In 2010-2011, the "Arab Spring" brought unexpected revolutions to many Middle Eastern and North African countries. Why did these seemingly invincible regimes fall, while China remained durably authoritarian? Many observers credited global media for the political transformations. While the hopes of Arab Spring democracy have proven to be fragile or short-lived, we can effectively explore the relationship between political communication and regime stability by turning our attention to Taiwan’s remarkable democratization, which remains under-appreciated by the international community.
This talk considers political communication in Taiwan from the martial law era to the heady days of democratic activism beginning in the late 1970s and lasting till the 1990s. Professor Esarey argues that the Chiang Ching-kuo administration’s diminishing capacity to control a small but influential opposition (dangwai) media, and even mainstream newspapers, gradually permitted reformers to reframe debates, reset the political agenda, and challenge state narratives and legitimacy claims.
When viewed in comparative perspective, Taiwan’s successful democratization suggests that seeking regime change is impracticable, and even perilous, without considerable and sustainable media freedom as well as opportunities for the public to advocate, evaluate, and internalize alternative political views. A balance of “communication power” between state and societal actors facilitates a negotiated and peaceful transition from authoritarianism.
Bio
Professor Ashley Esarey received his PhD in Political Science from Columbia University and was awarded the An Wang Postdoctoral Fellowship by Harvard University. He has held academic appointments at Middlebury College, Whitman College, and the University of Alberta, where he is an instructor in the departments of East Asian Studies and Political Science and a research associate of the China Institute. Esarey has written on democratization and authoritarian resilience, digital media and politics, and information control and propaganda. His recent publications include My Fight for a New Taiwan: One Woman’s Journey from Prison to Power (with Lu Hsiu-lien) and The Internet in China: Cultural, Political, and Social Dimensions (with Randolph Kluver).
Cross-Strait relations play an important role in electoral politics in Taiwan. Increasing economic exchange together with warming political engagements make today’s cross-Strait relations a very unique case in the study of public opinion in Taiwan. Because of the economic prosperity of China, people in Taiwan might consider the expansion of trade and other forms of cross-Strait exchanges beneficial to the prosperity of Taiwan. However, growing trade ties also mean that Taiwan’s economic reliance on the mainland increases day by day, and it could eventually result in political unification—an outcome that the majority of people in Taiwan do not want. The long-standing antagonism across the Strait, especially visible in their different governing systems and ideological attitudes, has produced something close to two separate countries and contrasting national identities. Dr. Chen was former Director of Election Study Center of National Chengchi University in Taiwan, and he will present long-term polling tracks to demonstrate how cross-Strait relations have affected electoral politics in Taiwan.
Bio
Lu-huei Chen is Distinguished Research Fellow at the Election Study Center and Professor of Political Science at National Chengchi University in Taiwan. He is currently a visiting scholar of Top University Strategic Alliance (TUSA) at MIT. Professor Chen received his Ph. D. in political science from Michigan State University. His research focuses on political behavior, political socialization, research methods, and cross-Strait relations. He has published articles in Issues and Studies, Journal of Electoral Studies (in Chinese), Social Science Quarterly, and Taiwan Political Science Review (in Chinese). He is the editor of Continuity and Change in Taiwan's 2012 Presidential and Legislative Election (in Chinese, 2013), Public Opinion Polls (in Chinese, 2013), and co-edited The 2008 Presidential Election: A Critical Election on Second Turnover (in Chinese, with Chi Huang and Ching-hsin Yu, 2009).
Authoritarian ruling parties are expected to resist democratization, often times at all costs. And yet some of the strongest authoritarian parties in the world have not resisted democratization, but have instead embraced it. This is because their raison d’etre is to continue ruling, though not necessarily to remain authoritarian. Put another way, democratization requires ruling parties hold free and fair elections, but not that they lose them. Authoritarian ruling parties can thus be incentivized to concede democratization from a position of exceptional strength. This alternative pathway to democracy is illustrated with Asian cases – notably Taiwan – in which ruling parties democratized from positions of considerable strength, and not weakness. The conceding-to-thrive argument has clear implications with respect to “candidate cases” in developmental Asia, where ruling parties have not yet conceded democratization despite being well-positioned to thrive were they to do so, such as the world’s most populous dictatorship, China.
