-
Kathryn Stoner

Georgia's president, Salome Zourabichvili, vetoed the Parliament's contentious anti-foreign agent law, but called her act "symbolic," as the majority Georgian Dream party promised to override the veto at their next session. This talk explores Georgia's democratic aspirations within the context of the law, dissecting its potential ramifications for civil society, political freedoms, and Georgia's European integration ambitions.

Professor Kathryn Stoner, who was awarded an honorary doctorate from Iliad State University, Tbilisi, Republic of Georgia in 2016, will discuss the politics and complexities of the recent law and its implications for Georgia's future.


Kathryn Stoner is the Mosbacher Director of the Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law (CDDRL), and a Senior Fellow at CDDRL and the Center on International Security and Cooperation at FSI. From 2017 to 2021, she served as FSI's Deputy Director. She is Professor of Political Science (by courtesy) at Stanford and she teaches in the Department of Political Science, and in the Program on International Relations, as well as in the Ford Dorsey Master's in International Policy Program. She is also a Senior Fellow (by courtesy) at the Hoover Institution.

Prior to coming to Stanford in 2004, she was on the faculty at Princeton University for nine years, jointly appointed to the Department of Politics and the Princeton School for International and Public Affairs (formerly the Woodrow Wilson School). At Princeton she received the Ralph O. Glendinning Preceptorship awarded to outstanding junior faculty. She also served as a Visiting Associate Professor of Political Science at Columbia University, and an Assistant Professor of Political Science at McGill University. She has held fellowships at Harvard University as well as the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, DC.

In addition to many articles and book chapters on contemporary Russia, she is the author or co-editor of six books: "Transitions to Democracy: A Comparative Perspective," written and edited with Michael A. McFaul (Johns Hopkins 2013);  "Autocracy and Democracy in the Post-Communist World," co-edited with Valerie Bunce and Michael A. McFaul (Cambridge, 2010);  "Resisting the State: Reform and Retrenchment in Post-Soviet Russia" (Cambridge, 2006); "After the Collapse of Communism: Comparative Lessons of Transitions" (Cambridge, 2004), coedited with Michael McFaul; and "Local Heroes: The Political Economy of Russian Regional" Governance (Princeton, 1997); and "Russia Resurrected: Its Power and Purpose in a New Global Order" (Oxford University Press, 2021).

She received a BA (1988) and MA (1989) in Political Science from the University of Toronto, and a PhD in Government from Harvard University (1995). In 2016 she was awarded an honorary doctorate from Iliad State University, Tbilisi, Republic of Georgia.

Anna Grzymała-Busse

Encina Hall 2nd floor William J. Perry Conference Room

Kathryn Stoner, Stanford University
Seminars
News Feed Image
kathryn_stoner_on_georgia.png
-
Sergiy Leshchenko, 2024: A Decisive Year in Russia's War in Ukraine

In 2022, Russia initiated an unprovoked attack on Ukraine, marking the largest conflict in Europe since World War II. Despite initial gains, Putin was unable to change the political landscape in Kyiv, and approximately half of the territories initially seized by Russian forces were later reclaimed by Ukraine. However, the war is far from over. The war has also tested American leadership, particularly as China and France have expanded their international influence. The upcoming U.S. presidential election further escalates the uncertainty, as continued American support for Ukraine is critical. A Ukrainian victory is pivotal not only for regional stability but also for the security of American citizens.

ABOUT THE SPEAKER

Sergiy Leshchenko is formerly a journalist with Ukrainska Pravda and a member of the Ukrainian Parliament (2014-2019). He first rose to political prominence during Ukraine’s 2014 Maidan Revolution and has continued to serve in government and civil society since. He is an advisor to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s chief-of-staff and the initiator of the Working Group on Sanctions Against Russia, co-led by Michael McFaul. Mr. Leshchenko is an alumnus of the 2013 cohort of the Draper Hills Summer Fellows Program (now the Fisher Family Summer Fellows Program) at FSI’s Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law at Stanford University.

