existing body of knowledge on electoral violence, low voter turnout, and their intricate relationship in democratic contexts. By systematically exploring historical and contextual factors contributing to electoral violence, the research unveils nuanced insights into the multifaceted nature of such incidents. The identification and classification of diverse contributing elements, including socioeconomic disparities, ethnic complexities, and periods of political instability, provide a comprehensive understanding of the root causes. This contributes to the refinement of existing theories and frameworks in political science, offering scholars and policymakers a more nuanced perspective for analyzing and addressing electoral violence.
Furthermore, the study delves into the factors influencing low voter turnout, shedding light on the complexities surrounding civic engagement. The exploration of variables such as accessibility to polling stations, political apathy, and the impact of electoral violence on civic engagement provides a rich dataset for scholars and practitioners. The findings contribute to the ongoing discourse on the democratic process, offering actionable insights for electoral reform and public engagement strategies. In doing so, the research not only deepens our understanding of voter behaviour but also serves as a valuable resource for policymakers seeking evidence-based approaches to enhance democratic participation.
The exploration of the potential relationship between electoral violence and low voter turnout represents a notable contribution to the literature. Through rigorous empirical analysis, the study elucidates the dynamics between these two phenomena, challenging conventional wisdom and uncovering subtle connections. By providing empirical evidence on the interplay between violence and civic disengagement, the research prompts a reconsideration of prevailing assumptions about the impact of electoral violence on democratic stability. This contribution is vital for shaping future research agendas and policy interventions aimed at fortifying democratic processes in regions prone to electoral challenges.
References
- Anderson, V., Fontinha, R., & Robson, F. (2020). Research Methods in Human Resource Management: Investigating a Business Issue (4th ed.). London: CIPD. Chapter 5: Planning the research process.
- Angerbrandt, H. (2020). Party system institutionalization and the 2019 state elections in Nigeria. Regional & Federal Studies, 30(3), 415–440. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13597566.2020.1758073
- Aytac, S. E., & Stokes, S. (2019). Why bother? Rethinking participation in elections and protests. Cambridge University Press.
- Baba, Y. T. (2018). Executive dominance and hyper-presidentialism in Nigeria. In C. LeVan, & P. Utaka (Eds.), In the Oxford Handbook of Nigerian Politics. Oxford University Press.
- Balcells, L., & Torrats-Espinosa, G. (2018). Using a natural experiment to estimate the electoral consequences of terrorist attacks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115(42), 10624–10629. https://doi. org/10.1073/pnas.1800302115
- Beiske, B. (2017). Research Methods: Uses and Limitations of Questionnaires, Interviews, and Case Studies. GRIN Verlag.
- Bell, E., Bryman, A., & Harley, B. (2019). Business Research Methods (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Bermeo, N. (2016). On democratic backsliding. Journal of Democracy, 27(1), 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2016.0012
- Birch, S., Daxecker, U., & Hoglund, K. (2020). Electoral violence: An introduction. Journal of Peace Research, 57(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0022343319889657
- Birnir, J. K., & Gohdes, A. (2018). Voting in the shadow of violence: Electoral politics and conflict in Peru. Journal of Global Security Studies, 3(2), 181–197. https:// doi.org/10.1093/jogss/ogy001
