Introduction
During the medieval times, the monarchy was the most common form of government. Under this setting, all the political power was vested in the King or Queen. It is the King or Queen who made all critical decisions that affected the social, political and economic aspects of his/her subjected. However, the citizens who were ruled under this form of government did not have the right to select a leader of their choice as power was vested within the leading family and passed from one generation to the next.
Thus, this form of government did not respect the rights of its subject. Monarch did not also embrace the concept of equality as the gap between the rich and the poor was very wide. It is as a result of these injustices amongst others that individuals started to protest against this form of rule since the Renaissance Period hence leading to the adoption and implementation of democracy in many states all around the world.
Unlike under monarchism, democracy gives all eligible citizens an equal opportunity to make decisions that will affect their lives collectively as a given community or state. With democracy, citizens can participate directly or indirectly in the process of developing, creating, and amending the laws, policies, and regulations that will govern them.
Consequently, eligible citizens have the right to choose their leaders. This right gives them the opportunity to exercise the practice of political self-determination. Therefore, through democracy, citizens have the opportunity to elect leaders who they believe will result in economic, social, and political growth in their respective nations.
From a plain view, democracy seems to be the solution to the political problems that have been affecting many states in the world. However, there have been instances reports of protests by citizens as a result of several political reasons. First, for the democratic process to achieve the desired results, it needs to be free and fair.
However, most electoral processes in the world have been characterized with irregularities such as rigging, fraud, intimidation, violence and so on. This makes the process not to be free and fair. Therefore, the leaders who hold power after such elections are usually unpopular. This usually forces citizens to protest the outcomes of such elections in a bid to embrace equality and fairness within their nations. Consequently, the election process might be successful and the leader who has public support is elected into office.
However, such a government might fail to meet the demands and expectations of their electorates hence resulting in protests to put them out of office. With regards to all these facts, this paper will try to determine that citizens’ protests play a critical role in influencing election outcomes. To support this hypothesis, the paper will critically analyze political protests that have been experienced in the world and the effects that they have had on the politics of a given nation. To achieve this, this paper will focus on protests in Russia, Peru, and Egypt.
Protests in Peru and Its Effects
Presidential elections all around the world have always been characterized with a lot of controversies. In the year 2000, for example, Peru held national elections. The main race was between the reigning president, Alberto Fujimori and Alejandro Toledo (Anderson 91). These elections were regarded as the most fraudulent in Peruvian political history.
The elections were characterized with high levels bribery, unconstitutionality, rigging, unfair balloting, and other forms of electoral fraud. Due to these factors, Toledo rejected the results of the first elections. Consequently, he pulled out of the second elections as a result of the same factors. During this round, he requested the electoral commission to postpone the elections in a bid to solve the irregularities that were being experienced. Consequently, Toledo urged his supported to boycott the elections (NDI 28).
However, according to the Peruvian laws, all eligible voters are expected to take part in the electoral process. The failure to this might result in individuals being fined. Due to this fact, Toledo urged his supported to take part in the electoral process but to cast in spoilt votes. Most of his supporters took this advice as the number of spoilt votes in the second round increased from 2.25% in the first round to over 29% in the second round (NDI 29).
After the second round of election, wide spread demonstrations were experienced in Peru. The outcome of the elections had split Peru into two. There were those individuals who did not concur with the election results, hence they were fighting for elections legitimacy since they believed that they had been deprived their right to genuine elections.
These individuals were mainly the supporters of Toledo. On the other hand, there were those individuals who were satisfied with the results. These individuals protested to support the fact that Fujimori had won the elections in a free and fair manner.
The fact that there were other citizens and the international community questioned the credibility of the election results was an issue of concern to them. As a result, the post election environment in Peru was highly polarized (NDI 29). To regain peace and stability in the nation, it was necessary for the government, with the assistance of the international community and local organization to come up with reforms and institutional means that would address the needs of the citizens of Peru.
On 28th June 2000, Alberto Fujimori was inaugurated as the president of Peru. At this time, Alejandro Toledo under the umbrella of Democratic Forces organized several marches in Peru during the weeks that followed the inauguration. Marcha De Lo Cuarto Suyos that was held in Lima, Peru’s capital was the biggest and most successful march that was organized by the group. The aim of this march was to restore democracy in the nation.