Kathryn Stoner
Kathryn Stoner

In-person: Philippines Conference Room (Encina Hall, 3rd floor, 616 Jane Stanford Way, Stanford)
Online: Via Zoom

Sergiy Leshchenko Advisor to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's Chief of Staff
Seminars
Date Label
Authors
Rachel Owens
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

Is Ukraine too corrupt to be a part of the European Union? In a recent Rethinking European Development and Security (REDS) seminar talk co-hosted by CDDRL and The Europe Center, Maria Popova, McGill University Associate Professor of Political Science, assessed how serious the issue of Ukrainian corruption really is. While some observers have claimed that Ukraine’s corruption renders it unprepared for EU accession, Popova’s research suggests otherwise. Contrasting Ukraine to recent EU entrants — Bulgaria, Romania, and Croatia — she finds that corruption indices are not very helpful in drawing reliable conclusions.

In all four said countries, corruption is touted as the most salient issue, with strikingly similar scandals occurring across them. Over the last ten years, Ukraine has developed an extensive anti-corruption infrastructure, forming institutions for the prevention, investigation, and prosecution of corruption cases, as well as for asset recovery. These institutions have produced mixed results, and issues of political competition between institutions have tainted their wider reputation, with the National Agency for Prevention of Corruption receiving the most positive feedback. Innovative e-procurement systems like ProZorro have been internationally praised. Ukraine is unique in that its anti-corruption infrastructure came well before attempting EU accession. 

Bulgaria, on the other hand, established its anti-corruption agencies ten years after becoming an EU member. These institutions have since become politically compromised; so much so that anti-corruption reformists recently forced their abolition. 

In Romania, institutions were created around the time of accession and have been successful in holding corrupt oligarchs accountable. Similarly, Croatia’s anti-corruption reforms proceeded during accession negotiations.

Although the four countries adopted similar anti-corruption institutional reforms, today Ukraine tracks as significantly more corrupt than the EU members across measures of regime, public sector, executive, and political corruption, even though it is cleaner than Romania was when it started accession negotiations, more corrupt than Bulgaria was, and equally corrupt as Croatia at its start of negotiations. Why? Popova argued that the indices are fundamentally non-comparative and thus need to be taken with a grain of salt. The score for each country is determined by experts that focus exclusively on that country, who consider variation in corruption over time only. Moreover, the abstract conceptual definition of corruption is applied to their narrow case knowledge and experience and thus reflects local, rather than generalizable conceptualization. 

While index scores correlate with local perceptions, this, too, may just reflect a narrative on the ground. If the local narrative is that the country is highly corrupt, the population will likely perceive it to be, with no sense of its real magnitude. 

When analyzing Ukraine’s anti-corruption institutions, Popova finds that Ukraine is better prepared for EU accession than is widely assumed.

Read More

Will Dobson, book cover of "Defending Democracy in an Age of Sharp Power," and Chris Walker
News

How Can Democracies Defend Against the Sharp Power of Autocrats?

Christopher Walker, Vice President for Studies and Analysis at the National Endowment for Democracy, and Will Dobson, co-editor of the Journal of Democracy, discussed their new book, “Defending Democracy in an Age of Sharp Power” (Johns Hopkins University Press 2023).
How Can Democracies Defend Against the Sharp Power of Autocrats?
Eugene Finkel presents during a REDS Seminar co-hosted by The Europe Center and CDDRL on April 18, 2024.
News

The Historical Roots of Russia’s Quest to Dominate Ukraine

According to Eugene Finkel, the Kenneth H. Keller Associate Professor of International Affairs at Johns Hopkins University, Russia’s recurrent attacks against Ukraine can be traced to issues of identity and security.
The Historical Roots of Russia’s Quest to Dominate Ukraine
Beatriz Magaloni presents during a CDDRL research seminar on April 11, 2024.
News

Can Indigenous Political Autonomy Reduce Organized Crime? Insights from Mexico

Beatriz Magaloni, the Graham H. Stuart Professor of International Relations, presented her latest research during a CDDRL seminar talk.
Can Indigenous Political Autonomy Reduce Organized Crime? Insights from Mexico
Hero Image
Maria Popova presents in a REDS Seminar co-hosted by CDDRL and The Europe Center
Maria Popova presented her research during a REDS seminar co-hosted by CDDRL and The Europe Center on May 2, 2024.
Rachel Cody Owens
All News button
1
Subtitle

While some observers have claimed that Ukraine’s corruption renders it unprepared for EU accession, Maria Popova’s research suggests otherwise.

