A Comparative Analysis of the Dynamics of Electoral Violence and Low Voter Turnout in the Context of a Democratic Election

A Comparative Analysis of the Dynamics of Electoral Violence and Low Voter Turnout in the Context of a Democratic Election

Abstract

The study employed a quantitative survey research design to investigate the intricate dynamics of electoral violence and low voter turnout in democratic elections. A structured questionnaire was meticulously designed to extract insights from a targeted sample of 120 respondents, allowing for a comprehensive exploration of historical and contextual factors contributing to electoral violence, influences on voter turnout, and the potential interplay between these phenomena. The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 27 served as the analytical tool, facilitating the presentation and in-depth analysis of the gathered data. In testing the stated hypotheses, a t-test was employed, comparing the computed t-statistics with critical table values. The assumed mean of 0 was utilized as a benchmark for the test. Findings from the t-test provided a robust statistical foundation for assessing the significance of historical and contextual factors contributing to electoral violence, the influence of various factors on low voter turnout, and the potential relationship between electoral violence and voter turnout. The rejection or acceptance of these hypotheses paved the way for a nuanced discussion of the study’s core findings. The results indicated that historical and contextual factors significantly contribute to electoral violence, refuting the null hypothesis. Similarly, various factors, including voter apathy and lack of trust in political institutions, were found to significantly influence low voter turnout. Furthermore, a statistically significant relationship was established between electoral violence and low voter turnout. These findings shed light on the complex dynamics shaping democratic processes, providing valuable insights for policymakers, scholars, and practitioners. In conclusion, the study underscores the critical importance of understanding the multifaceted connections between electoral violence and voter turnout in democratic elections. The recommendations emanating from this research offer pragmatic approaches to address these challenges and enhance the resilience of democratic systems. The study contributes to the existing body of knowledge by providing empirical evidence and actionable insights into the intricate interplay of factors influencing electoral violence and voter behaviour in diverse democratic contexts.

 

 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

 Background to the Study

Democracy, as a system of governance, is built upon foundational principles such as citizen participation, representation, and the free expression of political will through periodic elections (Omotola, 2020; Plattner, 2017). Elections play a pivotal role in democratic societies, serving as a cornerstone for the peaceful transfer of power and the validation of political legitimacy (Birnir & Gohdes, 2018). However, despite the inherent promise of democracy, the democratic process faces challenges that undermine its core values. Two crucial issues that have garnered significant attention are electoral violence and low voter turnout.

Electoral violence represents a severe threat to the integrity of the electoral process (Birch et al., 2020; Burchard, 2015). Acts of intimidation, physical violence, and manipulation during elections can distort the will of the people and compromise the legitimacy of the outcome. In Nigeria, for instance, Angerbrandt’s (2020) study on the 2019 state elections underscores the impact of party system institutionalization on electoral violence. The findings reveal that the level of violence was influenced by the degree of institutionalization within the political parties, emphasizing the need to understand the internal dynamics of political entities in assessing and addressing electoral violence.

Moreover, Collier and Vicente (2022) conducted a field experiment in Nigeria, providing evidence of the intricate relationship between votes and violence. The study highlighted that electoral violence had a substantial impact on voter behaviour, influencing their choices and, consequently, the democratic process. Such findings underscore the importance of addressing electoral violence as a critical issue that not only undermines the electoral process but also shapes the political landscape and the choices available to citizens.

Simultaneously, low voter turnout poses a different set of challenges to the democratic process (Bratton, 2018; Dinas et al., 2019). A disengagement of citizens from the electoral process raises questions about the health of democratic institutions. In Nigeria’s 2019 general elections, the country witnessed a shattered hope, as discussed by Onapajo and Babalola (2020). The study reflects on the disillusionment and disaffection of voters, contributing to a decline in voter turnout and a sense of dissatisfaction with the democratic process.

Understanding the dynamics of low voter turnout requires exploring various factors that contribute to citizen disengagement. Cheibub, Gandhi, and Vreeland (2020) emphasize that the quality of democracy and the level of political freedoms play a crucial role in shaping citizens’ willingness to participate. Furthermore, the study by Bratton (2018) on vote buying and violence in Nigerian election campaigns highlights how electoral malpractices can erode citizens’ trust in the democratic process, contributing to lower voter turnout.

