Jessen & Richter (Eds.) Read Online Free
Author: Voting for Hitler, Stalin; Elections Under 20th Century Dictatorships (2011)
cultural dimension
leads to the issue of the meanings different actors ascribe to the electoral
18
R A L P H J E S S E N A N D H E D W I G R I C H T E R
procedures and to the socio-cultural embeddedness of voting techniques
and practices. Also an election without choice—to take an example—ideal-
ized the isolated, individual, rational citizen, disengaged from loyalty to the
family or local commitments. Irrespective of the manipulative setting,
elections were very modern political technologies which stood in sharp
contrast to more traditional procedures of collective decision making. Also
the meaning and relevance of the private and the public , of the secret and the visible were dramatically affected by elections which pretended to be free but in reality were strictly under surveillance.
A cultural history perspective on elections in dictatorships also prom-
ises to be a rewarding one because the stability and legitimacy of political
institutions are created not least by symbolic representation (Stollberg-
Rilinger 2005; 2008; Chartier 1988; Vorländer 2005; Biefang 2009). Al-
though historians were inspired by the cultural turn of the recent decades, and developed new areas of research within an extended concept of politics as a socially and discursively produced practice, research into elections
has remained relatively untouched by this. At the most one will find exam-
ples in studies on the 18th and 19th century—for example, in the innovative
work of Frank O’Gorman, who investigated the symbolic dimension of
elections in England (O’Gorman 1989, 1992, 2000; see also Vernon 1993;
Bensel 2004). Also inspiring is the work carried out in Early Modern Stud-
ies. In view of the completely different electoral practices in the pre-mod-
ern period, research on this period developed a much broader understand-
ing of the issue, and questions relating to materiality and performance were
integrated into the analysis much earlier (Stollberg-Rilinger 2001). Al-
though cultural history approaches have been employed in the analysis of
elections in the 19th and 20th centuries by authors such as Malcolm Crook
or Thomas Mergel, they have not yet been used to analyze the features of
elections without choice (Crook and Crook 2007; Bensel 2004; Anderson
2000; Kühne 1994; Mergel 2010; 2005).
The advantages of employing a cultural history approach are threefold:
first of all, a “cultural” and “historical-ethnographic” approach can lead to
a certain level of “alienation”. Thus, rather than simply judging elections
held in dictatorships against the western-democratic standard paradigm,
and thereby condemning them, we are led to question their system-specific
function and the significance ascribed to them by the different participat-
ing actors. This draws attention to the question as to whether all elections,
including those taking place within a liberal-democratic context, in fact
I N T R O D U C T I O N : N O N - C O M P E T I T I V E E L E C T I O N S 19
always contain elements of discipline. Thus, individual, secret ballots can
be seen as de-legitimizing alternative forms of collective political expres-
sion such as demonstrations, petitions, street protests, or the traditional
charivari (Bertrand et al., 2007b, 12). A more detached approach also pro-
vokes the question as to why dictators, who believed in a whole new world,
fell back on the western-democratic Australian Ballot , adopting its procedures such as uniform ballot papers, ballot boxes, voting booths etc., and
did not use corporate forms of voting systems or indeed open acclamation.
These considerations lead to the second point in favor of using a cul-
tural history approach, namely that it facilitates the assessing of elections
and voting from the viewpoint of performance and materiality. The fact
that on election day almost one hundred per cent of the electorate made
their way to the polls was a powerful symbol
leads to the issue of the meanings different actors ascribe to the electoral
18
R A L P H J E S S E N A N D H E D W I G R I C H T E R
procedures and to the socio-cultural embeddedness of voting techniques
and practices. Also an election without choice—to take an example—ideal-
ized the isolated, individual, rational citizen, disengaged from loyalty to the
family or local commitments. Irrespective of the manipulative setting,
elections were very modern political technologies which stood in sharp
contrast to more traditional procedures of collective decision making. Also
the meaning and relevance of the private and the public , of the secret and the visible were dramatically affected by elections which pretended to be free but in reality were strictly under surveillance.
A cultural history perspective on elections in dictatorships also prom-
ises to be a rewarding one because the stability and legitimacy of political
institutions are created not least by symbolic representation (Stollberg-
Rilinger 2005; 2008; Chartier 1988; Vorländer 2005; Biefang 2009). Al-
though historians were inspired by the cultural turn of the recent decades, and developed new areas of research within an extended concept of politics as a socially and discursively produced practice, research into elections
has remained relatively untouched by this. At the most one will find exam-
ples in studies on the 18th and 19th century—for example, in the innovative
work of Frank O’Gorman, who investigated the symbolic dimension of
elections in England (O’Gorman 1989, 1992, 2000; see also Vernon 1993;
Bensel 2004). Also inspiring is the work carried out in Early Modern Stud-
ies. In view of the completely different electoral practices in the pre-mod-
ern period, research on this period developed a much broader understand-
ing of the issue, and questions relating to materiality and performance were
integrated into the analysis much earlier (Stollberg-Rilinger 2001). Al-
though cultural history approaches have been employed in the analysis of
elections in the 19th and 20th centuries by authors such as Malcolm Crook
or Thomas Mergel, they have not yet been used to analyze the features of
elections without choice (Crook and Crook 2007; Bensel 2004; Anderson
2000; Kühne 1994; Mergel 2010; 2005).
The advantages of employing a cultural history approach are threefold:
first of all, a “cultural” and “historical-ethnographic” approach can lead to
a certain level of “alienation”. Thus, rather than simply judging elections
held in dictatorships against the western-democratic standard paradigm,
and thereby condemning them, we are led to question their system-specific
function and the significance ascribed to them by the different participat-
ing actors. This draws attention to the question as to whether all elections,
including those taking place within a liberal-democratic context, in fact
I N T R O D U C T I O N : N O N - C O M P E T I T I V E E L E C T I O N S 19
always contain elements of discipline. Thus, individual, secret ballots can
be seen as de-legitimizing alternative forms of collective political expres-
sion such as demonstrations, petitions, street protests, or the traditional
charivari (Bertrand et al., 2007b, 12). A more detached approach also pro-
vokes the question as to why dictators, who believed in a whole new world,
fell back on the western-democratic Australian Ballot , adopting its procedures such as uniform ballot papers, ballot boxes, voting booths etc., and
did not use corporate forms of voting systems or indeed open acclamation.
These considerations lead to the second point in favor of using a cul-
tural history approach, namely that it facilitates the assessing of elections
and voting from the viewpoint of performance and materiality. The fact
that on election day almost one hundred per cent of the electorate made
their way to the polls was a powerful symbol
Readers choose
Daniel Arenson
Opal Carew
Jason Starr
Nikki Tate
Irene Hannon
Glen Cook
Bianca D'Arc
Nicola Hudson
Alex Sayf Cummings
L. B. Pavlov