Algumas decisões proferidas pelo Tribunal Superior Eleitoral (TSE) e Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF), a partir do ano de 2002, que modificaram regras da competição político-partidária, provocaram polêmica no meio acadêmico a respeito do impacto do protagonismo judicial na estabilidade das instituições democráticas. Além de solucionar o contencioso eleitoral por meio da interpretação das divergências na aplicação da lei eleitoral, ambas as cortes teriam passado a criar regras orientadas por uma noção normativa dos ministros de quais seriam os melhores preceitos para corrigir o sistema político. Esta tese analisa o impacto das principais decisões proferidas pelo TSE e STF, no período de 2002 a 2010, sobre o equilíbrio das instituições democráticas. A hipótese apresentada, a partir do que tem sido indicado pela literatura nacional, é que o perfil mais ativista do Judiciário brasileiro provocou um desequilíbrio na correlação de forças com o Poder Legislativo, afetando o modelo de democracia constitucional brasileiro. Assim, será feita uma análise da ampliação das possibilidades de interação do Judiciário com o sistema político, principalmente a partir do término da II Guerra Mundial, a fim de delinear o modelo de democracia constitucional brasileiro. Em seguida, examina-se a trajetória histórica do Poder Judiciário na competição política e o seu padrão de comportamento a partir da outorga ao STF do poder de declarar a inconstitucionalidade das leis, bem como o modelo institucional de governança eleitoral do Brasil mediante uma análise comparada com a Argentina, os Estados Unidos e o México. Por fim, são analisadas seis decisões paradigmas, a partir de critérios pré-estabelecidos, com o objetivo de avaliar se, para além da interpretação das divergências na aplicação da lei eleitoral, o Judiciário teria passado a criar normativas a partir de sua percepção de quais seriam as melhores regras para o processo democrático, tomando para si um papel que tradicionalmente seria do Poder Legislativo. / Some decisions uttered by Superior Electoral Court (TSE) and Federal Supreme Court (STF), from the year 2002, amending the rules of political party competition caused controversy in academic circles about the impact of the judicial role in the stability of democratic institutions. In addition to resolving electoral disputes through interpretation of discrepancies in the application of the electoral law, both courts would have started to create rules guided by the ministers’ normative notion of which would be the best precepts to fix the political system. This thesis analyzes such judicial role from the impact of key decisions made by the TSE and the STF, in the period 2002-2010, on the balance of democratic institutions. The hypothesis presented, from what has been indicated by the national literature, is that the more activist profile of the Brazilian Judiciary has caused an imbalance in the correlation of forces with the legislative branch, affecting the Brazilian constitutional democracy model. Thus, an analysis of the expansion of the judicial possibilities of interaction with the political system, especially since the end of World War II will be made to outline the Brazilian constitutional democracy model. Next, it is examined the historical trajectory of the Judiciary in political competition and its pattern of behavior since the Supreme Court was granted with the power to declare the unconstitutionality of laws, as well as the institutional model of electoral governance in Brazil through a comparative analysis with Argentina, the United States and Mexico. Finally, six paradigms decisions are analyzed, out of pre-established criteria in order to assess whether, in addition to the interpretation of divergences in the implementation of the electoral law, the Judiciary would have spent to create normative from the perception of which would be the best rules for the democratic process, taking on a role that traditionally would belong to the legislative branch.

