Electoral Politics in Asia

Variously called a garrison state or an establishmentarian democracy, Pakistan’s complicated national identity and persistence through severe domestic instabilities and geopolitical upheavals belie the simple forms of logic governing normal, democratic polities worldwide. This chapter traces the impediments towards Pakistan’s democratisation to historical and geopolitical factors, identifying thereby the nexus among self-aggrandising military men, conniving politicians, and religious fundamentalists as primarily responsible for stifling the people’s legitimate democratic aspirations. Through the analysis of the February 2024 elections to Pakistan’s National Assembly and provincial legislatures, besides the several arches of transregional instabilities and terrorism concurrently accruing from its geopolitical manoeuvrings, the chapter infers the machinations of an establishmentarian system that is at once the cause and the effect of the failures of Pakistan’s democratic institutions.

Indonesia’s democracy has been a subject of debate and disagreement since Suharto stepped down in 1998. The political landscape of the archipelago has been characterized by ideological divergence, with Islamic parties promoting Islamic ideas and pluralist parties advocating for a multireligious state. However, politics have become more polarized since 2014, with the reemergence of the political rift between Islamists and pluralists attributed to the rivalry between President Joko Widodo and his former adversary, Prabowo Subianto. The escalating polarization has led to challenges such as electoral fraud, lack of transparency in campaign financing, and voter intimidation. The complex interplay of dynastic politics, corruption, wealth inequality, increased ethnic tensions, and societal unrest calls for clean politics and vigilantism as distinct dynamics that shape the sociopolitical landscape of the Indonesian archipelago. The political landscape is shaped by the active participation of different ethnic groups and ecclesiastical bodies, with a focus on Islamization. This chapter seeks to elucidate the intricate challenges inside Indonesia’s democratic framework by analyzing the 2024 elections through virtual ethnography and a study of the Indonesian memescape. This chapter aims to unravel the complex interplay of Islamization, dynasticism, and hope within Indonesia’s contemporary democracy.

Burma gained independence on January 4, 1948 with an ethnic composition of over a 100 languages and dialects, administratively divided into states and divisions. Though ethnic Burmans predominantly inhabit the divisions, the states are home to ethnic minorities—Arakan (Rakhine), Chin, Kachin, Karen, Karenni (Kayah), Mon, and Shan. Since before independence, Burma had witnessed ethnopolitical conflicts, that continued even after independence. After a decade of parliamentary democracy, the military staged a coup d’état on March 2, 1962. During the pre-independence phase, elections in Burma had focused on concrete issues like the separation of Burma from India, subsequent elections in independent Burma failed to define and address the expectations of the electorate. This along with a deep schism between the majority ethnic group, the Bamars, and the several ethnic minority groups failed to consolidate the democratic electoral structure in independent Burma. The military had stepped in to fill the void but soon subverted the electoral democracy into an authoritarian regime. However, the democratic movements continued and the junta was forced to orchestrate the elections. As the postcoup intense conflict continues between the military junta and the People’s Defence Force, free and fair elections and a democratic government remain the sole aspiration.

This chapter seeks to critically examine the evolving dynamics of electoral politics in India from three perspectives—empowerment, entitlement and enfranchisement. Tracing the authoritarian roots of Indian democracy, the study attempts to understand why Indian democracy is considered a paradox defying conventional wisdom and how democratic representation and constitutional centralization coexist. The chapter analyses the 2024 Lok Sabha elections in terms of performance of parties, key electoral issues and the evolving party-leadership dynamics and how the 2024 national elections were a game changer compared to earlier elections. The study contextualizes the reasons for the persistent gender deficit in political representation despite increased voter participation by women, the rise of tokenism in redistributive politics and how welfare promises are manoeuvred for short-term electoral gains and the current trend towards personalization of politics and its impact on electoral outcomes. Despite the emerging debates of democratic backsliding on Indian parliamentary procedures, the chapter shows that Indian democracy has exhibited considerable deepening and consolidation by acknowledging the power and ability of the electorate to influence political outcomes.

Malaysia is arguably the strongest democratic state in Southeast Asia—a region marked by the varying shades of democratic, semidemocratic, and nondemocratic states. Over the past seven decades, democracy has strengthened its roots in the country, with the monarchy also making meaningful contributions to its success. With the decades-long predominance of the United Malays National Organization (UMNO) ending with the 2018 General Elections, multiparty democracy has taken deeper roots in the country. That, however, is also accompanied by greater electoral divisions and political polarisation in the country, particularly with a hardliner Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party gaining more foothold in Malaysian politics. At the same time, the demand for greater autonomy by the Sabah and Sarawak states has reignited debates about their independent identity and relations with the Malaysian Federation. This paper argues that Malaysia’s political landscape is characterised by evolving dynamics, including shifts in power structures, challenges related to corruption and freedom of expression, and debates on Bumiputra and the role of minorities in a multireligious Malaysian democracy. The country’s journey towards a more inclusive and transparent democracy remains a work in progress, shaped by ongoing political polarisation and societal discourse on the need for wide-ranging political reforms.