The protestors accused the government of threatening and bribing opposition deputies and other officials to change their political affiliation and join Fujimori’s Peru 2000 party, the fact that the armed forces recognized Fujimori as president and supported his actions and decisions, the irregularities of the first and second round elections and the reluctance of the government to put stringent measures to ensure that the process was free and fair, and the use of excessive force against protestors (NDI 30).
Approximately over 100,000 people took part in the march. The pressure from the protests within and outside the government forced Fujimori to call for new elections. However, in his statement, he stated that he would not be a candidate. In November 2000, Fujimori resigned as president while he was in Japan. However, the Congress failed to acknowledge his resignation and voted him out of office.
Protests in Egypt and its Effects
Under the reign of Hosni Mubarak, the electoral process in Egypt was highly questionable. During the 1987, 1993, and 1999 elections, President Mubarak called for general elections as a means of showing his subjects and the international community that the nation respects and exercise democracy.
However, unlike in the electoral process of other democracies where the presidential race has two or more candidates, in Egyptian elections, Mubarak ran alone for office without any contenders (Bolme et al. 9). It is in 2005 that the Egypt experienced its first contested presidential elections.
However, Mubarak won by gathering over 88% of the total votes that were cast. Despite these fact, several allegations which termed the process as not free and fair were put in place leading to protests. First, several political parties boycotted the elections on the grounds that the process would not be free and fair.
The institutional frameworks that had been put in place to govern the entire process were all in favor of NDP (Mubarak’s party). Consequently, the Muslim Brotherhood was barred by the government from competing in the elections on the grounds that it was an illegal group. The Muslim Brotherhood believed that it was the most popular party and had a lot of support from the public.
On the other hand, the public responded to the elections by failing to turn up to the polling stations. The 2005 elections thus had a low turnout. Consequently, the runner up of the 2005 elections, Ayman Nour was arrested while in parliament depriving him his rights to parliamentary immunity (Department of State 45). All these factors undermined the credibility of a free and fair election in Egypt and the legitimacy of Mubarak’s victory and government.
However, in 2011, Egypt experienced massive protests from the public. These protests were collectively referred to as The Egyptian Revolution of 2011 (Bolme et al. 4). The main aim of this revolution was to bring Hosni Mubarak’s reign as the president of Egypt to an end.
The protests were non-violent and were characterized by civil disobedience, mass demonstrations, job boycotts, and marches. The protests were carried out by individuals of different backgrounds, religions, and social class. Despite the peaceful nature of the protests, there were frequent collisions between protestors and security forces. As a result, approximately 700 people lost their lives and over 6,000 others were injured.
Other than fighting to bring to an end the reign of Hosni Mubarak as the president of Egypt, the protestors also wanted the state of emergency laws to be lifted.
These laws had increased police brutality within the nation, disrupted the presence of free and fair elections, and increased corruption. From an economic point of view, the state of emergency laws had increased the level of unemployment and increased the level of inflation that resulted in the rise in the cost of food and other basic commodities. Thus, the protestors wanted justice to prevail in Egypt.
They also wanted the power to be transferred to a non-responsive military until free and fair elections were held. Most importantly, they wanted to have a say and be involved in the process of decision making with regards to the management of natural resources within the nation.
During these protests, Cairo was regarded as a war zone as a result of the conflict that ensued between protestors and the government forces. At the same time, the government was facing pressure from labor unions that called for nationwide strikes and from the international community in the form of sanctions.
Responding to these pressures, Mubarak dissolved his government and appointed Omar Suleiman, the General Intelligence Director as the Vice President and announced that he was not planning to take part in the September 2011 elections.
With Suleiman’s leadership, Mubarak asked him to form a new government. On the other hand, the opposition was represented by Mohammed ElBaradei who had popular support from the public. ElBaradei played a critical role in negotiating with the transitional government. In early February 2011, Mubarak resigned as president.
