2019/06/16 by Kate Baldwin, Katharina Holzinger · 1 citation
Social Sciences · #Political Conflict and Governance #Electoral Systems and Political Participation #Religion and Society Interactions
paper · doi:10.1177/0010414019852686
openalex publication_date 2019/06/16 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/08/03
This article revisits prominent frameworks for understanding traditional political institutions which make pessimistic assessments about their compatibility with democracy. Traditional political institutions are often assumed to be unaccountable because they are led by undemocratic leaders who are not subject to electoral sanctioning. However, drawing on new information from the TradGov Group dataset, an expert survey on the contemporary practices of more than 1,400 ethnic groups that currently have traditional political institutions, we show that these institutions contain their own distinct mechanisms of accountability. In a majority of cases, decision-making is consensual and leaders must account for their actions in various ways. We challenge the electoral accountability framework for understanding the quality of traditional leaders’ performance, instead arguing that traditional political institutions can be compatible with democracy and even accountable to their citizens insofar as they adopt inclusive decision-making processes and their leaders have strong nonelectoral connections to the communities they represent.