Miriam Golden’s presentation in CDDRL’s Research Seminar on April 23, 2026, addressed a central puzzle in democratic politics: why are incumbent reelection rates systematically higher in richer democracies? Drawing on cross-national data, she demonstrates a strong positive relationship between national income and reelection rates, a pattern that is both statistically robust and theoretically unexpected. This empirical finding motivates a reassessment of two dominant frameworks — accountability theory, associated with John Ferejohn, and selection theory, associated with James Fearon. Accountability models suggest that voters reward good performance and punish poor performance, but they do not explain cross-national variation in reelection rates. Selection models argue that elections filter out low-quality politicians, implying that poorer countries with lower reelection rates must have dishonest or incompetent politicians, yet empirical evidence does not align well with these inferences.

Golden proposes an alternative framework centered on “capacity gaps,” introducing the resources that politicians have available and voters' ability to discern political performance as key missing parameters. In poorer countries, both state capacity and voter interpretive capacity are constrained. Governments face fiscal and administrative limitations that restrict policy delivery, while voters struggle to distinguish whether poor outcomes result from incompetence, corruption, or structural constraints. As a result, the informational conditions necessary for effective accountability break down. Golden further argues that informational signals are asymmetric: markers of “bad” types, such as corruption scandals, criminal convictions, or dynastic ties, are visible and salient, whereas markers of “good” types, such as competence or honesty, are diffuse and easily mimicked. In these settings, even honest, competent, and well-intentioned politicians are likely to lose office because they are indistinguishable to voters from the malfeasant and incompetent. Even high-performing politicians may not be rewarded electorally, and good types gain no consistent advantage in reelection. 

To evaluate this framework, Golden presents multiple empirical investigations. First, she examines whether voters reward economic performance using within-country variation in GDP growth. The results show that higher growth increases reelection rates, but only in countries with high literacy levels. Since literacy roughly proxies voter discernment capacity, this suggests that performance matters electorally only when voters can interpret it. Second, she analyzes survey data from legislators in Italy and Pakistan to assess whether elections filter out low-quality politicians. She finds that politicians with “bad-type” markers, such as dynastic backgrounds or long tenure, exhibit higher tolerance for corruption yet continue to survive electorally, contradicting selection theory. Third, she tests whether poorer democracies have lower-quality politicians by examining education levels and relative salaries. She finds no meaningful differences in legislator quality across income levels and no relationship between salaries and reelection rates, further weakening selection-based explanations.

Overall, Golden’s approach reconciles several empirical anomalies: the income–reelection relationship, the conditional effect of economic performance, and the persistence of low-quality politicians. At the same time, important questions remain regarding causal identification and measurement, as proxies like literacy may capture broader development effects. Nonetheless, the framework offers a compelling shift in focus from politicians to voters, highlighting how limits in information processing can undermine both accountability and selection in democratic systems.

On Thursday, April 16, Daniel Kelemen (UC Merced) and CDDRL predoctoral fellow Hanna Folsz discussed the consequential outcome of the April 2026 Hungarian election: the victory of Peter Magyar’s Tisza Party over Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz Party in a Rethinking European Development and Security (REDS) seminar co-hosted by the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law and The Europe Center.

Daniel Kelemen opened the talk, first offering an overview of Viktor Orbán's rise to power. In 2010, Orbán won Hungary’s nationwide election with over two-thirds majority, a majority large enough to allow him to amend the constitution. Having suffered an electoral defeat in the past, Orbán worked to centralize his power. He captured referees — courts and independent bodies — seized control of the media, and demonized and undermined the opposition. Orbán effectively changed the rules of the game, tilting the electoral playing field. 

Kelemen states that there are cases in which smaller authoritarian groups within a larger system are tolerated or protected by national parties because they deliver votes. Orbán operated with the support of Angela Merkel, the former Chancellor of Germany, who largely stopped the EU from taking action against Orbán. Orbán’s party, the Fidesz Party, was a part of Merkel’s EU-wide party, the European People’s Party (EPP), a center-right, Christian party. This support, along with the emigration of dissatisfied voters and continued funding from the EU, helped Orbán stay in power. 