Egypt was ruled by the military under the directions from the Supreme Council of Armed Forces (SCAF) for six months until the elections could be held. During this time, the constitution was suspended and the parliament was dissolved. The Prime Minister was in charge of the government until a new one was formed. In May 2011, Mubarak was tried for predetermined murder of protestors. In June 2012, he was found guilty of the allegations that were presented against him and sentenced to life (Smelser 25).
On May 2011, the first round of the presidential elections was held. The second round of the elections was held in June 2011. On June 24th 2011, the electoral commission announced that Mohamed Morsi had won the elections. Morsi was inaugurated on June 30th 2011 as the fifth president of Egypt. Being an influential figure of the Muslim Brotherhood, Morsi was the first Islamist to be the president of Egypt (Smelser 34).
The people of Egypt were optimistic that Morsi government would meet their needs of freedom, justice, and economic, political, and social growth. However, since SCAF nullified the constitution, after coming to power Morsi’s government drafted a new constitution that was passed by the Constituent Assembly on November 30th 2012 for a referendum that is to be held on 15th December 2012.
The proposed constitution limits the power of the president and increases the power of the parliament (Smelser 42). The constitution has also eliminated civilian torture and detention and gives all individuals a fair trial. However, the constitution has failed to bring an end the trial of civilians by the military.
Consequently, it has also failed to protect the freedom of expression, speech, and religion. As a result, the public has regarded the constitution as a tool that would deprive them their rights and freedoms. To some extent, the constitution has been viewed as an instrument of transforming Egypt into an Islamists state (Rubin 11). It is as a result of this fact that people of other beliefs and religions feel that the proposed constitution will affect their lifestyles.
The old constitution of Egypt was based on Sharia laws. However, the extent to which these laws have been adopted and implemented in the new constitution are higher. Article 219 of the new constitutions proposes that Sharia laws will originate from the four Sunni schools of thought (Manukyan 84). This in turn eliminates any influence that might arise from reformists. Therefore, with the new constitution, Egypt might turn into a Sharia state hence infringing the rights and freedoms of individuals who profess other beliefs or religions.
During Mubarak’s reign, it was difficult for Christians to build churches or other houses of worship. During the Egyptian revolution of 2011, a lot of churches were destroyed. Thus, with the new constitution, it will be even harder for Christians or members of other religious groups to repair such buildings, leave alone building new ones. Therefore, the new constitution of Egypt clearly deprives Non-Muslims and Secular individuals.
As a result, Egypt has been experiencing massive protests over since 30th November 2012. Thousands of people have been marching around the Presidential Palace, with some camping there as a means of airing their grievances. The media have also protested against the infringement of the freedom of expression. On 4th December 2012, eleven newspapers stopped their publication activities for the entire day. On 5th December 2012, several private TV stations stopped airing their services (Manukyan 84).
Consequently, there have been protests and marches in major cities in Egypt. The protestors are using slogans and chants that were used during the Egyptian Revolution to kick Hosni Mubarak out of office. The protestors are now questioning the legitimacy of Morsi’s victory in the presidential elections that were held in September 2011.
Moreover, they are also questioning the legitimacy of his government on the grounds of delivering justice and respecting the freedoms and rights of the people of Egypt. With the proposed new constitution, Morsi has lost the public support that he had. At the same time, they are fighting for a change of government, as Morsi has failed to turn out to be the president they hoped for.
Protests in Russia and its Effects
Russia has always been a nation that has been renowned by the skepticism and distrust that it has on democracy. This is mainly caused by the political apathy that the nation has as a result of its Soviet mentality, a concept that has been passed on from one generation to the next (Quatrone 722).
The political scene of Russia has always been characterized by low levels of competition. As a result, the legitimacy of its democracy has always been questioned. The major political figures of Russia during the 21st century are Dmitry Medvedev and Vladimir Putin. Putin is the current president of Russia.
However, prior to his current term, he had served as the president of Russia between the year 2000 and 2008. Medvedev on the other was the president of Russia between 2008 and 2012. At the present moment, he is the Prime Minister of Russia. With this political view, it is evident that power within the nation revolves around a few individuals. From a critical point of view, it is evident that Russia lacks political figures that could compete with Vladimir.
Some political analysts suggest that Medvedev only became president due to the constitutional requirements that brought his term as the president of Russia to an end. However, after careful considerations and planning, it emerged that Putin gave his power to Medvedev, an individual who would not act independently as a president.