Date Label
-
Maria Popova REDS seminar

Ukraine's EU accession depends greatly on success in tackling corruption. Since 2014, Ukraine has built an extensive anticorruption institutional architecture, which has produced significant policy outcomes, but perception indices still show Ukraine as trailing most other European countries. This article summarizes Ukraine’s post-Euromaidan anticorruption reforms in the context of similar reforms pursued by other post-Communist EU candidate states pre-accession. The article then examines Ukraine’s corruption perceptions’ indices trajectory in comparative terms and wades into the debate over whether different types of perception indices proxy well for corruption incidence. The comparative look suggests that Ukraine is better prepared for EU accession in terms of control of corruption than is widely assumed.

ABOUT THE SPEAKER

Maria Popova is an Associate Professor of Political Science at McGill University and Scientific Director of the Jean Monnet Centre Montreal. She also serves as Editor of the Cambridge Elements Series on Politics and Society from Central Europe to Central Asia. Her work explores the rule of law and democracy in Eastern Europe. Her first book, Politicized Justice in Emerging Democracies, which won the American Association for Ukrainian Studies book prize in 2013, examines the weaponization of law to manipulate elections and control the media in Russia and Ukraine. Her recent articles have focused on judicial and anticorruption reform in post-Maidan Ukraine, the politics of anticorruption campaigns in Eastern Europe, conspiracies, and illiberalism. Her new book with Oxana Shevel on the roots of the Russo-Ukrainian war entitled Russia and Ukraine: Entangled Histories, Diverging States is now available from Polity Press.



REDS: RETHINKING EUROPEAN DEVELOPMENT AND SECURITY


The REDS Seminar Series aims to deepen the research agenda on the new challenges facing Europe, especially on its eastern flank, and to build intellectual and institutional bridges across Stanford University, fostering interdisciplinary approaches to current global challenges.

REDS is organized by The Europe Center and the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law, and co-sponsored by the Hoover Institution and the Center for Russian, East European and Eurasian Studies.

Learn more about REDS and view past seminars here.

 

Image
CDDRL, TEC, Hoover, and CREEES logos
Kathryn Stoner
Kathryn Stoner

In-person: Reuben Hills Conference Room (Encina Hall, 2nd floor, 616 Jane Stanford Way, Stanford)

Virtual: Zoom (no registration required)

Maria Popova McGill University
Seminars
-
Oleksandra Matviichuk S.T. Lee Lecture

As we navigate the complexities of global security in the 21st century, it is essential to confront the broader implications of Russia's actions in Ukraine for the world at large. The conflict serves as a stark reminder of the challenges posed by authoritarian aggression and the erosion of international norms and institutions. In this panel, Ms. Oleksandra Matviichuk will explore the interconnectedness of global security dynamics, examining how Russia's human rights violations in Ukraine reverberate across borders. Join us for a timely and thought-provoking conversation that transcends borders as we collectively strive to confront the challenges of the 21st century and build a more secure and resilient world for all.

The S.T. Lee Lectureship is named for Seng Tee Lee, a business executive and noted philanthropist. Dr. Lee is the director of the Lee group of companies in Singapore and of the Lee Foundation.

Dr. Lee endowed the annual lectureship at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies in order to raise public understanding of the complex policy issues facing the global community today and to increase support for informed international cooperation. The S.T. Lee Distinguished Lecturer is chosen for his or her international reputation as a leader in international political, economic, social, and health issues and strategic policy-making concerns.

ABOUT THE SPEAKER

Oleksandra Matviichuk, the head of the Center for Civil Liberties, is a human rights lawyer focused on issues within Ukraine and the OSCE region. She leads initiatives aimed at fostering democracy and safeguarding human rights. The organization supports legislative reforms, monitors law enforcement and judiciary, conducts wide education programs, and leads international solidarity efforts. In response to the full-scale war, Matviichuk co-founded the "Tribunal for Putin" initiative, documenting war crimes across affected Ukrainian regions. Recognized for her unwavering commitment, she received the Democracy Defender Award and participated in the Ukrainian Emerging Leaders Program at Stanford University.

In 2022, she earned the prestigious Right Livelihood Award and was named one of the Financial Times' 25 Most Influential Women, while the Center for Civil Liberties received the Nobel Peace Prize under her leadership.

