Editorial

The study of elections can be mundane as it involves studying a routine political process. Elections are an institutionalised democratic process: they are bound to happen at a particular time, which is designated by law. Since elections are normal democratic processes, the animating question often is: what arouses scholarly curiosity in them? In other words, why should scholars be concerned about routine processes instead of the substance of democracy itself? In any event, people are much more concerned about the substantive dividends of democracy itself, and not much about its processes (Aka 2002). Therefore, studying any particular election demands much circumspection. Care should be taken not to exaggerate the role of elections in the broader democratic project; but, at the same time, the value of elections to the democratic project cannot be discounted. Hence, it is always a tenuous balancing exercise. Although elections often evoke interest and generate fanfare, they are regular political rituals that are often disconnected or do not necessarily contribute to the more significant democratic project. Elections have many deficiencies: they are sometimes used to legitimise authoritarianism; they can be rigged; they can mislead the electorate that they are bringing change; and they have failed to resolve substantive issues related to reforming systemic problems confronting countries, such as economic bottlenecks and constitutional deficiencies.