During his reign as president, Medvedev had different political, social, and economic ideologies as compared to Putin. His political strategies mainly focus on specific people within the Russian community. These were intellectuals, businessmen, and educated individuals within the nation.
His goal main ambition was to transform Russia into a pro-liberal and pro-modern state where democracy was embraced and the rights and freedoms of every individual within the society was respected. Medvedev presented himself as an intellect, who respected democracy and the welfare of the people of Russia. Being a graduate of St. Petersburg University and a holder of a PhD in Law, Medvedev was regarded as an European-minded politician who was fighting for liberal reforms in Russia.
On the other hand, Putin criticized Medvedev regime. During this period (2008-2011), Putin presented himself as a brutal politician, as a man of actions and not words. His speeches were highly sarcastic and abusive. With these tactics, however, he managed to gather the support of a specific group within the Russian population; the Soviets.
Putin always associated himself with the working class. Putin frequently visits factories and workshops where the low income earners work in Russia. With his encouragement and strong advice, he manages to boost their morale hence improving their performance (Olimpieva 10).
With their differences, it was expected that Medvedev would run against Putin in the 2011 elections in Russia. Given their ideologies and the public support that they both had, the 2011 elections were expected to be the most competitive elections in Russia (Olimpieva 10). Despite all this, on 24th September 2011, Medvedev announced that Putin will become the leader of Russia.
This announcement made people realize that the two had staged their differences for over three years. Their power sharing deal had been planned for years. Eventually, Putin announced that he would be the presidential candidate for United Russia in the March 2012 elections. At the same time, Medvedev announced that he would run for parliamentary elections.
In reaction to this, massive protests were experienced in Russia, especially in its capital, Moscow. During the early stages, small-scale demonstrations occurred in several regions of the nation. However, on 10th December 2011, Moscow experienced the biggest demonstration since the 1990s (Olimpieva 11). In this demonstration comprised of thousands of protestors. However, unlike previous demonstrations that have been experienced in Russia, this protest comprised of individuals of all ages, class, and backgrounds.
The demonstrations aimed at exposing the political illegitimacy that was present in United Russia under the leadership and support of Putin and Medvedev. On 24th December 2011, a march named ‘For Fair Elections’ was carried out in Moscow. The main aim of this protest was to ensure that the legislative process in Russia is free and fair.
To achieve this, the demonstrators demanded that all political prisoners in Russia should be released. According to them, these individuals were arrested and jailed without free and fair trials. At the same time, the demonstrators demanded for the annulment of the election results. Consequently, the protestors wanted Vladimir Churov, the head of the electoral commission in Russia to resign from his post.
They also urged the government to put in place and official body that would investigate any election irregularities and fraud during the parliamentary and presidential elections. At the same time, the protestors urged the government to the registration process of opposition political parties to be enhanced. According to the protestors, this process has usually been characterized with a lot of irregularities hence preventing prospective candidates from running for various electoral posts within the nation including the presidency.
Most importantly, the demonstrators wanted the parliamentary and presidential elections to be free and fair. To achieve this, irregularities such as rigging, misreporting of votes, intimidation, ballot staffing electorate manipulation and so on should be eliminated. To achieve this, the demonstrators urged the electoral commission to come up with stringent rules and measures with stiff penalties for individuals who will go against the set rules and regulations.
In February 2012, more protests were experienced in Russia. However, these protests were mixed where some supported the government under United Russia and others going against the government. On February 4th for instance, a pro-government demonstration was carried out all around Russia (Smith 5).
In Moscow, the anti-orange protest took place. According to the police, this was one of the largest demonstrations to be experienced in the city. Despite the personal grievances that the protestors had with the opposition, they also called for free and fair elections. However, more demonstrations were experienced after Putin won the elections. A day before the inauguration ceremony, over 20,000 demonstrators took to the street.
According to them, the elections experienced a lot of irregularities. As a result, the results of the elections favored Putin. They therefore wanted the inauguration ceremony to be cancelled and fresh elections to be held. In the course of their demonstration, the protesters clashed with the police several times leading to violent encounters where over 400 people were arrested including influential figures such as Alexei Navalany. The next day, over 120 protestors were arrested on the same grounds.