Kathryn Stoner

In-person: Bechtel Conference Center, Encina Hall (616 Jane Stanford Way, Stanford)
Online: Via Zoom

Oleksandra Matviichuk Head | Center for Civil Liberties Head | Center for Civil Liberties Head | Center for Civil Liberties
Lectures
Date Label
-
eugene_finkel

What drives Russia's violence in and against Ukraine from the 19th century to 2024?

Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine is the single most important event in Europe since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. It is also arguably the major global geopolitical development since 9/11. My main argument is that violence and repression are deeply rooted in the history of Russo-Ukrainian relations. Since the mid-19th century, dominating Ukraine and denying Ukrainians an independent identity, let alone a state, has been the cornerstone of Imperial, Soviet and eventually, post-Soviet Russian policies.

More specifically, I show that Russian and Soviet policies were driven by two factors: identity and security. The idea of the shared origin and fraternity of Russians and Ukrainians is a staple of Russian self-perception and historiography. The second key factor is security. Western powers often passed through Ukraine to attack Russia; Ukraine’s fertile soil was crucial to feeding and funding the Russian and Soviet Empires. Even more than geopolitics, it was regime stability that drove Moscow and St. Petersburg’s obsessive focus on Ukraine. Nothing scares a Russian autocrat more than a democratic Ukraine, because if Ukrainians can build a democracy, then the supposedly fraternal Russian people might too. Thus, combined, identity, security, and the interaction between the two drive Russia’s policies towards Ukraine since the 19th century.


Eugene Finkel is the Kenneth H. Keller Associate Professor of International Affairs, School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), Johns Hopkins University. His research focuses on how institutions and individuals respond to extreme situations: mass violence, state collapse, and rapid change.

Finkel's most recent book is Intent to Destroy: Russia's Two-Hundred-Year Quest to Dominate Ukraine (Basic Books, 2024). He is also the author of Ordinary Jews: Choice and Survival during the Holocaust (Princeton University Press, 2017), Reform and Rebellion in Weak States (Cambridge University Press, 2020, co-authored with Scott Gehlbach) and Bread and Autocracy: Food, Politics and Security in Putin’s Russia (Oxford University Press, 2023, co-authored with Janetta Azarieva and Yitzhak M. Brudny). His articles have appeared in the American Political Science Review, Journal of Politics, Comparative Political Studies, Comparative Politics, East European Politics and Societies, Slavic Review, and several other journals and edited volumes. Finkel has also published articles and op-eds in The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Foreign Affairs, The Spectator and other outlets.

*If you need any disability-related accommodation, please contact Shannon Johnson at sj1874@stanford.edu. Requests should be made by April 11, 2024.


REDS: RETHINKING EUROPEAN DEVELOPMENT AND SECURITY


The REDS Seminar Series aims to deepen the research agenda on the new challenges facing Europe, especially on its eastern flank, and to build intellectual and institutional bridges across Stanford University, fostering interdisciplinary approaches to current global challenges.

REDS is organized by The Europe Center and the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law, and co-sponsored by the Hoover Institution and the Center for Russian, East European and Eurasian Studies.

 

Image
CDDRL, TEC, Hoover, and CREEES logos
Anna Grzymała-Busse

Encina Hall 2nd floor, William J. Perry Conference Room

Eugene Finkel, Johns Hopkins University
Seminars
Authors
Rachel Owens
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

What is driving the current democratic recession? In a CDDRL seminar series talk, Vanderbilt University Political Scientist Larry Bartels argued that democratic erosion in Europe has been driven primarily by elite behavior, not shifting popular sentiments. Bartels presented findings from his latest book, Democracy Erodes from the Top: Leaders, Citizens, and the Challenge of Populism in Europe, published in 2023 by Princeton University Press. The book challenges the view that public opinion drives democratic endurance and erosion.

According to conventional wisdom, social tensions and backlash against globalization and immigration have led to an explosion in populism in democratic societies. This populism, coupled with falling confidence in politicians and government, is posing a serious threat to the future of democracy.