Bio:
Joseph Wong is the Ralph and Roz Halbert Professor of Innovation at the Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto, and Professor of Political Science and Canada Research Chair in Democratization, Health and Development. Professor Wong was the Director of the Asian Institute at the Munk School from 2005 to 2014. In addition to academic articles and book chapters, Professor Wong has published four books: Healthy Democracies: Welfare Politics in Taiwan and South Korea (2004) and Betting on Biotech: Innovation and the Limits of Asia’s Developmental State (2011), both published by Cornell University Press, as well as Political Transitions in Dominant Party Systems: Learning to Lose, co-edited with Edward Friedman (Routledge, 2008), and Innovating for the Global South: Towards a New Innovation Agenda, co-edited with Dilip Soman and Janice Stein (University of Toronto Press, 2014). He is currently working on a book monograph with Dan Slater (University of Chicago) on Asia’s development and democracy, which is currently under contract with Princeton University Press. Professor Wong earned his Hons. B.A from McGill University (1995) and Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin-Madison (2001).
Philippines Conference Room, 3rd Floor, Encina Hall
616 Serra St., Stanford, CA
Joe Wong
Professor and Canada Research Chair in Political Science
University of Toronto
On December 2, CDDRL Research Associate Kharis Templeman and Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (APARC) Distinguished Fellow Thomas Fingar spoke about Taiwan’s recent local elections, which were a major defeat for the ruling Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and President Ma Ying-jeou. They were joined by Dennis Weng, a visiting assistant professor of political science at Wesleyan University, and Winnie Lin, a Stanford junior and research assistant for the Taiwan Democracy Project. The event was hosted by the Taiwan Democracy Project at Stanford’s Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law.
Templeman opened the roundtable by describing the “historic nature” of the November 29th elections. For the first time, all elected local officials in Taiwan from the mayor of Taipei down to rural village leaders - more than 11,000 positions in total - were chosen at the same time. In the highest-profile votes for mayors and county executives, the KMT suffered a drubbing. The ruling party's loss to an independent in Taipei was widely anticipated, but KMT candidates in central and southern Taiwan also were defeated badly in races that were expected to be competitive, and several more were upset in former party strongholds in northern counties and cities. The main beneficiary of the ruling party's troubles was the opposition Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which picked up seven local executive seats and made significant gains in local councils as well.
President Ma Ying-jeou attends a news conference in Taipei January 12, 2012.
According to Templeman, the election results were clearly tied to the ruling party’s poor image. President Ma, who until the election loss doubled as the KMT party chairman, had approval ratings in the teens for much of the past two years, and he struggled to win support for his policy initiatives even from members of his own party caucus in the legislature. The central government was also beset by a series of crises in recent months, including student-led protests against a trade agreement with China, a pipeline explosion in the southern city of Kaohsiung, and a wide-ranging food quality scandal. The resulting damage to the KMT party brand "nationalized" the elections and led to a consistent swing in support away from the party across races that normally turn on more local issues.
Weng took on the question of why pre-election polls were so dramatically wrong in several races. Election telephone polls in Taiwan are taken quite frequently and usually provide reliable forecasts of election outcomes, yet in this election they were sometimes off by 20 points or more. Weng highlighted the youth vote as a possible explanation: Voters under 40 were significantly more anti-KMT than other generations and might have turned out at a higher rate than expected. Because young voters are disproportionately likely to have cell phones and not land lines, telephone polls have a hard time capturing a representative sample of this subset of the electorate. In the past, these problems were muted, but they might have been large enough in this election to throw off the polls.
Lin, a Taiwanese citizen who returned to Taipei to vote, then gave the audience a first-hand account of the political currents in Taiwan during the days around the election. The high-profile Taipei mayor’s race stood out both for the fact that the KMT’s main opponent was an independent, Ko Wen-je, rather than an official nominee of the DPP, and for Ko’s unconventional campaign strategy. Ko produced no television ads and eschewed buying billboard ads or producing campaign flags, instead directing much of his campaign efforts to online outreach and playing up his "non-partisan" background. Lin emphasized the effectiveness of this social networking strategy in raising interest and support among her own friends and colleagues.
The panel concluded with a look at the impact the election results might have on cross-Strait relations. Fingar, a former State Department official and past chairman of the National Intelligence Council, suggested that authorities in Beijing were “disappointed, but not surprised” by the election results, which greatly strengthened the position of the pro-independence DPP. From past experience, Beijing has learned not to try to influence the outcome of elections in Taiwan, and despite its historical antipathy toward the DPP, it is prepared to deal with the party's representatives and even a potential DPP presidential administration in 2016 as "legitimate political actors" in cross-Strait relations. Chinese policy towards Taiwan is unlikely to be affected much in the short run by the KMT’s defeat, although Beijing might also interpret the result as a signal that Taiwanese voters have not yet gotten enough economic gains out of the cross-Strait relationship. More troubling from the Chinese leadership's perspective is that the vote was held at all: Taiwan's local polls reinforce that elections are "not ill-suited for all people who speak Chinese,” and the kinds of practical complaints about governance and corruption that contributed to the KMT’s defeat are also pervasive in mainland China.