The Russian Government Reaction to Protests
To calm down the situation, draconian laws were enacted in Russia. These laws restricted individuals from protesting by setting strict rules, regulations and penalties that deterred individuals from voting.
Consequently, the police raided the homes and offices of the individuals who organized the demonstrations all around the country. These individuals were arrested, questioned and some were charged with serious offenses (Manukyan 84). Throughout history, the Russian government has been known for its effective repressive tactics.
The government has consistent policies, rules, and regulations that had made the nation to have high levels of repression as compared to other Soviet states and nations from Africa and Latin America (Manukyan 84). As a result, the government has been capable of containing and preventing post-election protests within the nation. The most common tactics that the Russian government has been using to deprive the public from protests and post-election violence include political imprisonment, torture, murder, disappearances, and so on.
These tactics clearly explain why the level of public protest in Russia has been low over the years. Consequently, these tactics give a clear explanation for the presence of low levels of political competition within the state. These tactics have also affected the freedom of expression in the nation. For instance, NTV, a privately owned television company was threatened by the government due to the support and affiliation that it had with opposition figures in Russia (Manukyan 84).
The company’s right to broadcast nationwide as well as its financial support were threatened. Consequently, businessmen and other influential figures have been intimated and threatened by the government through government instigated investigations. As a result, such individuals have been left with no choice but to sanction their support of opposition parties.
Effects of Protests
From the cases that have been presented in this paper, it is evident that citizens’ protests play a critical role in determining the electoral outcome within a given state. The studies that have been conducted reveal that citizens protest as a result of the dissatisfaction that they have with the government hence impacting negatively on their democratic rights.
According to the theory of collective action, individuals who feel that they have been deprived their civil rights and freedoms come together to fight for a regime change through protests to ensure that their social, political, and economic needs are met (Smelser 26). Thus, these individuals form social and political movements and use them as a vessel through which they can air their grievances to the government.
However, for protests to be successful, they need to get the support of powerful and influential individuals, institutions, and/or organizations within and outside their nation. In Peru for instance, Toledo played a critical role in organizing protests that led to the resignation of Fujimori as the president of the nation. The protests played a critical role in spearheading the regime change that led to fresh elections and the formation of a new government.
In Egypt, the 2011 protests brought to an end the reign of Hosni Mubarak and saw the formation of a new government under the leadership of Mohamed Morsi. However, the nation is now questioning his leadership after the congress passed the proposed constitution that would transform the nation into an Islamic state if passed.
Finally, despite the fact that the 2011-2012 protests in Russia did not result in regime change, they played a critical role in the establishment of a strong electoral commission and official investigations of electoral fraud. Therefore, in a democratic nation, citizens will always protest against elections that are not free and fair as a means of fighting for their democratic rights as citizens.
Works Cited
Anderson, Christopher. “Learning to Lose, Election Outcomes, Democratic Experience and Political Protest Potential.” British Journal of Political Sciences, 36.1 (2006): 91-111. Print.
Bolme, Selin, Mujge Kucukkeleş, Ufuk Ulutas, Taha Ozhan, Nuh Yilmaz, Yilmaz Ensaroglu. The Anatomy of Egyptian Revolution: From 25th of January to the New Constitution. Web.
Department of State. 2005 Country Reports on Human Rights Released by the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor 8 March 2006. Web.
Manukyan, Alla. Fraudulent Elections, Political Protests, and Regime Transitions. Web.
NDI. Peru Elections 2000. Web.
Olimpieva, Evgenia. “Russia’s Protest Movement: A View from a Young Participant.” Russian Analytical Digest, 108.6 (2012): 10-14. Print.
Quatrone, George. “Contrasting Rational and Psychological Analysis of Political Choice.” American Political Science Review, 82.3 (2012): 719-736. Print.
Rubin, Barry. Egypt’s Proposed Constitution: Creating an Islamist, Sharia State. Web.
Smelser, Neil. The Theory of Collective Behavior. New York: Free Press, 2010. Print.
Smith, Ben. The Russian Crisis and Putin’s Third Term. Web.