However, Orbán’s Fidesz Party was kicked out of the EPP in 2021. Merkel, who was a strong supporter of Orbán, left office in 2022. Orbán’s policy also became more extreme, raising more concern from European member states. In 2022, the EU Commission cut funding to Hungary, suspending 32 billion euros. Kelemen identifies this suspension of funds as an effective step against Hungary’s regime. 

Kelemen then outlined the implications of Orbán’s fall for Hungary, the EU, and international actors, including Russia and the United States. For Hungary, it means full regime change, as the Tisza Party will likely take efforts to undo Orbán’s autocratic policy changes. For the EU, it means that policy on Ukraine and Russia will be different, because Orbán was using his veto to prevent support for Ukraine and sanctions on Russia. For the US and Russia, Russia lost its supporter and ear in the EU, and the Trump administration lost its closest ally in Europe. On a global note, Orbán was a key figure in trying to bring together far-right populists. After he was kicked out of the EPP, he formed a more autocratic-focused party called MEGA (Make Europe Great Again). 

In a Rethinking European Development and Security (REDS) seminar held on April 9, 2026,  and co-hosted by CDDRL and The Europe Center, Konstantin Sonin, a John Dewey Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy, presented his research on “The Reverse Cargo Cult: Why Authoritarian Governments Lie to Their People,” offering a theoretical explanation for why regimes such as the Soviet Union would knowingly tell citizens visibly false statements. According to Sonin’s research, authoritarian propaganda is much more complex than simple misinformation or manipulation, as it is often designed not to convince people of a single claim, but to shape how they evaluate information more broadly. 

Sonin begins with a personal anecdote, reflecting on his own experience participating in Soviet elections where there was only one candidate on the ballot, despite the process being presented as a meaningful choice. Using this example, he questions why regimes like the Soviet Union invest so heavily in clearly staged elections or exaggerated portrayals of Western life, even when citizens recognize these distortions. From this, he introduces the idea that such actions are not meant to persuade citizens of a specific falsehood, but instead to influence how they interpret all incoming information. Drawing on the metaphor of a “reverse cargo cult,” he suggests that just as some communities misinterpret the source of Western goods, citizens in authoritarian systems may come to believe that institutions in other countries are equally performative or deceptive. In this sense, narratives about foreign countries become an integral tool for reinforcing domestic political stability. 

He further explores how citizens evaluate elections and the decision to replace an incumbent under uncertainty about both competence and trustworthiness. He recognizes that in these regimes, citizens are not entirely naïve and may often recognize when a leader is lying. However, Sonin shows that even obvious lies can be effective. When a domestic leader lies about conditions that citizens already know to be bad, it signals not only that the leader is untrustworthy but also raises the perceived likelihood that foreign leaders are similarly dishonest. As a result, citizens downgrade their expectations of potential replacements, concluding that alternatives may not be any better. This dynamic ultimately reduces the incentive to replace the incumbent. 

As his theory suggests, negative information about conditions abroad, or even skepticism toward foreign success, can benefit authoritarian leaders. For example, Sonin points to Soviet reactions to the American National Exhibition in Moscow, where displays of a typical American home were dismissed by officials as unrealistic or misleading. This kind of framing encouraged citizens to question whether life in the United States was truly better, reinforcing the idea that shortcomings at home were not unique. As a result, domestic failures appear less exceptional, helping explain why authoritarian propaganda frequently emphasizes criticism of other countries and why such narratives often reinforce one another. 

Sonin concludes by emphasizing that lying in this context is not primarily about persuading citizens of a particular false claim, but about shaping their broader beliefs about the reliability of information. By weakening trust in information overall, leaders can make bad conditions at home seem like the safer or more reliable option compared to the uncertainty of change.

On April 2, FSI Center Fellow Didi Kuo opened CDDRL’s Spring Research Seminar Series with a presentation titled “Beyond Policy: The Rise of Non-Programmatic Party Competition in Advanced Democracies.” The seminar examined whether policy continues to serve as the primary basis of political competition and voter-party linkage in advanced democratic systems.

