Likoti (2008:81) posits that a patron-client relationship is an exchange between a superior patron or patron group and an inferior client or client group. In addition Likoti maintains that in most developing countries, and especially in Africa, the ruling party acts as a patron and voters become an inferior group voting in expectation of some reward from the patron (ruling party).
For Erdmann and Engel (2007:107), clientelism means the exchange or brokerage of specific services and resources for political support, often in the form of votes. It involves a relationship between unequals, in which the major benefits accrue to the patron; redistributive effects are considered to be very limited. They posit that the difference between patrimonial and neopatrimonial clientelism is that the latter is more complex than the former. It is a reiterating patron-client relation, forming a hierarchy of dominance relations.
49
Erdmann and Engel (2007:107) contend that in neopatrimonialism there are brokers to mediate the exchange between the „little man‟ and the „big man‟; and through a network of brokers, sometimes even traditional patrons, the political center is linked with the countryside. In patrimonialism there is only a direct dyadic exchange relation between the little and the big man. Second, the object of the exchange is different. The transactions are less about the exchange of private or personal goods and services and more about the transfer of public goods and services by the patron.
Erdmann and Engel (2007:107) argue that the difference between clientelism and patronage is essentially a distinction between the recipients, between „individual‟ (e.g. land, office, services) and „collective‟ benefits (e.g. roads, schools). Further, for Erdmann and Engel (2007:107), patronage is part of high-level politics and an important instrument in creating and maintaining political cohesion, for instance a coalition of ethnic elites, which is needed to form and support a government or a political party. In contrast, clientelism concerns individuals and, thus, is based on personal relations. It involves the personal network of a politician, but it also occurs within and around the bureaucracy at all levels.
Furthermore, Erdmann and Engel (2007:107) point out that a client needs a patron for protection, either to avoid something or to be assisted in gaining something which otherwise would not be obtainable. In short, developing a clientelist network is a means to gain protection and to achieve goals in a situation of societal uncertainty created by public institutions that may behave in ways that are not calculable.
In a neopatrimonial system, during the electoral processes, certain election stakeholders decide not to comply with the electoral law. On the one hand, intuitively, opposition candidates are virtually assured that they will get into power. On the other hand, the incumbents are distressed at not being re-elected for a second term in office. The uncertainty of election outcomes in developing countries may lead election challengers to use clientelism and patronage, which harm the integrity of electoral processes.
50
In the DRC, neopatrimonialism theory as well as its constituent elements (patron- client network) contributes to shedding light on the political context in which the 2011 elections were conducted. The neopatrimonialism theory helps one to understand how the patron-client network influences the management of the electoral processes. In the wake of the 2011 presidential and parliamentary elections in the DRC, certain contenders (patrons, bid men, godfathers) made use of election maladministration practices (corruption, faking of electoral reports and results, regionalism, ethnicism, misuse of state resources, refusal of access to public media for opposition parties, intimidation, threats and illegal arrest of opposition leaders, bribery of voters, pressure on elections commissioners) as well as the appointment of election commissioners who were either closer to the incumbent or to the opposition.
In order to control all electoral processes, some of the election stakeholders (political parties and independent candidates or their representatives) interfered with the 2011 election processes as managed by the INEC at the expense of the electoral law. During the 2011 elections in the DRC, electoral contenders behaved as patrons. Some of them resorted to the usage of patron-client relationships, in which the patron‟s political clients (followers) had an interest in seeing see their patron keep power. In addition, a patron‟s political clients (followers) in the Congolese 2011 elections secured the political and economic position of their patrons by helping them to be elected regardless of the nature of the means and strategies that were used.
Moreover, the latter situation was addressed by Githaiga (2012) who highlights the link between politics and economics in the DRC. Githaiga (2012:3) remarks that the high number of 18 500 parliamentary candidates vying for 500 legislative seats, and the disproportionately high candidature in the parliamentary race, may in part be attributed to the link between political leadership and economic gain. Githaiga (2012) asserts that the parliamentary position offers a competitive remuneration and, for the unscrupulous, the opportunity to use power to gain economic benefits.
51 2.4 SUMMARY
This chapter discussed the literature review and theoretical framework related to election management. A survey of the literature was done in order to discover what has been done and what needs to be done in the field of election management as a modest contribution to the existing body of knowledge. Furthermore, political support, political trust and neopatrimonial theories that underpin this study were discussed as a basis for explaining and understanding stakeholders‟ perceptions about the management of the 2011 electoral processes in the DRC. The next chapter describes the research methodology.
52
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 3.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter describes the methodology used in carrying out this study. A methodology is a strategy, plan of action, process, or design lying behind the choice and use of particular methods and linking the choice and use of methods to the desired outcomes (Crotty 1998:3). Because of the close correlation between the methodology and the procedures of research, Creswell (2003:4) defines methodology as the framework that relates to the entire process of research. To answer the research questions in this study, the researcher employed a mixed methods approach to achieve the study‟s research objectives (see Chapter one). According to Johnson et al. (2007:113), mixed methods research is an approach to knowledge (theory and practice) that attempts to consider multiple viewpoints, perspectives, positions, and standpoints, always including the standpoints of qualitative and quantitative research. Recently, debates between positivists and interpretivists (see sections 3.1.1.1 and 3.1.1.2; Table 6) were impeded by researchers who do not take their positions in either the positivist or the interpretivist camp (Schram 2007). Some researchers (Lieberman 2005; Parry and Kupiec-Teahan 2010; Mathagu 2010; Muboko 2011) have previously used mixed methods approaches to carry out their research.