Electoral institutional change and democratization: You can lead a horse to water,but you can't make it drink

Drawing on evidence from first and second elections in emerging democracies, this article addresses issues pertinent to understanding the interplay between institutional design and change on the one hand and on the other hand the course of the democratization process, its background and concomitants. Because the electoral system (understood broadly, that is, not only as seat allocation rules) is often seen as an institution conducive to the legitimation of emerging ‐ and therefore fragile ‐democracies, it is important to examine how the development of the electoral system has influenced the democratic transition outcome, in a number of cases. Cases considered include Kenya, Mongolia, Nepal and Tanzania, while comparisons with countries outside the third world such as Bosnia‐and‐Herzegovina and South Africa throw additional light on the argument. By seeking to avoid both the fallacy of electomlism and the fallacy of anti‐electoralism, the article argues that the electoral system is a crucial factor behind the unsatisfactory course of the democratization process in many countries. More emphasis should be put on sustaining the different prerequisites of democracy, while simultaneously more effort should be put into the preparation of elections, in order to progress beyond simple and inadequate electoral democracy. The technical refinement of the electoral process, while far from sufficient to guarantee democratic development, can be a step in that direction. Credible and transparent elections are conducive to internal legitimacy and the dynamic of the political‐electoral process will gradually bring along more contestation, more participation, and the enjoyment of more rights and liberties.