ВЫБОРЫ ВО ВРЕМЯ ЧУМЫ: АНАЛИЗ ЭЛЕКТОРАЛЬНОЙ ПОДДЕРЖКИ ПРАВЯЩИХ ПАРТИЙ В ПЕРИОД ПАНДЕМИИ

Abstract

In the article we used the method of qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) to investigate the results of 43 electoral campaigns in different countries of the World, held in the context of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020. As far as socioeconomic indicators worsened almost everywhere, we aimed to identify the mechanism of the retrospective economic voting as creating potentially critical risks for the ruling parties. Since, in practice, countries have roughly halved in terms of the increase or decrease in electoral support for incumbents, the authors examined the effect of factors associated with the degree of deterioration of the socio-economic situation, state restrictive measures and the development of the pandemic itself, also taking into account the features of the political regime. Nine scenarios were identified, representing various combinations of conditions, leading in six cases to an increase in support for the incumbent, and in three cases to its decrease. The study showed that the classic retrospective voting in terms of punishing incumbent for a downturn in the economy is more often manifested in democratic regimes. It is also noteworthy that socio-economic factors, which are the consequences of a pandemic, appear to be more significant to the electorate than factors directly related to the health issues. In particular, a relatively low level of GDP decline is always present in scenarios of support growth for an incumbent, and a significant increase in unemployment is always present in all scenarios of a decrease in its rating. A feature of authoritarian regimes is that voters are more inclined to support the ruling parties with mild restrictive measures, while in democracies people are ready to vote for incumbents even in the case of tough, but in some way effective restrictions. In general, restrictive measures (like their absence) always affect elections, but their effect depends on other conditions. In consideration of the natural limitations in the form of a sample of countries, the peculiarities of the method used and the further development of the pandemic, it seems important to continue such studies in order to clarify the conclusions and perspectives.