Abstract
Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan introduced a single-district closed-list proportional electoral system in 2007. Despite similar rules, the relationship between MPs and their constituencies differs: while the reform fostered nationwide representation in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan’s MPs maintained a local, personalised representation style. This article explores how similar electoral rules lead to divergent outcomes under diverse party systems. Based on legal documents and 25 original interviews, the article provides two in-depth accounts of how electoral rules interacted with institutional counterincentives to guide the representative behaviour of MPs. The analysis covers the effects on MPs’ re-election strategies and the organisation of constituency service within factions.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