Kuo began by outlining the traditional “programmatic” model of party competition, which assumes that political parties compete by offering distinct policy platforms and that voters make choices based on these policy differences. In this framework, democratic responsiveness emerges from the alignment between public preferences and party positions. Historically, such programmatic competition has been closely associated with democratic consolidation, strong institutions, and effective governance.

However, Kuo challenged this assumption by asking whether policy still plays a central role in contemporary politics. She presented evidence suggesting that political discourse, particularly in the United States, has shifted away from policy-focused communication. For example, recent political speeches were shown to contain fewer policy references and more grievance-based and retrospective language. This shift raised concerns that parties may increasingly rely on alternative strategies to mobilize voters.

The seminar then explored several non-programmatic forms of political competition. These included identity-based appeals, grievance politics, populism, and affective polarization. Kuo explained that these strategies emphasize emotional resonance, group identity, and symbolic representation rather than concrete policy proposals. In such contexts, voters may be motivated less by policy preferences and more by partisan identity or perceived cultural alignment. Importantly, these dynamics do not fully replace programmatic competition but instead reduce its relative importance.

Kuo also discussed theoretical and empirical research showing that many voters possess limited policy knowledge and often hold unstable or weakly structured policy preferences. As a result, factors such as party identification, emotion, and social identity can play a more significant role in shaping political behavior. This complicates the traditional view that democratic accountability operates primarily through policy evaluation.

To assess whether programmatic competition is declining, Kuo introduced new measurement strategies. These included expert surveys evaluating party cohesion and policy salience, as well as analyses of voter responses over time to determine whether individuals reference policy when expressing political preferences. The findings suggested a gradual decline in policy-based reasoning among voters, even in countries like the United States that have historically been highly programmatic.

Kuo concluded by considering the broader implications of this shift. A decline in programmatic competition may weaken democratic accountability, as voters become less likely to evaluate governments based on policy performance. It may also contribute to increased polarization and reduced willingness to compromise, as identity-driven politics tends to be more zero-sum. Ultimately, the seminar suggested that if policy is no longer the dominant mode of political competition, scholars may need to rethink core assumptions about how democracy functions.

In sum, Kuo’s presentation highlighted a significant transformation in advanced democracies: the growing importance of non-programmatic strategies in party competition and the potential consequences this shift holds for democratic governance.

On Wednesday, January 14, the Jan Koum Israel Studies Program at the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law welcomed Ambassador Dennis Ross — a veteran U.S. negotiator in Arab-Israeli peace negotiations and advisor on Middle East policy — to discuss his latest book, Statecraft 2.0: What America Needs to Lead in a Multipolar World. Ambassador Ross joined former U.S. Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul, the Ken Olivier and Angela Nomellini Professor of International Studies in the Department of Political Science, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, FSI, and the Woods Institute for the Environment, in a conversation moderated by Amichai Magen, director of the Jan Koum Israel Studies Program.

Magen explained that Ambassador Ross’s book focuses on Russia and China, and McFaul’s latest book, Autocrats Vs. Democrats: China, Russia, America, and the New Global Disorder, focuses on several locations, with an emphasis on the Middle East. Both former ambassadors, Magen explained, sought to make sense of an era of geopolitical fluidity, approaching from a liberal internationalist perspective. The former ambassadors discussed the place of America in the world order, the decline of a rule-based international order and the development of a disorderly world, and the meaning of liberalism. The seminar concluded with a focus on Iran’s role in the Middle East and the roles of force and diplomacy in the geopolitical landscape.

Sunday morning, we awoke to the good news that Jesús Armas, a Venezuelan civic leader and 2022 alumnus of the Fisher Family Summer Fellows Program at Stanford University's Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law (CDDRL), had been released from prison after more than a year in detention. He was forcibly disappeared and detained in Venezuela by security forces in December 2024 following the country’s stolen presidential election earlier that year. We are deeply relieved that he is now free from imprisonment in El Helicoide — a place, Jesús wrote upon his release, “that has been a symbol of torture, evil, and authoritarianism.”