The interplay between electoral violence and low voter turnout is a complex and dynamic relationship that merits further exploration. While electoral violence can directly deter citizens from participating in elections due to fear and insecurity (Burchard, 2020), low voter turnout can, in turn, create an environment conducive to violence and manipulation, as fewer citizens actively engage in the oversight of the electoral process (Daxecker et al., 2019). This cyclical relationship emphasizes the need for a comprehensive understanding of how these phenomena interact and influence the overall health of democratic elections.

Additionally, the comparative analysis of electoral violence and low voter turnout can shed light on the broader implications for the democratic fabric of a nation. Studies such as Birnir and Gohde’s (2018) on voting in the shadow of violence and Bratton’s (2018) research on vote buying in Nigerian elections provide insights into the intricate connections between political violence and citizens’ trust in the democratic process. Exploring these connections can help formulate strategies to address the root causes of both electoral violence and low voter turnout, fostering a more resilient and robust democratic system.

Statement of Problem

The gap in the study centres on the critical issues of electoral violence and low voter turnout, both of which pose significant challenges to the democratic process. Electoral violence, characterized by acts such as intimidation, physical violence, and manipulation (Birch et al., 2020; Burchard, 2015), poses a direct threat to the integrity of elections. In the Nigerian context, studies by Angerbrandt (2020) and Collier and Vicente (2022) emphasize the impact of party system institutionalization and the intricate relationship between votes and violence, respectively. These findings underscore the multifaceted nature of electoral violence and its potential to distort the will of the people, compromising the legitimacy of democratic outcomes.

Simultaneously, low voter turnout reflects a disengagement of citizens from the democratic process (Bratton, 2018; Dinas et al., 2019). Disillusionment and dissatisfaction, as observed in Nigeria’s 2019 general elections (Onapajo & Babalola, 2020), contributed to a decline in voter participation. Factors such as the quality of democracy, political freedoms (Cheibub et al., 2020), and electoral malpractices (Bratton, 2018) play significant roles in shaping citizens’ willingness to participate in the electoral process. The problem is exacerbated by the cyclical relationship between electoral violence and low voter turnout, as fear resulting from violence can deter citizens from actively engaging in elections (Burchard, 2020).

The intertwined challenges of electoral violence and low voter turnout raise fundamental questions about the robustness and sustainability of democratic governance. Understanding the root causes, dynamics, and interplay of these issues is crucial for devising effective strategies to enhance the democratic process, strengthen citizen trust, and ensure the legitimacy of election outcomes. As such, the statement of the problem underscores the need for a comprehensive comparative analysis of electoral violence and low voter turnout to inform evidence-based policy interventions and academic discourse on the future of democratic elections.

Objectives of the Study

This study aims to achieve the following specific objectives:

1. To analyze the historical context and contributing factors leading to electoral violence in democratic elections.
2. To examine the factors influencing low voter turnout in democratic elections.
3. To explore the potential interplay between electoral violence and low voter turnout in the context of democratic elections.

 Research Questions

To address the objectives outlined above, the study will seek answers to the following research questions:

1. What are the historical and contextual factors contributing to electoral violence in democratic elections?
2. What factors influence low voter turnout in the context of democratic elections?
3. Is there a discernible relationship between electoral violence and low voter turnout in democratic elections?

 Research Hypotheses

The study tested the following hypotheses:

Null Hypotheses(H₀):

1. Historical and contextual factors do not significantly contribute to the occurrence of electoral violence in democratic elections.
2. Various factors, including voter apathy and lack of trust in political institutions, do not significantly influence low voter turnout in democratic elections.
3. There is no statistically significant relationship between electoral violence and low voter turnout in democratic elections.

Alternative Hypotheses(H₁):

1. Historical and contextual factors significantly contribute to the occurrence of electoral violence in democratic elections.
2. Various factors, including voter apathy and lack of trust in political institutions, influence low voter turnout in democratic elections.
3. There is a statistically significant relationship between electoral violence and low voter turnout in democratic elections.