Bartels argued that the data suggests otherwise. In fact, ordinary European political attitudes have changed little over the past 20 years. Using data from 9 rounds of a European social survey running between 2002 and 2019 across 23 countries, Bartels finds public attitudes commonly associated with right-wing populism have remained stable. Favorability toward immigrants, support for European integration, ideological polarization, trust in politicians, and satisfaction with democracy have not seen any significant change during the same period. 

What accounts for the apparent surge in right-wing populists? Bartels explained that right-wing populism is not surging in a new wave. Rather, it is drawing from an old reservoir. 

According to Bartels, claims of a populist wave are unjustified. While populism has increased moderately across Europe, the successes of right-wing populists have been overblown by the press, with far more attention on their political victories than their failures. Additionally, variation in support for populist parties reflects a variation in “supply” rather than in “demand.” In other words, change has been driven by a transformation in the behavior of political elites rather than in public opinion. 

In looking at the correlation between political attitudes and party support, Bartels finds that support for right-wing populists tracks with conservative ideology, anti-immigrant sentiment, anti-EU sentiment, political distrust, and economic disaffection. However, he noted, the relationship between party support and economic disaffection is rather weak. 

Although analysis of public attitudes shows that there remains a group of people susceptible to right-wing populists, this group has not been voting for populist candidates. This suggests these politicians have not yet successfully mobilized right-wing populist sentiments.

In discussing the experiences of Poland and Hungary, Bartels indicated that in both cases, the populist turn was overwhelmingly driven by the political elites. Voters did not choose dictatorship. They were passive and unable to mobilize in defense of democracy. In fact, prior to election, support for populist parties closely resembled that of an ordinary conservative party. Once in power, these parties began abusing their power and undermining democratic institutions.

Read More

Josiah Ober presents during a CDDRL research seminar on February 22, 2024.
News

The Civic Bargain and Democratic Survival

How do democracies arise, and what conditions promote their survival? In a CDDRL seminar series talk, Professor of Political Science and Classics Josiah Ober addressed this question, drawing on his latest book, “The Civic Bargain: How Democracy Survives” (Princeton University Press), co-authored with Brook Manville.
The Civic Bargain and Democratic Survival
Vicky Fouka
News

National Stigmas and Past Atrocities in Germany

Stanford Associate Professor of Political Science Vicky Fouka shares her research on how public recognition of collective culpability has affected German national identity.
National Stigmas and Past Atrocities in Germany
Şener Aktürk presents his research during a CDDRL research seminar
News

When Do Religious Minority Politicians Secure High Political Offices?

Şener Aktürk presented his research on the subject in a recent CDDRL research seminar series talk.
When Do Religious Minority Politicians Secure High Political Offices?
Hero Image
Larry Bartels
Larry Bartels presents during a CDDRL research seminar on February 29, 2024.
Rachel Cody Owens
All News button
1
Subtitle

Political Scientist Larry Bartels argues that democratic erosion in Europe has been driven primarily by elite behavior, not shifting popular sentiments.

Date Label
Authors
Rachel Owens
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

How does a nation grapple with the history of past atrocities? In a CDDRL research seminar series talk, Stanford Associate Professor of Political Science Vicky Fouka examined how public recognition of collective culpability has affected German national identity. In a new paper, Fouka and co-authors explore the origins of muted public nationalism among German citizens, investigating whether it hails from socialization or stigmatization.

In the shadow of the Nazi regime, post-WWII Germany was forced to contend with its past. The resulting narrative was critical — a self-righteous self-hate. The prevailing view entailed Germany assuming responsibility for WWII and the atrocities committed. This shift occurred in two stages. During the first stage (WWII- 1970), denazification was imposed by the Allied powers, and many Germans perceived it unjust — seeing themselves as victims. However, post-1970, teachings about the Holocaust were introduced in schools, and new generations were socialized to accept a message of responsibility.

Fouka began with two possible explanations for Germany’s muted nationalism. The first was stigmatization, or the idea that people may not be expressing their true views for fear of social sanctions imposed by broader society. The second is socialization. This explanation centers on shared internationalized values, a violation of which generates a strong emotional response on the part of the violator.

To determine which of these theories drives Germany’s weak national spirit, Fouka designed a survey to compare publicly and privately held views. A representative sample of 5,363 respondents was randomly assigned a “private” or “public” condition. Those given the “public” condition were informed that the survey results would be posted to a website, whereas those with the “private” condition were given assurances as to the anonymity of their responses. The team also asked a variety of controversial questions as a baseline — to gauge the difference between private and public preferences.