Hero Image
Supporters wave flags after Taipei mayoral candidate Ko Wen-je won the local elections, in Taipei November 29, 2014.
Why do American political reform efforts so often fail to solve the problems they intend to fix? In this book, Bruce E. Cain argues that the reasons are an unrealistic civic ideal of a fully informed and engaged citizenry and a neglect of basic pluralist principles about political intermediaries. This book traces the tension between populist and pluralist approaches as it plays out in many seemingly distinct reform topics, such as voting administration, campaign finance, excessive partisanship, redistricting, and transparency and voter participation. It explains why political primaries have promoted partisan polarization, why voting rates are declining even as election opportunities increase, and why direct democracy is not really a grassroots tool. Cain offers a reform agenda that attempts to reconcile pluralist ideals with the realities of collective-action problems and resource disparities.
Author Bio
Bruce E. Cain is a Professor of Political Science at Stanford University and Director of the Bill Lane Center for the American West. He received a BA from Bowdoin College (1970), a B Phil. from Oxford University (1972) as a Rhodes Scholar, and a Ph D from Harvard University (1976). He taught at Caltech (1976-89) and UC Berkeley (1989-2012) before coming to Stanford. Professor Cain was Director of the Institute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley from 1990-2007 and Executive Director of the UC Washington Center from 2005-2012. He was elected the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2000 and has won awards for his research (Richard F. Fenno Prize, 1988), teaching (Caltech 1988 and UC Berkeley 2003) and public service (Zale Award for Outstanding Achievement in Policy Research and Public Service, 2000). His areas of expertise include political regulation, applied democratic theory, representation and state politics. Some of Professor Cain’s most recent publications include “Malleable Constitutions: Reflections on State Constitutional Design,” coauthored with Roger Noll in University of Texas Law Review, volume 2, 2009; “More or Less: Searching for Regulatory Balance,” in Race, Reform and the Political Process, edited by Heather Gerken, Guy Charles and Michael Kang, CUP, 2011; and “Redistricting Commissions: A Better Political Buffer?” in The Yale Law Journal, volume 121, 2012.
On November 29, 2014, Taiwan's electorate will go to the polls to select thousands of ward chiefs, hundreds of council members, and dozens of mayors and county executives. This special roundtable will bring together experts who will analyze the results of the election and discuss the ramifications for Taiwan's future, including cross-Strait relations. The speakers will give a broad overview of the elections, put the results in historical perspective, and discuss relevant public opinion data.
Speaker Bios
Thomas Fingar is the inaugural Oksenberg-Rohlen Distinguished Fellow in the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University. He was the Payne Distinguished Lecturer at Stanford during January to December 2009. From May 2005 through December 2008, he served as the first deputy director of national intelligence for analysis and, concurrently, as chairman of the National Intelligence Council. He served previously as assistant secretary of the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (2004–2005), principal deputy assistant secretary (2001–2003), deputy assistant secretary for analysis (1994–2000), director of the Office of Analysis for East Asia and the Pacific (1989–1994), and chief of the China Division (1986–1989). Between 1975 and 1986 he held a number of positions at Stanford University, including senior research associate in the Center for International Security and Arms Control. Professor Fingar's most recent book is Reducing Uncertainty: Intelligence Analysis and National Security (Stanford University Press, 2011).
Kharis Templeman is the Program Manager for CDDRL's Taiwan Democracy Program. He received his B.A. (2002) from the University of Rochester and his Ph.D. in political science (2012) from the University of Michigan. As a graduate student, he worked in Taipei at the Election Study Center, National Cheng Chi University, and later was a dissertation research fellow at the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy. His dissertation examined the development of Taiwan’s competitive party system from a comparative perspective, including a large study of the origins and decline of dominant party systems around the world over the last 60 years. Current research interests include democratization, party system development in newly-contested regimes, and political institutions, with a regional focus on the new and transitioning democracies of Pacific Asia.