Jesús is a dedicated public servant, engineer, and activist who has worked bravely with the opposition to promote peaceful democratic participation, free and fair elections, and civic unity in Venezuela. His detention occurred amid a broader wave of arrests targeting opposition organizers, journalists, and civil society actors in the country, and his case drew sustained international concern.

Reflecting on his experience, Jesús wrote that “nobody should be behind bars for thinking differently,” underscoring the principle that peaceful dissent must not be met with imprisonment.

We hope this development contributes to continued progress toward the release of all individuals unjustly detained for peaceful civic and political engagement, in Venezuela and beyond, and toward renewed respect for human dignity, fundamental rights, and the rule of law.

On February 5, 2026, Natalie Letsa, Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of South Carolina and previously a 2018-19 CDDRL postdoctoral fellow, presented the argument and contributions made in her book, The Autocratic Voter: Partisanship and Political Socialization under Dictatorship. The book addresses the question: Why do some citizens choose to get involved in politics, while others do not? And, for those who get involved, why do some support the opposition, while others support the ruling party?  

In the context of electoral autocracies, the book argues, social identity theory provides a model of partisanship, rather than rationalist or materialist theories. This argument rests on three key parts:

• Part 1: “Ruling Party Partisan" and “Opposition Partisan” are unique social identities that have common meaning across electoral autocracies.
• Part 2: Processes of partisan socialization occur within social networks.
• Part 3: The political orientations of social networks are constrained by the structural homophily created by the political geography of electoral autocracies.
   

Within the idea that “ruling party partisan” and “opposition partisan” are social identities, ruling party partisans trust the regime and believe it is democratic, whereas opposition partisans do not. Amongst these identities, out-group animus occurs, but opposition partisans experience stronger animus. Letsa looked at two questions from the World Values Survey: "How democratic is your country today?" and “How satisfied are you with the political system?” Results found that partisans in electoral autocracies are divided on these questions, whereas partisans in democracies are not.

On social networks, Letsa argues that people raised by partisans are more likely to adopt partisan identities, and that people with party activists in their networks are more likely to do so. Lastly, Letsa asserts that people with more politically homogenous social networks are more likely to adopt partisan identities. When conducting an original survey in Cameroon, Letsa found that citizens with social networks that fully support the opposition are five times more likely to be opposition partisans themselves than citizens with no opposition partisans in their social networks.

On geography, Letsa argued that opposition strongholds are severely constrained in electoral autocracies, producing extreme structural homophily. Because of this structural homophily, the political orientation of a social network is largely determined by its physical location. However, political geography does not only affect the identities of partisans in party strongholds; it also predicts the political beliefs of nonpartisans and out-party partisans in these places. To test this, Letsa examined survey data from Cameroon and found that the average respondent living in an extreme ruling-party stronghold has a network composed of 29% opposition supporters. The average respondent living in an extreme opposition party stronghold has a network made up of 59% opposition supporters.

The Autocratic Voter offers a unified theory of partisanship that explains both support for the ruling party and for the opposition. It presents a new framework for understanding public opinion and political behavior in electoral autocracies. Finally, it bridges research on democracy and autocracy.

In January and February of 2026, Alon Tal, Former Member of Knesset and Professor in the Department of Public Policy at Tel Aviv University, spoke in the Stanford course, "Sustainable Societies Lab: Exploring Israel’s Innovation Ecosystem in Human & Planetary Health – Pathways to Peace.” During his visit, he caught up with Amichai Magen, Director of the Jan Koum Israel Studies Program at CDDRL. They discussed the atmosphere and sentiment on the ground in Israel as Israelis begin preparing for the first national elections since the launch of the Netanyahu coalition government's controversial "judicial overhaul" campaign in January 2023 and the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack. 

They set out seven principles for understanding Israeli elections, democracy, and electoral politics, and seven key questions about the upcoming elections.

A full recording of the webinar can be viewed above.