Background

The need to reform the parliamentary election system has received unanimous approval across political parties. During the 2022 presidential election, all candidates pledged to change the parliamentary electoral reform. To change the current system, the 21st National Assembly, elected in 2020, formed the Special Committee for Electoral Reform (Special Committee). Last April, the Special Committee came up with three agendas to be discussed in a Whole House Committee Meeting (Whole House Meeting) where 100 legislators can speak at length. However, the Whole House Meeting could not arrive at an agreed conclusion. On the last day of the three-day-long Whole House Meeting, the Special Committee announced that it designated the consortium comprised of Hankook Research and Seoul National University’s Institute for Social Development as the organizers of the Deliberative Polling to gather informed public opinion.

About the Deliberative Poll

Hankook Research recruited a national stratified random sample of the country’s voters to deliberate on parts of two weekends. 469 participants completed the deliberations. The sample was stratified by region, gender, age, and opinions on the issue (measured in a separate survey).

The participants answered some key questions in time for the concluding broadcast and then followed by completing a more detailed questionnaire. The National Assembly has members selected both from single-member districts and by proportional representation. Support for changing the election rules rose from 77% to 84% with deliberation. Support for small single-member districts (rather than multi-member districts) rose from 43% to 56%. Support for raising the proportion of the members selected by Proportional Representation (PR) went from 27% to 70%, a surprising 43-point gain. These results were presented on the broadcast, and more details about the deliberations and the results will be released soon.

Learn More

A playlist of highlights from the broadcast can be viewed below:

For more information on this project, please contact Chun-Seok Kim or Jung-Seok Park of Hankook Research, or Professor James Fishkin of Stanford’s Deliberative Democracy Lab. 

The Firestone Medal for Excellence in Undergraduate Research recognizes Stanford's top ten percent of honors theses in social science, science, and engineering among the graduating senior class. Tara’s thesis is entitled Seeing Like a Citizen: Fragmented Citizenship in Santiago de Chile. In it, she investigates how socioeconomically vulnerable individuals in Santiago de Chile conceptualize and exercise their citizenship in the wake of the 2019 estallido social. Using qualitative analysis of 31 in-depth, semi-structured interviews, her study develops a grounded theory of “fragmented citizenship.” Fragmentation refers to the asymmetrical and often contradictory experiences of citizenship at the individual level in contexts where the state is highly visible but uneven in its provision of services, programs, and goods. Beyond the convergence of these structural conditions of the state — wide visibility and irregular presence — the study found that participants’ multidimensional ideals of citizenship exacerbate fragmentation by setting high expectations of state provision. Fragmentation, in turn, shapes citizens’ engagement with the state, with respondents more likely to exercise their citizenship in areas where they perceive the state to be functioning effectively. Conversely, participants described strategic disengagement from the state and their citizenship where they perceived it to be less fully and reliably realized, further contributing to fragmentation. Through a nuanced and timely ground-level analysis, Tara’s thesis builds upon prior research on how citizenship plays out in practice in Latin America to provide valuable insight into the crisis of democracy in Chile and beyond, examining the implications of high citizen expectations coupled with uneven state performance for democratic citizenship.

Sean’s thesis is entitled Letter of the Law: Comparing Indigenous Autonomy in Plurinational Colombia and Bolivia. In his thesis, Sean investigates the factors that enable rural Indigenous communities to defend themselves from incursions into their territory by the state, extractive corporations, and guerillas. He utilizes a case study approach, selecting two Indigenous communities each from Colombia and Bolivia, two of the countries with the most robust foundations for plurinational execution. His methodology uses deforestation levels as a proxy for the success of these defensive maneuvers, setting a baseline for the robustness of the country’s plurinational reforms. He then calls on research from anthropology, political science, and economics to understand the complex processes of politicization, power, and identity that surround the conflict in each case study. He finds that both the Colombian and Bolivian examples provide important insights into the strengths of plurinational legal systems but are vulnerable to political and economic threats. The resulting unpredictability allows only the Indigenous communities with high political unity and connections to national-level advocacy organizations to actively overcome the administrative hurdles put between them and autonomous recognition. In order to make plurinational autonomy more accessible to more Indigenous communities, plurinational constitutions require supportive legal scaffolding, robust state protections against corporate and illicit interests, and powerful Indigenous political organizations. This thesis contributes to existing literature by extending analysis beyond a single community, drawing comparisons between the Colombian and Bolivian cases to understand how future plurinational reforms can be implemented to protect autonomous Indigenous enclaves from outside threats.