Elections are a fundamental part of democracy, allowing citizens to make choices in governance. However, a detailed examination of elections in Bangladesh reveals they often represent democratic disorder rather than uphold democratic principles. In Bangladesh, elections are frequently used to legitimize governments rather than offer voters fair representation. Most elections in the country, with few exceptions, have been marred by extensive rigging, suppression of opposition, and communal violence. The Twelfth Jatiya Sansad elections in 2024, followed by the ousting of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina due to widespread student and public protests, highlight the persistent democratic ambiguities in Bangladesh. This situation raises questions about the relationship between elections and democracy in the country. Bangladesh has a complex electoral history, with the Twelfth Jatiya Sansad elections fitting this pattern. The Anti-Quota/Students Against Discrimination Movement, the fall of the Sheikh Hasina Government, and the political landscape under the Yunus Ministry since August 2024 are significant events illustrating attempts to redefine politics domestically and regionally. These developments challenge the effectiveness of elections in ensuring democracy in Bangladesh.

This chapter examines how electoral politics in the Maldives intersects with the geostrategic dynamics of the Indian Ocean Region (IOR). Positioned at the crossroads of critical sea lanes, the Maldives serves as a vital geopolitical pivot for major powers like India and China. It highlights how domestic electoral campaigns in Maldives often exploit foreign policy to galvanize public sentiment, with ultranationalist rhetoric such as the “India Out” campaign becoming a recurrent strategy. These political maneuvers are not merely internal; they resonate regionally, reflecting the broader rivalry between India’s defense-focused initiatives and China’s economic engagement through the Belt and Road Initiative. The chapter explores how shifts in Maldivian leadership lead to alternating foreign policy alignments, swinging between pro-India and pro-China stances. It further delves into the ways in which external pressures from these major powers influence domestic political rivalries, shaping electoral outcomes and governance priorities. Economic vulnerabilities and nationalist narratives complicate this interplay, positioning the Maldives as a small state with outsized importance in the strategic calculations of regional and global actors. This chapter underscores Maldives’ role as a microcosm of the broader power struggles in the Indo-Pacific, revealing the intricate balance between internal politics and external geopolitics.

This chapter examines Nepal’s democratic journey, marked by electoral reforms, majoritarianism, and geopolitical influences. From the 1990 People’s Movement establishing a constitutional monarchy to the abolition of the monarchy in 2008 and the promulgation of the 2015 constitution, Nepal’s transition from absolute monarchy to federal democracy has been turbulent. The mixed electoral system, combining first-past-the-post and proportional representation, aims to enhance inclusivity but is often undermined by patronage, tokenism, and party elites, limiting genuine representation of marginalised groups, particularly women. Geopolitically, Nepal’s location between India and China subjects its democracy to external pressures, complicating its political processes and sovereignty. Dominant parties manipulate electoral systems to maintain power, sidelining smaller parties and independent voices, while nationalist rhetoric and pro-Hindu advocacy challenge inclusivity and democratic principles. Despite constitutional provisions and progress in establishing democratic structures, the persistence of political instability, clientelism, and geopolitical pressures reflects the nascent stage of Nepal’s democratic consolidation. The chapter concludes that Nepal’s path towards democracy requires sustained reforms, vigilance, and commitment to strengthening democratic institutions to bridge the gap between formal mandates and practical implementation, ultimately striving for a genuinely inclusive and independent democratic future that reflects the will of its diverse populace.

Sri Lanka’s democratic practices were informed by the colonial experience. Like many postcolonial societies, representational frameworks were constructed on a multiethnic landscape, which was defined by anxieties about retaining the boundaries of the emergent nation-state. Over the past few decades, Sri Lanka has witnessed significant shifts in its representational models. Initially, the British-style parliamentary system with the First-Past-the-Post electoral model was adopted. The parliamentary system without significant decentralisation mechanisms and the adoption of a “Sinhala-Only” language policy laid the foundation for prolonged ethnic conflict. After the constitutional changes in the 1970s, a presidential form of governance was ushered in. However, these shifts did not facilitate genuine decentralisation, and instead, there were concerns that the executive presidency had resulted in increased centralisation. In the last two decades of the previous millennium and the first decade of the new millennium, Sri Lanka organised elections in the shadow of brutal ethnic conflict. After the end of the civil war, Sri Lanka had to confront new challenges. The centralised governance resulted in an economic crisis, and there were significant political shifts during and after the 2024 elections. This chapter reflects on the above-mentioned themes with specific reference to parliamentary elections till the 1970s and the subsequent presidential elections.

