The study of electoral processes in any particular jurisdiction will always reference specific considerations of social and political context. Even in the context of international law and standards, “States have, and must have, wide discretion to establish institutions in accordance with national and local conditions and requirements.”[i]
As any other legal institution, electoral systems cannot be created or adopted in a blind way. Historical, social, political, economic and cultural particularities of each country have to be taken into account. Such conditions will likely be central to the planning, definition, objectives and the stages that the democratization of any single country has to follow.
For example, the starting point for a country which has overcome an authoritarian regime is not always the same. While some countries have been democratic (as the Czech Republic), others may have never or not recently been so, such as may happen with those that have just finished a lengthy colonial period. The democratization strategy followed in a country characterized by high levels of social development and education is unlikely to be similar to the one followed in a country lacking minimum social structures.
Democratization seen as the conclusion of a process suggests that it is necessary to take into account each country’s particularities. Democratization is the final stage of a process that must not to be extended more than necessary. Democratization requires, however, a period of stabilization and a number of successful elections and stable governments to be become consolidated.
It can be risky to rush the undertaking of a democratization process. Any democratization process based on undemocratic institutions and on undemocratic laws will be frustrating. Exaggerated expectations as well as impatient actions are always dangerous. Social and political particularities have to support the adoption of democratization models.
There are no bulletproof solutions, but taking into account social and economic particularities represents a reasonable starting point. Such is also the case when the particularities distinguishing judicial and administrative systems, the prestige of legal systems, political parties and political organizations, media and broadcasting corporations, educational level and previous democratic experiences are taken into account.
A fundamental component of national particularities can also be found in the so-called historical or institutional memory: other times, in countries just liberated from dictatorships, electoral preferences are guided by territorial and social facts in an astonishing way.
The extension of the right to vote and the evolution of the role played by the main actors in a representative democracy (political parties) are closely related to each other. In their origin, political parties reflected the basic structure of constitutional law. Back then, voting was undertaken to limit governmental powers, and political participation was limited to a small number of individuals (usually male and adult individuals). At their origin, flexible programs and ideologies ruled political parties. As a matter of fact, personal interests often guided the existence of political parties. The evolution of political parties in America has been quite different to the evolution of political parties in Europe. However, both models have tried to export their fundamentals to other regions of the world.
The endorsement of the right to vote as a universal right had quite different effects in democratic regimes from those in undemocratic ones.
Recent decades have borne witness, to a kind of “democratic wave”, which began in Southern Europe at the end of the seventies and was extended to Latin America during the eighties and more recently in the phenomenon popularly referred to as the “Arab Spring”. Such “democratic waves” have been supported by effective international cooperation and have also affected Eastern Europe and Africa.
Furthermore, normative designs, the reform of normative designs, and the creation of international or regional electoral systems (European Union, Central American Parliament, for instance), the creation of national (in each single country), state, autonomous, departmental, municipal, or county electoral systems must take into account cultural, economic, legal, social and political particularities which affect electoral institutions and electoral processes. This reality is also imposed on both the execution and the adjudication of electoral laws.
An electoral system context can be seen as a group of conditions which are closely related to each other, and which are fundamental for the design, execution and results of such a system, not as a group of isolated referents.
Electoral models are not perfect. Different electoral systems can be used to reach the citizens’ aims in a particular place. An electoral system will be adequate as long as it fulfills the expectations of democratic development of the political community in which it will be applied, or as long as it facilitates the transitional period or the democratic consolidation of such country.
Electoral designs can produce some results, help build-up ruling majorities or represent in a more faithful way the existence of political groups. Nevertheless there are some other non-electoral elements that can produce the existence of non-representative majorities, just as happens with the size and distribution of a Congress, the balance of powers between political parties, and the construction of alliances and coalitions, territorial distribution of voters, electoral agreements, and so on.
Any democratic undertaking, which aspires to be legitimate, inclusive and viable, has to be cognizant of and answer to all the expectations and political ideologies from every single political agent (citizens, political parties, citizens’ organizations, interest groups, and so on), whether such political agents’ opinions are opposite or not.
Political agreements, social contexts and contingent circumstances, are important in designing and developing the legal framework for electoral systems. Electoral systems have to avoid turning themselves into unsustainable or unrealistic theoretical postures. However, they cannot violate principles on which free and fair elections are based, which can be listed as follows: the human’s right to vote, to be elected, to hold regular elections, to have neutral electoral authorities, to vote in a secret way, to have an equal access to elections, and to have a judicial review of electoral disputes. Therefore, as concluded in the 2005 UN Declaration of Principles for International Election Observation, “while all election processes should reflect universal principles for genuine democratic elections, no election can be separated from the political, cultural and historical context in which it takes place."[ii]