Algumas decisões proferidas pelo Tribunal Superior Eleitoral (TSE) e Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF), a partir do ano de 2002, que modificaram regras da competição político-partidária, provocaram polêmica no meio acadêmico a respeito do impacto do protagonismo judicial na estabilidade das instituições democráticas. Além de solucionar o contencioso eleitoral por meio da interpretação das divergências na aplicação da lei eleitoral, ambas as cortes teriam passado a criar regras orientadas por uma noção normativa dos ministros de quais seriam os melhores preceitos para corrigir o sistema político. Esta tese analisa o impacto das principais decisões proferidas pelo TSE e STF, no período de 2002 a 2010, sobre o equilíbrio das instituições democráticas. A hipótese apresentada, a partir do que tem sido indicado pela literatura nacional, é que o perfil mais ativista do Judiciário brasileiro provocou um desequilíbrio na correlação de forças com o Poder Legislativo, afetando o modelo de democracia constitucional brasileiro. Assim, será feita uma análise da ampliação das possibilidades de interação do Judiciário com o sistema político, principalmente a partir do término da II Guerra Mundial, a fim de delinear o modelo de democracia constitucional brasileiro. Em seguida, examina-se a trajetória histórica do Poder Judiciário na competição política e o seu padrão de comportamento a partir da outorga ao STF do poder de declarar a inconstitucionalidade das leis, bem como o modelo institucional de governança eleitoral do Brasil mediante uma análise comparada com a Argentina, os Estados Unidos e o México. Por fim, são analisadas seis decisões paradigmas, a partir de critérios pré-estabelecidos, com o objetivo de avaliar se, para além da interpretação das divergências na aplicação da lei eleitoral, o Judiciário teria passado a criar normativas a partir de sua percepção de quais seriam as melhores regras para o processo democrático, tomando para si um papel que tradicionalmente seria do Poder Legislativo. / Some decisions uttered by Superior Electoral Court (TSE) and Federal Supreme Court (STF), from the year 2002, amending the rules of political party competition caused controversy in academic circles about the impact of the judicial role in the stability of democratic institutions. In addition to resolving electoral disputes through interpretation of discrepancies in the application of the electoral law, both courts would have started to create rules guided by the ministers’ normative notion of which would be the best precepts to fix the political system. This thesis analyzes such judicial role from the impact of key decisions made by the TSE and the STF, in the period 2002-2010, on the balance of democratic institutions. The hypothesis presented, from what has been indicated by the national literature, is that the more activist profile of the Brazilian Judiciary has caused an imbalance in the correlation of forces with the legislative branch, affecting the Brazilian constitutional democracy model. Thus, an analysis of the expansion of the judicial possibilities of interaction with the political system, especially since the end of World War II will be made to outline the Brazilian constitutional democracy model. Next, it is examined the historical trajectory of the Judiciary in political competition and its pattern of behavior since the Supreme Court was granted with the power to declare the unconstitutionality of laws, as well as the institutional model of electoral governance in Brazil through a comparative analysis with Argentina, the United States and Mexico. Finally, six paradigms decisions are analyzed, out of pre-established criteria in order to assess whether, in addition to the interpretation of divergences in the implementation of the electoral law, the Judiciary would have spent to create normative from the perception of which would be the best rules for the democratic process, taking on a role that traditionally would belong to the legislative branch.

Algumas decisões proferidas pelo Tribunal Superior Eleitoral (TSE) e Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF), a partir do ano de 2002, que modificaram regras da competição político-partidária, provocaram polêmica no meio acadêmico a respeito do impacto do protagonismo judicial na estabilidade das instituições democráticas. Além de solucionar o contencioso eleitoral por meio da interpretação das divergências na aplicação da lei eleitoral, ambas as cortes teriam passado a criar regras orientadas por uma noção normativa dos ministros de quais seriam os melhores preceitos para corrigir o sistema político. Esta tese analisa o impacto das principais decisões proferidas pelo TSE e STF, no período de 2002 a 2010, sobre o equilíbrio das instituições democráticas. A hipótese apresentada, a partir do que tem sido indicado pela literatura nacional, é que o perfil mais ativista do Judiciário brasileiro provocou um desequilíbrio na correlação de forças com o Poder Legislativo, afetando o modelo de democracia constitucional brasileiro. Assim, será feita uma análise da ampliação das possibilidades de interação do Judiciário com o sistema político, principalmente a partir do término da II Guerra Mundial, a fim de delinear o modelo de democracia constitucional brasileiro. Em seguida, examina-se a trajetória histórica do Poder Judiciário na competição política e o seu padrão de comportamento a partir da outorga ao STF do poder de declarar a inconstitucionalidade das leis, bem como o modelo institucional de governança eleitoral do Brasil mediante uma análise comparada com a Argentina, os Estados Unidos e o México. Por fim, são analisadas seis decisões paradigmas, a partir de critérios pré-estabelecidos, com o objetivo de avaliar se, para além da interpretação das divergências na aplicação da lei eleitoral, o Judiciário teria passado a criar normativas a partir de sua percepção de quais seriam as melhores regras para o processo democrático, tomando para si um papel que tradicionalmente seria do Poder Legislativo. / Some decisions uttered by Superior Electoral Court (TSE) and Federal Supreme Court (STF), from the year 2002, amending the rules of political party competition caused controversy in academic circles about the impact of the judicial role in the stability of democratic institutions. In addition to resolving electoral disputes through interpretation of discrepancies in the application of the electoral law, both courts would have started to create rules guided by the ministers’ normative notion of which would be the best precepts to fix the political system. This thesis analyzes such judicial role from the impact of key decisions made by the TSE and the STF, in the period 2002-2010, on the balance of democratic institutions. The hypothesis presented, from what has been indicated by the national literature, is that the more activist profile of the Brazilian Judiciary has caused an imbalance in the correlation of forces with the legislative branch, affecting the Brazilian constitutional democracy model. Thus, an analysis of the expansion of the judicial possibilities of interaction with the political system, especially since the end of World War II will be made to outline the Brazilian constitutional democracy model. Next, it is examined the historical trajectory of the Judiciary in political competition and its pattern of behavior since the Supreme Court was granted with the power to declare the unconstitutionality of laws, as well as the institutional model of electoral governance in Brazil through a comparative analysis with Argentina, the United States and Mexico. Finally, six paradigms decisions are analyzed, out of pre-established criteria in order to assess whether, in addition to the interpretation of divergences in the implementation of the electoral law, the Judiciary would have spent to create normative from the perception of which would be the best rules for the democratic process, taking on a role that traditionally would belong to the legislative branch.