Having emerged as sovereign territories through the National Territorial Delimitation process (1924–1936) and following the Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991, the five Central Asian countries charted unique political paths. Geographically east of the Caspian Sea, they were predominantly led by former Soviet leaders who oversaw transitions from socialist to market economies, Marxist–Leninist supranationalism to nationalism, and one-party rule to multiparty democracy. Each adopted distinct transformations of their political-economic orders, including Uzbekistan. Elections became essential for a country’s democratic credentials. However, the “Third Wave” of democracy often resulted in semi-authoritarian and hybrid forms of governance. In Uzbekistan, elections have been regularly held under international observation but critiqued for limited opposition participation and incumbent dominance. Presidential systems across Central Asia are viewed as soft, paternalistic authoritarianism. Referendums, alongside elections, play a significant role in shaping governance. This chapter examines Uzbekistan’s transition to electoral politics within a state-formation trajectory distinct from the Western European model. It further explores how regional and domestic politics dovetail with shifts in the international order, directly and indirectly influencing Uzbek elections.

This chapter discusses democratisation in Bhutan through analysing the 2024 parliamentary elections in the Himalayan kingdom. Bhutan is a young democracy as it had its first elections in 2008, leading to its transition from a monarchy to a parliamentary system. The conducting of elections in Bhutan is a part of the democratisation process, which was strengthened by the former king, Jigme Singye Wangchuck. It was also in accordance with the wishes of the king that Bhutan embraced democracy. In a way, democracy in Bhutan can be understood as a well-choreographed dance. The elections are a major highlight of this choreography as the citizens are seen to be directly participating in the dance. The chapter looks at the Bhutanese monarch as the master choreographer, who is directing the dance of democracy. Under his choreography the democratic transition in Bhutan has been smooth as it is a democracy by decree. The top-down democratisation in Bhutan has witnessed several political exclusions, which will be analysed in the chapter. Finally, the chapter takes the idea of a “dance” to understand democracy in Bhutan and especially the elections of 2024.

The chapter seeks to decode the contemporary Turkish electoral landscape to come to an understanding of whether majoritarian politics essentially translates into “democracy”. It does this through an analysis of Turkey’s political landscape under the Justice and Development Party (AKP) and President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, with a focus on elections, since the party came to power in 2002 and culminating in the 2024 municipal elections, through an analysis of parties, constituencies and changing electoral expectations. It argues that binary categorizations remain problematic in any attempt at decoding the Turkish political and electoral system and focuses on the multiple ways in which symbols, rhetoric and the politics of identity have been systematically exploited for political advantage. While rhetoric and symbolism led to electoral success and an ability to mobilize masses, it also hardened cultural differences and encouraged exclusion and polarization. The chapter examines this transition towards populism through an examination of the AKP’s move from “conservative democracy” towards “new Islamism”. It then examines how a spontaneous street protest and the divisive rhetoric that followed brought into question the majoritarian politics of a regime based on a notion of democracy, which venerated ballots but disregarded civil liberty and press freedom.

The chapter analyzes Israel’s transition from a perceived liberal democracy to an electoral model, focusing on judicial retrenchment, majoritarian populism, and the entrenched identity hierarchies codified by the 2018 Jewish Nation-State Law. Judicial reforms, including the override clause, consolidated executive dominance, undermining minority rights, civil liberties, and democratic checks. By juxtaposing democratic norms within Israel’s borders with authoritarian practices in the occupied territories, it highlights the hybrid governance model that sustains systemic inequities. Gender inequalities are explored as the outcomes of entrenched patriarchy, ethno-nationalism, and religious conservatism, which collectively constrain democratic inclusivity. Through an analysis of judicial restructuring, identity politics, and governance, it discusses the democratic legitimacy of a system that perpetuates structural exclusions while upholding procedural commitment to elections. By raising critical questions about whether electoral democracy in its current form can reconcile majoritarian politics with pluralistic ideals, this chapter contributes to debates on the fragility of democracy amid deep-seated inequalities and exclusionary frameworks.