2014/09/02 by Mark Turner, Jit Tshering
Psychology · Social Sciences · #Authoritarianism #Consolidation (business) #Democracy #Democratic consolidation #Democratization #Development economics #Economic system #Economics #Epistemology #Law #Openness to experience #Phenomenon #Political economy #Political science #Politics #Politics and Society in Latin America #Psychology #Regime change #Social psychology #South Asian Studies and Conflicts #Southeast Asian Sociopolitical Studies
paper · doi:10.1080/02185377.2014.957708
crossref issued 2014/09/02 · crossref published 2014/09/02 · crossref published-print 2014/09/02 · openalex publication_date 2014/09/02 · crossref published-online 2014/09/25 · crossref created 2014/09/25 · crossref deposited 2020/08/24 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · crossref indexed 2026/07/31 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/31
This article examines the phenomenon of the second election after democratization in developing countries. Unlike the euphoria that often accompanies the immediate post-democratization election, the second election gives clear evidence of the progress of democratic consolidation or whether the new regime has incorporated authoritarian elements and become a hybrid. To measure the democratic gains or losses that are seen in the second election, an analytical framework has been adopted comprised of three dimensions: regularity, openness and acceptability. This framework is applied to Bhutan where the second election took place in 2013. The findings are that progress was made on all three dimensions of democratization in the election although some democratic shortfalls were still evident. For Bhutan, the overarching concern for political stability is seen to have greatly affected the design and implementation of its electoral system.