Levitsky, Steven and Lucan Way. "Why Democracy Needs a Level Playing Field". Journal of Democracy, Vol.21, No.1 (2010): 57-68.

Levitsky, Steven and Lucan Way. "Why Democracy Needs a Level Playing Field". Journal of Democracy, Vol.21, No.1 (2010): 57-68.

• One of the least analyzed elements used by electoral authoritarian regimes to retain power is the creation of unequal playing fields for democratic competition. The regimes in Venezuela, the Kyrgyz Republic, Malaysia, and Senegal do not practice electoral fraud, they create conditions of unequal access to media, resources, and institutions needed to properly organize in preparation for elections (57).
• Some level of incumbent bias exists in all electoral systems, but the authors argue that there is a distinction between the degree of bias from that which damages the quality of democracy to that which actually undermines democracy. The author propose that the bias causes non-democracy if state institutions are widely used for partisan ends, the incumbent is systematically favored against the opposition, and the opposition's ability to campaign is severely handicapped (58).
• Extremely disparities in the amount of resources available for campaigning are often created through illicit use of state resources by the governing party. This resource inequality is pronounced in the misuse of state finances, as during Boris Yeltsin's reelection when million of state bonds funded his campaign, or the use of state buildings, equipment, and the manpower of employees to serve partisan goals (58).
• The reverse side of this discrimination of is the use of state infrastructure to target those organizations which provide funding and other resources to the opposition. This is often manifested in punitive actions against businesses which support the opposition, targeting these companies with blacklisting and spurious investigations and audits (59).
• Media can be controlled by the ruling parties in a number of ways to advantage the incumbent. Often the state controls or monopolizes news sources, making the government and intensely partisan media the primary, or in some cases only, available news source to large segments of the population (59).
• In other cases, private media is diversified but under the control of elites loyal to the state or a political party through illicit connections. This was the case in Ukraine under Leonid Kuchma, where all media sources were owned by close friends and cronies of the President. In Peru under President Fujimori, the party-state took a leading role in bribing all major media outlets to avoid covering the opposition (59-60).
• Unequal access to legal remedy and the bias of judicial systems towards the incumbent party also make electoral challenges by the opposition particularly difficult. Control over the judiciary guarantees that any legal disputes will be resulted in favour of the incumbent, the opposition will be deny access to legal action against regime abuses, and the crimes of the incumbent party in other fields will not be properly investigated or punished (60).
• Creating an unequal playing field for electoral contestation is a tremendous advantage for the incumbent party with significant benefits compared to alternative systems for maintain authoritarian domination. The other possibilities of widespread electoral fraud or open repression will alienate international partners and are generally not accessible in the period after the Cold War (60).
• Use of this system for establishing partisan electoral domination allows a nation to create stable and internationally accepted systems of government without ceding power. The prime example of this system is Botswana, which is widely regarded as a beacon of democracy, despite a single party maintaining total electoral dominance since 1966 through control over media and financial resources (60-61).
• The use of unequal playing fields between political parties not only detrimental to democracy during elections, but also undermines the ability for opposition movements to organize in general. The extreme disparity in resources prompts many would-be opposition members to join the regime as the way to make actual change (62).
• Considering the considerable limits placed on democratic processes by an unequal electoral playing field, and the inability of most contemporary systems of democracy grading and classification to specifically observe these qualities, the authors propose that a level playing field be considered a defining feature of democracy, so that regimes which are unfair but do not engage in violation of other liberties can still be counted as non-democracies (63-64).
• The systems of control which allow for an unequal field for electoral competition often originate from one-party states. When the dictatorial systems of one-party statehood dissolve, norms and institutions of party control do not automatically vanish and often allow the new incumbent party to maintain control within a nominal multiparty system (64).
• In other cases significant wealth at state discretion, such as that generated by oil or natural resources, may leave the ruling party with the resources to introduce systems of patronage that allow for the creation of uneven playing fields without necessarily requiring a legacy of single-party states (64).
• Underdevelopment, especially of human resources, can also predispose states towards the development of unequal electoral systems, because petty systems of control in the electoral process -- such as the use of government bureaucrats as campaign help -- can make tremendous differences where the absolute number of electoral resources is minimal (65).
• Opposition parties may pursue multiple strategies to win victories against the incumbent party, with successful strategies including major defections from within the regime and smaller opposition groups co-opting dominant incumbent structures. However, actually leveling the playing field in the light of an opposition victory requires economic progress which results in a proliferation of power centers that cannot be successfully dominated (66-67).
• In light of this disparity in resources, foreign aid to opposition groups can make a significant difference. When the resources required for electoral competition can be provided from outside, it can allow the opposition to actually compete against the incumbent party (67).