In the survey itself, Fouka asked respondents a variety of questions on national identity, emotions about German history, attitudes toward German vs. Allied crimes during WWII, and the importance of teaching the holocaust in school. She found that there was no difference in the public and private conditions on national pride — suggesting socialization was the primary driving force behind weak nationalism.

The only statement that seemed to move the needle on falsified preferences was one asserting that the crimes of the German past should be left alone. However, this only occurred in respondents living in West Germany. Additionally, the researchers did find evidence for falsified preferences on national pride, but primarily for Germans socialized in the East but living in the West. As East Germany only shifted their educational rhetoric after German reunification, those socialized in the East but living in the West seemed to censor more toward the West German norm.

This research holds important implications. If there is a divergence between what people feel privately and what they feel like they can express publicly, there can be rapid changes in public opinion and the status quo in response to small changes in information about people’s true preferences. This is especially important with the recent rise of the right-wing populist party, which may provide a platform for the expression of latent preferences.

Read More

Şener Aktürk presents his research during a CDDRL research seminar
News

When Do Religious Minority Politicians Secure High Political Offices?

Şener Aktürk presented his research on the subject in a recent CDDRL research seminar series talk.
When Do Religious Minority Politicians Secure High Political Offices?
Miriam Golden presents during a CDDRL research seminar
News

Civil Service Reform and Reelection Rates in the United States

Miriam Golden argues that a decline in patronage appointments to state bureaucracies due to civil service legislation increased reelection rates in state legislatures.
Civil Service Reform and Reelection Rates in the United States
Pauline Jones REDS Seminar
News

Kazakhstan’s Public Opinion and Russia’s War Against Ukraine

Professor of Political Science Pauline Jones explored how Russia’s renewed aggression in Ukraine will affect Moscow’s relations with its Eurasian neighbors in a recent REDS Seminar talk, co-sponsored by CDDRL and TEC.
Kazakhstan’s Public Opinion and Russia’s War Against Ukraine
Hero Image
Vicky Fouka
Vicky Fouka presents her research during a CDDRL research seminar on February 15, 2024.
Rachel Cody Owens
All News button
1
Subtitle

Stanford Associate Professor of Political Science Vicky Fouka shares her research on how public recognition of collective culpability has affected German national identity.

Date Label
Authors
Rachel Owens
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

Why do politicians belonging to religious minorities attain the highest political offices in some countries but not others? Koç University Professor of International Relations Şener Aktürk presented his research on the subject in a CDDRL research seminar series talk

A key element in shaping this outcome, Aktürk argued, is the configuration of a given nation’s constitutive conflict, which often takes the form of wars of independence or civil wars.  If the primary adversary in this conflict is of a different religion, he explained, the majority religion will likely be closely associated with national identity. However, in cases where that adversary is of the same religious sect, religious identity will end up becoming less central in the formation of national identity. Accordingly, it will become easier for religious minority politicians to assume leadership afterward.  If the majority religion is nationally institutionalized — which generally coincides with constitutive conflict structured along religious lines – it will likely be difficult for minority politicians to rise through the ranks. 

To illustrate this pattern, Aktürk reviewed the religious affiliation of chief executives across various countries. In the United Kingdom, whose constitutive conflict pitted Protestants against Catholics — and resulted in a Protestant victory — every Prime Minister from 1721 through 2021 was Protestant. Any claimed exceptions converted are a telling sign. Catholic, Jewish, and Muslim religious minorities had their first representatives, or “pioneers,” in the House of Commons by affiliating with the left, demonstrating that left-liberalism was their entry point into politics. 

In Catholic France, where the constitutive conflict was internal (French Revolution), there were 5 Protestant Prime Ministers, with the first one elected within the first 50 years of the Third Republic, when the new republican regime consolidated. A Jewish Prime Minister was reelected three times. The left represented politicians of minority religions, whereas the right represented those of the core group. 

In Hungary, the formative conflict consisted of Catholics fighting against each other. This has allowed Protestant minority leaders to claim they are more nationalistic than their Catholic counterparts, who were presumably forced to pick between their nation and religion. A similar story holds in Italy, the first country to have a Jewish Prime Minister. 

