Why do some politicians cling to power after electoral defeat?

What effect do election processes, protests, social media, electoral rules, integrity, and voter outcomes have on an incumbent's decision to respect an election result or fight to retain office? A paper published in the Journal of Conflict Resolution looks at why, following an election, a losing incumbent may be reluctant to depart gracefully and highlights the vital role of electoral integrity in ensuring the smooth transition of power in democracies.

The NZ study shows how the threat of protest by citizens, clarity around election results,and transparent electoral processes interact to determine whether an incumbent might try to retain power. Examples of disputed elections in Kyrgyzstan, Kenya,The Gambia, and the US are referenced in the paper, which uses game theory to explore strategic behavior by citizens and politicians to establish conditions that may see an incumbent refuse to cede office.

The academics say that once there's genuine uncertainty about election results (as was seen following the 2020 US presidential election), incumbents in advanced democracies may be reluctant to step aside. Also, according to the paper, the ability of people to coordinate and threaten an incumbent with mass protests plays an important role in ensuring compliance with electoral rules. However, uncertainty about the process behind election results hinders people's ability to coordinate protests, and citizens may be unsure about the actual popularity of an incumbent and about what others believe.

What the researchers say: With less common knowledge about where their sentiment sits in relation to other people, the authors say a person is less able to accurately predict the size of protests. "By diminishing peoples' ability to threaten costly, large-scale protests, concern over electoral probity may embolden an incumbent to ignore electoral rules."

Mean while, if an election result is so strong that a politician is certain that protests will be minimal, they are less likely to step down, according to the authors, who note that shadows cast over an election result due to gerry-mandering, social media campaigns, foreign interference or litigation over electoral processes weaken the role of protest and embolden incumbents to subvert electoral rules.

The authors said the link between the informativeness of an election result and the enforceability of electoral rules highlights the critical role of transparency and trust in the electoral process.

"If there’s mistrust in electoral institutions, concerns about voting arrangements, or meddling by foreign powers, then citizens may doubt the integrity of the electoral process," the lead author explained, "and if doubt over electoral integrity prevails, office-seeking incumbents quite deliberately reject electoral rules."

So, what? The genetics of leadership (political and corporate) are very closely related to those for psychopathy and narcissism prevalence and these traits increases the higher you go up the ladder.

This is not to say that all leaders are either psychopaths or narcissists, or both—probably only 20% at the highest levels are. Those that disregard the popular will—the DTs, the Putins, the Orbans, the Hitlers of this world almost certainly have both personality disorders.

It is psychologically impossible for such people to admit defeat. Yet, like the school yard or corporate bully, they appear strong and because of this they tend to attract followers. Pure bullies—especially male bullies, share the genetics of all leaders.

However, since genetics is not destiny not everyone with those genes becomes either a leader or a bully. Genetics signal a propensity, an inner drive, not a certainty. The propensity can be modified both by up bringing and context—the factors mentioned in the research.