Democracy and Political Clientelism: Causes and Effects

Introduction to Political Clientelism

Political clientelism is broadly understood as the distribution of discriminatory benefits to individuals or groups in exchange for political support. Clientelism is a form of personal exchange characterized by an uneven balance of power between those involved and a sense of compulsion. Throughout history, the term has continued to generate confusion and controversy because of the broad and varied range of political exchanges it encompasses. As a concept originally used to describe the hierarchical exchanges of feudal society, clientelism also serves as a means of describing the relationships between patrons and clients.

The theory of democracy holds that voters have the right to make their choices freely, particularly during political elections. This principle has created new platforms for representation and political accountability, as well as new incentives for sustaining and cultivating clientelistic bonds (Szwarcberg, 2009). In places with weak democracies, clients rely on patrons to obtain resources and to secure political inclusion.

Relationship Between Clientelism and Democracy

For both academic researchers and observers, the relationship between clientelism and democracy has continued to be a subject of major discussion. Many observers have tended to perceive political clientelism in almost entirely negative terms, with only a few exceptions. On one hand, clientelism has been linked to specific historical and social contexts and associated with economic downturn. On the other hand, this concept has also been connected to uneven political dealings and special interests in many countries, including the United States. As a result, the relationship between political clientelism and democracy has remained a fundamental concern of political theory, largely because of the impact each has on the other and their combined role in the political landscape of many nations across the world.

Understanding the effect of clientelism on democracy is especially important in determining whether it undermines people's freedom to choose freely. This question is further complicated by the fact that some political parties use clientelistic incentives to mobilize voters. The observation that some clientelistic political parties succeed at rallying low-income voters while others fail also underscores the need to understand clientelism's effect on democratic processes. According to findings from various studies, clientelism fundamentally undermines democracy in many countries, particularly in developing nations. Clientelism influences the behavior of a broader set of voters, especially those who receive benefits well before an election. It also erodes freedom of choice during elections, since political parties that employ clientelistic incentives tend to attract more political support than those that do not. Parties that trade clientelistic inducements for support and votes have consistently proven more electorally effective than non-clientelistic parties, thereby undermining democratic competition.

However, democracy can alter clientelism when it not only provides elections and civil freedoms but also delivers material benefits to voters. Generally, clientelism has thrived in places where democracy has failed to provide such benefits and has therefore performed poorly in meeting citizens' basic needs. In these contexts, clientelism acts as a substitute channel of representation, a way of making poverty more bearable, and a means of creating a shared sense of community. For democracy to change the culture of political clientelism, it must provide what clientelism provides. While freedom of choice and civil liberty are essential, people also need material benefits such as healthcare, economic opportunity, and education (Moreau, 2009). Democracy can displace clientelism by delivering these benefits through democratic means, thereby increasing genuine electoral competition.

Negative Aspects of Clientelism in Politics

Political clientelism is considered both beneficial and harmful to politics, as it contains negative and positive dimensions. Given that many scholars have emphasized its negative aspects, clientelism carries more negative than positive interpretations in the political science literature. As noted above, clientelism undermines democracy. The use of clientelistic inducements by political parties in exchange for support and votes diminishes the quality of democracy and prevents a level playing field during elections. Democratic accountability — the ability of voters to endorse or remove their leaders through elections — is negatively affected by clientelism. Furthermore, clientelism reduces governmental accountability and weakens pressure on governments to deliver public goods.

Political parties sometimes appear to compete through clientelistic inducements rather than by presenting capable candidates and better policies. This strategy has generally proven more effective for incumbents than for their challengers, resulting in political bias. Incumbents are more likely to engage in pre-election manipulation of public resources and budget allocations (Vicente & Wantchekon, 2009). Parties and governments are consequently able to avoid accountability for the provision of deficient public goods and to distort public policy debates. The use of clientelistic strategies by candidates produces electoral bias in which voters tend to favor parties that offer material incentives over those that offer better governance.