Contextual Determinants of Electoral System Choice - Ã bo Akademi

dictatorship, wars, the establishment of a new state, or the reappearance of an oldone – were observed.Many other scholars have described electoral institutions as ‘sticky’ in the sensethat they are difficult to change (e.g. Birch et al 2002: 1; Geddes 1996: 31). Severalreasons for this stickiness have been given. One apparent reason why majorchanges are unlikely is that those who are able to reform the electoral system arethose who have been successful under the current system. The major parties havedeveloped party organizations and strategies appropriate to that system. Clearlythen, if reforms are to occur, political actors must rise above their self-interest andchange the rules of a game that they are winning.Dunleavy and Margetts (1995: 17-24) demonstrate why electoral systems are hardto change with reference to the United Kingdom. Once established, theconstitutional framework develops entrenched interests from incumbent partiesthat benefit from the status quo. Introduction of a new electoral system createsuncertainty for parties about their prospects for success, and involves huge risks forincumbent representatives in securing re-election. Guy Lardeyret (1991: 34) pointsout that a change from a proportional to a majoritarian or a mixed system isparticularly difficult, since it would require that small and middle-size partiescooperate in their own liquidation. There are nearly always enough threatenedparties to prevent such a change.Even in times of transition, past institutions tend to resurface. When politicalparties are outlawed by an authoritarian regime, they go underground and continuefunctioning, albeit in much reduced fashion. A loose organization is maintained,and when the present regime allows the reemergence of parties, the old partysystem is revived. These parties still represent the same societal groups, and theybenefit from the same features of the institutional environment as before; hence,any institutional changes would be too risky for the established parties. This is whyPR has survived in all Latin American countries that have experienced militaryregimes during the postwar era (Geddes 1996: 30-31).Reeve and Ware (1991: 10-16) present six main reasons for the persistence ofexisting electoral systems. First, the implications of electoral rules are not alwayscompletely understood by politicians. As to the strategic consequences of changing60