Germany is the most unique case, as it experienced a change in constitutive conflict. Following the Franco-Prussian War, Germany was majority Protestant, with state persecution of the Catholic minority. However, a bloodier and more traumatic constitutive conflict replaced the first one — the Holocaust and World War II. Under Hitler, who was of Austrian Catholic origin, German nationalism ceased to be a Protestant-led movement.

Read More

Miriam Golden presents during a CDDRL research seminar
News

Civil Service Reform and Reelection Rates in the United States

Miriam Golden argues that a decline in patronage appointments to state bureaucracies due to civil service legislation increased reelection rates in state legislatures.
Civil Service Reform and Reelection Rates in the United States
Pauline Jones REDS Seminar
News

Kazakhstan’s Public Opinion and Russia’s War Against Ukraine

Professor of Political Science Pauline Jones explored how Russia’s renewed aggression in Ukraine will affect Moscow’s relations with its Eurasian neighbors in a recent REDS Seminar talk, co-sponsored by CDDRL and TEC.
Kazakhstan’s Public Opinion and Russia’s War Against Ukraine
Mona Tajali presents at CDDRL seminar
News

Women and Politics in Iran and Turkey

CDDRL Visiting Scholar Mona Tajali explores the complexities of women’s representation under autocratic governments, using the contexts of Iran and Turkey.
Women and Politics in Iran and Turkey
Hero Image
Şener Aktürk presents his research during a CDDRL research seminar
Şener Aktürk presents his research during a CDDRL research seminar on February 8, 2024.
Rachel Cody Owens
All News button
1
Subtitle

Şener Aktürk presented his research on the subject in a recent CDDRL research seminar series talk.

Date Label
-
Sophie Richardson seminar

Since the early 1990s democracies, including European Union member states, Japan, and the United States, have claimed to promote human rights in China. Yet under Chinese Communist Party General Secretary Xi Jinping's decade-long rule modest gains have been reversed, and state-driven abuses now range from pervasive high-tech surveillance to crimes against humanity. Not only has external engagement failed to deter this downward spiral, democracies appear ill-prepared to cope with the Xi regime's increasing threats to democratic processes, the freedom of expression, and the international institutions meant to protect these rights in their own countries. How and why have these democracies failed, and can how can they better insulate themselves from these threats?

ABOUT THE SPEAKER

Sophie Richardson is currently researching democracies’ support for human rights in China. From 2006-2023, she served as the China Director at Human Rights Watch, overseeing the organization’s research and advocacy on Chinese government human rights abuses inside and outside the country. She has worked closely with civil society groups, governments, and United Nations bodies, and published extensively on the topic. Dr. Richardson has testified to the Canadian Parliament, European Parliament, and the United States Senate and House of Representatives. She is the author of China, Cambodia, and the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence (Columbia University Press, Dec. 2009), an in-depth examination of China's foreign policy since 1954's Geneva Conference, including rare interviews with Chinese policy makers. She speaks Mandarin and received her doctorate from the University of Virginia and her BA from Oberlin College.

Virtual to Public. Only those with an active Stanford ID with access to Encina E008 in Encina Hall may attend in person.

Hesham Sallam
Hesham Sallam

Virtual to Public. Only those with an active Stanford ID with access to E008 in Encina Hall may attend in person.

0
CDDRL Visiting Scholar, 2024
bio_image_-_sophie_richardson.jpg

Sophie Richardson is a longtime activist and scholar of Chinese politics, human rights, and foreign policy.  From 2006 to 2023, she served as the China Director at Human Rights Watch, where she oversaw the organization’s research and advocacy. She has published extensively on human rights, and testified to the Canadian Parliament, European Parliament, and the United States Senate and House of Representatives. Dr. Richardson is the author of China, Cambodia, and the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence (Columbia University Press, Dec. 2009), an in-depth examination of China's foreign policy since 1954's Geneva Conference, including rare interviews with Chinese policy makers. She speaks Mandarin, and received her doctorate from the University of Virginia and her BA from Oberlin College. Her current research focuses on the global implications of democracies’ weak responses to increasingly repressive Chinese governments, and she is advising several China-focused human rights organizations. 

Date Label
Sophie Richardson
Seminars
Date Label
Subscribe to Europe