 Significance of the Study

This study holds profound implications for students and scholars in the field of political science, as well as for politicians, the Nigerian electorate, and the Nigerian political system. By delving into the intricacies of electoral violence and low voter turnout, the research aims to enrich the knowledge base, providing a foundation for evidence-based policies and interventions. The implications of the findings extend to the realm of electoral reforms, conflict prevention strategies, and initiatives aimed at fostering increased civic engagement among students, scholars, and the broader Nigerian populace.

The comparative approach adopted in this study not only facilitates a nuanced understanding but also allows for the identification of patterns and variations across diverse democratic contexts. This comparative lens offers valuable insights not only for academics and students but also for policymakers and election observers. The implications of the research extend to the practical realm, guiding decision-makers in the formulation of effective strategies to address electoral challenges. For politicians, the study’s findings may inform approaches to fostering a healthier democratic environment, thereby contributing to the overall strengthening of democratic institutions within the Nigerian political system.

Ultimately, the significance of this research lies in its contribution to the broader goal of fortifying democratic institutions and ensuring the credibility of electoral processes. The implications resonate not only within academic circles but also reach politicians seeking informed approaches, election observers striving for fairness, and the Nigerian electorate yearning for a robust and participatory democratic system.

Scope of the Study

The study focuses on a comparative analysis of electoral violence and low voter turnout in democratic elections, spanning multiple countries and regions. The selection of case studies will be guided by the diversity of political, cultural, and socioeconomic contexts. The temporal scope encompasses historical data, recent elections, and relevant scholarly literature to provide a comprehensive analysis.

Operational Definition of Terms

To ensure clarity and consistency in the study, the following key terms are operationally defined:

Electoral Violence: For this study, electoral violence refers to any form of violence, intimidation, or coercion aimed at influencing the electoral process, including but not limited to physical violence, voter suppression, and manipulation of election results.

Low Voter Turnout: Low voter turnout is defined as the percentage of eligible voters who do not participate in the electoral process, either by abstaining from voting or being unable to cast their votes.

Historical and Contextual Factors: These encompass the political, social, economic, and cultural conditions that have shaped the historical context of a given democratic system and may contribute to electoral violence.

Voter Apathy: Voter apathy is the indifference, disinterest, or lack of enthusiasm among eligible voters towards participating in the electoral process.

Trust in Political Institutions: Trust in political institutions refers to the degree of confidence and reliance that citizens have in the fairness, transparency, and efficacy of their political systems and institutions.

Civic Engagement: Civic engagement involves the active participation of citizens in the political process, encompassing activities such as voting, advocacy, and community involvement.

Democratic Elections: For this study, democratic elections are understood as electoral processes that adhere to democratic principles, including the right to vote, free and fair competition, and the peaceful transfer of power.

Comparative Analysis: A comparative analysis involves the examination and comparison of similarities and differences among different cases or contexts to identify patterns, trends, and relationships.

 

References

• Singer, M. (2018). Delegating away democracy: How good representation and policy successes can undermine democratic legitimacy. Comparative Political Studies, 51(13), 1754–1788. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414018784054
• Somer, M., & McCoy, J. (2019). Transformations through polarizations and global threats to democracy. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 681(1), 8–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716218818058
• Svolik, M. W. (2020). When polarization trumps civic virtue: Partisan conflict and the subversion of democracy by incumbents. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 15(1), 3–31. https://doi.org/10.1561/100
• Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2017). Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
• Yin, R. K. (2018). Case Study Research and Applications: Designs and Methods (6th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT»

Do you need help? Talk to us right now: (+234) 08060082010, 08107932631 (Call/WhatsApp). Email: [email protected].

IF YOU CAN'T FIND YOUR TOPIC, CLICK HERE TO HIRE A WRITER»

Disclaimer: This PDF Material Content is Developed by the copyright owner to Serve as a RESEARCH GUIDE for Students to Conduct Academic Research.

You are allowed to use the original PDF Research Material Guide you will receive in the following ways:

1. As a source for additional understanding of the project topic.

2. As a source for ideas for you own academic research work (if properly referenced).

3. For PROPER paraphrasing ( see your school definition of plagiarism and acceptable paraphrase).

4. Direct citing ( if referenced properly).

Thank you so much for your respect for the authors copyright.

Do you need help? Talk to us right now: (+234) 08060082010, 08107932631 (Call/WhatsApp). Email: [email protected].