The purpose of this article is to achieve an understanding of the role of political scientists (and other academics) in relation to political practitioners in electoral reform processes. Using the case of Portugal, this article seeks to explain the role played by academics in the three main issues associated with electoral reform. The argument employed, which can be extrapolated to other cases, is structured around three main strands. The first of these is that while political scientists do have specific knowledge about political practice, any final decision about electoral reform is one for politicians and not academics. Thus, the major difference between political scientists and political practitioners is not so much one of knowledge, but rather concerns the specific (partisan) interests of the latter in the outcome of electoral reform. Second, the participation of academics in the process makes it more open and transparent, forcing political practitioners to be more accountable to the electorate. Third, the academic community is not homogeneous and brings different visions of democracy, different (political) preferences, and different views of what is in the country's best interest to the debate.

--

Electoral reform,Portugal,Political scientists,Political practitioners,Advisory role,Scrutiny role

• Law - Social Sciences