Trente sept années après l'appel « aux urnes l'Afrique ! Élections et pouvoirs en Afrique noire », lancé par les chercheurs du Centre d'études d'Afrique Noire (CEAN) de Bordeaux, l'organisation des processus électoraux s'est développée et profondément enracinée dans la culture sociopolitique des systèmes politiques des États africains. L'élection s'est dès lors constituée comme la clé de voûte de tout système représentatif et entraîne la problématique de la consolidation de la démocratie et de l'État de droit. Malgré l'existence de nombreux travaux sur l'élection, le contentieux électoral demeure assez complexe et constitue encore de nos jours un facteur de tension et de crises postélectorales dans plusieurs États africains. L'organisation d'une procédure contentieuse en matière électorale participe dès lors à l'objectif de garantir aux citoyens la pleine jouissance de leur souveraineté. Elle obéit à la mise en place d'un mécanisme adéquat et simplifié, qui favorise l'accès des justiciables aux juges électoraux. La procédure contentieuse telle qu'organisée au Cameroun comporte à l'évidence plusieurs éléments qui favorisent la garantie des droits civils et politiques des citoyens. Elle s'avère insuffisante et inefficace face à l'office d'un juge électoral englouti par des contraintes tant sociopolitiques que professionnelles, d'où la nécessité de procéder à un réaménagement profond visant la garantie des droits civils et politiques des citoyens par l'efficacité de l'office du juge électoral et partant, la consolidation de la démocratie représentative. / In 1979, the African study Center of Bordeaux, launched a new initiative about voting in Africa. Thirty seven years later, the organization of electoral processes has been substantially developed and is now deeply rooted in african political systems. Consequently, electing the people political representatives is now a cornerstone of decision-making processes of African political systems, leading to the enhancement of democracy issues and basic State rights struggles (or political power struggles), which assume/require a strong involvement of citizens. Regardless of intensive research activities about those issues, electoral disputes resolution remains a serious concern in Africa, potentially leading to post-election crises and violence, as well as long term conflicts in some African countries. Such a litigation process requires an adequate and simplified electoral conflict resolution mechanism, helping the involved parties to easily have access to the electoral court. The electoral litigation process in Cameroon has several positive elements ensuring civic and political rights to citizens. However, this process seems to suffer a lack, because the election judge is facing numerous virtual political and socio-political constraints. Therefore it becomes evident that, there is a need for a deep refitting of the law in order to better protect people's rights by improving the efficiency of the election judge, subsequently enhancing the Cameroonian representative democracy system.

The international community has long sent democracy aid, and technical election assistance (TEA) has become increasingly popular in the last three decades. Despite these investments, little is known about the effects of TEA. This master thesis focuses on how TEA affects violence during elections and asks if and how does technical election assistance prevent electoral violence in some contexts and not in others? I argue the TEA that is provided to both state and non-state actors in combination can reduce electoral violence. I argue that this can make elections credible and that credible elections are less probable to turn violent. By conducting case studies on Kenya, Nigeria, and Zimbabwe using Structured Focused Comparison, this thesis finds that the hypothesis when a state receives comprehensive technical election assistance, it will experience a reduction in electoral violence gets limited support. The findings show that TEA can help reduce violence since violence was reduced in all three cases, but only two of them received comprehensive TEA.