Dennis Lu-Chung Weng is a Visiting Assistant Professor in the Department of Government at Wesleyan University. He received his doctorate in Political Science from the University of Texas at Dallas in 2014. Prior to joining Wesleyan University, he was a business consultant, journalist and new anchor, as well as an instructor in Political Science at UT-Dallas. Dr. Weng's research interests include comparative politics, international relations, and political methodology. Specifically, his research focuses on political behavior, international political economy, international security And Asian politics. His dissertation explored a set of thematically related research questions on political participation and democratic citizenship in Asia, East Asia in particular. Dr Weng has presented papers at national and international academic meetings and conferences, and his research has been published in a number of Asian news media outlets.
Winnie Lin is a junior at Stanford University. She is majoring in mathematics and pursues a minor in Art Practice. She works as a research assistant for the Taiwan Democracy Project, and will be voting in the 2014 Taipei municipal elections.
On Nov. 11, former Senator Olympia Snowe spoke at Stanford laying out a blueprint for breaking the partisan deadlock in Washington and restoring the U.S. Senate. The event was hosted by the American Democracy in Comparative Perspective Program at Stanford’s Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law, together with the Haas Center for Public Service and Stanford in Government.
Snowe was joined by Jason Grumet, president of the Bipartisan Research Center (BPC), a DC-based organization with an action-oriented approach of advocating for political reform. Snowe now co-chairs the BPC’s Commission on Political Reform, which recently released a report outlining 65 electoral, congressional and public service recommendations to bridge the partisan divide and transform civic life at a critical time in America’s history.
Snowe opened the panel by commenting on how her 18-year career in the U.S. Senate ended when she realized the institution would not change from within and get back to problem solving. She reflected back on the beginning of her political career when more senators – like her - would work across the aisle to craft bipartisan legislation, although today there are none who occupy this middle ground.
But for Snowe the recent midterm elections that ushered in a new Congress have provided a unique “window to change things both for the country and the Republican Party as well.”
Snowe was optimistic that the new Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is motivated to increase bipartisanship by bridging divides and restoring a robust amendment process to improve the legislation process. Similarly, the democrats will be more motivated to get things done as the 2016 presidential election approaches.
Grumet and Snowe also discussed some of the Congressional reforms presented by the Commission on Political Reform ranging from increasing the Congressional workweek to five days, to more transparent campaign finance reform and increasing voter participation.
One of the Commission’s proposals included having a single congressional primary day to increase awareness and enhance the participation and involvement of candidates and the races themselves.
According to Snowe, the average turnout for primary elections is just 18 to 20 percent, and a move towards a single day for primary elections could increase voter participation and result in different electoral results.
The event closed with Grument discussing the Committee’s efforts to increase public service by building incentives for talented graduates to get involved in government and serve their communities. With an audience full of students, he called on universities to think innovatively about how to institutionalize public service into the curriculum to attract students into careers in public service that help reform the system from the inside.
On Tuesday, November 11, the Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law’s (CDDRL) Program on American Democracy in Comparative Perspective, in partnership with the Haas Center for Public Service and Stanford in Government, will welcome former Senator Olympia Snowe and Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) President Jason Grumet for a special town hall meeting on American bipartisanship and the prospects for political reform.
On the heels of the mid-term elections that ushered in a new Republican dominated Congress, Snowe and Grumet will provide insight on how to ease the partisan gridlock in Washington.
Snowe, who serves as co-chair of the BPC, retired from her Senate seat in 2013 on account of overburdening partisanship. Representing the state of Maine, Snowe served as the first female in history to be elected in both houses of a state legislature and both houses of Congress.
As co-founder and president of the Bipartisanship Policy Center, Grumet is spearheading efforts to build bipartisan solutions to many of today’s hot button policy issues, including: immigration reform, health care and energy security.
Together, both Senator Snow and Grumet will tap their knowledge and experience to prescribe a blueprint for improved bipartisanship in America.
Launched in 2013, CDDRL’s Program on American Democracy in Comparative Perspective aims to examine what policy initiatives and institutional reforms have the greatest potential to address those features of American democracy that are most impairing its performance.
To find out more information on this event and to RSVP, please visit the event page.
To follow along by Twitter, the event will be live tweeted at #StanfordSnowe.
This event is free and open to the public.
Hero Image
Former Senator Olympia Snowe tours damaged areas of Maine with FEMA representatives shortly after the Patriot's Day storm. 20 April 2007.
In an interview with The New York Times, CDDRL Director Larry Diamond discusses the prospects for political reform in Hong Kong as protests continue into a second month with no resolution.
Hero Image
The scene in Hong Kong over the past week has gone from chaos to calm and back again, as tensions grow and pro-democracy throngs clash with pro-China demonstrators. 18 Oct. 2014.
President Ma Ying-jeou attends a news conference in Taipei January 12, 2012.
