This paper revisits the prevailing narrative of migrant remittances as unequivocal drivers of democratization, shedding light on their paradoxical effects on electoral violence in fragile democracies. While much of the recent literature emphasizes the democratizing influence of remittances—enhancing economic independence, mitigating clientelism, and strengthening civil society—this study contributes to an emerging conversation by highlighting the dual effects of remittances: they can neither be regarded as uniformly democratizing nor solely as undermining political contestation.

Using a multilevel analytical framework and drawing on data from the Electoral Contention and Violence (ECAV) dataset and Afrobarometer, this paper disentangles these contrasting dynamics. At the individual level, remittances act as a buffer against political coercion, aligning with democratization theories that connect economic empowerment to reduced susceptibility to manipulation. Conversely, at the community level, remittances can indirectly intensify electoral violence by resourcing opposition movements and amplifying grievances against incumbents, thereby fueling collective unrest.

By comparing these effects at both the individual and community levels, this study opens new opportunities for understanding the differentiated impact of remittances. Contextualizing these results within the broader discourse on fragile democracies, and specifically exploring political violence aimed at weakening democratic processes such as elections, this study argues that while remittances empower individuals, they can also destabilize political systems.

Although modest in absolute terms, financial remittances can become significant relative to other resources. Once surpassing the threshold required to meet basic needs, they can inadvertently provide rebel groups with crucial funds to sustain operations, procure arms, recruit fighters, and prolong conflicts.