Tara and Sean are part of a cohort of twelve graduating CDDRL honors students who have spent the past year working in consultation with CDDRL-affiliated faculty members and attending honors research workshops to develop their theses projects. Collectively, their topics documented some of the most pressing issues impacting democracy today in the US, Latin America, Malaysia, and Ukraine, among others.

“We are so proud of this year’s class of Fisher Family Honors program graduates,” shared Didi Kuo, Center Fellow at FSI and co-director of CDDRL’s Fisher Family Honors Program. “All of their theses investigated critical questions related to democracy, violence, and accountability. Tara and Sean’s research furthers our understanding of citizenship and governance in diverse societies, and we congratulate them and their peers on successfully undertaking original research this year.”

CDDRL's Fisher Family Honors Program trains students from any academic department at Stanford to prepare them to write a policy-relevant research thesis with global impact on a subject touching on democracy, development, and the rule of law. Honors students participate in research methods workshops, attend honors college in Washington, D.C., connect to the CDDRL research community, and write their thesis in close consultation with a faculty advisor to graduate with a certificate of honors in democracy, development, and the rule of law.
 

Explore the rest of the thesis topics of the Fisher Family Honors Program Class of 2023 below:

Gandhi reminisced about the ‘Unite India March,’ a democratic-inspired walk he led across the country that started with 125 people in September 2022 and ended with millions of people joining the 2,540-mile journey. And, although the ruling government had all the “force,” the instruments of control in society, the marchers were never stopped, he noted.

“This was a question that just kept rotating in my mind,” Gandhi said. “They have the force, but they don’t have power, and I realized that force and power are two completely different things. Most politicians confuse force and power, and they think they're the same thing. They’re completely different things. Power is an act of imagination, always in the present, and it is not linear. And power comes when you go close to the truth. That’s why we could not be stopped by force.”

He compared this to other moments of “power” in history, such as when President Kennedy said, ‘let’s go to the moon,’ or when Mahatma Gandhi stood up to the British Empire colonial powers in India, and when the American colonists created the Declaration of Independence to start separating from Britain.

Gandhi said acts of “force” did not drive these historical turning points; rather, they revealed the magnitude of the power of imagination that potentially exists among people to create a better, more just, and visionary world.

Such visioning needs to also inspire and transform the U.S.-India relationship, he believes.

“We already have a bridge between us, and it’s important that this bridge is not simply a bridge based on force, but that it is a bridge based on understanding of the realities of both our people,” said Gandhi, noting the software and technical skills of the Indian people in general match up extremely well with the leading-edge technology systems and markets in the U.S.

U.S. Relationship, Manufacturing, China

After his remarks, Gandhi engaged in an audience Q&A and conversation with Dinsha Mistree, an affiliated scholar with CDDRL. Gandhi elaborated that the political disconnect in India is attributable to a concentration of wealth, inequality throughout society, the current political system, and technology that’s outpacing the ability of social systems and people to digest and manage all the connectivity.

“With social media and technology, there’s a bit of a lag between the political system and technological progress, and I think democracies are struggling with that. I think evolution in the systems is going to take some time, but it’ll happen,” he said.

On economics, Gandhi said that while China’s Belt and Road Initiative, a massive infrastructure project that aims to stretch around the globe and seems to promote prosperity, it’s ultimately a non-democratic and authoritarian vision of the world. More visioning needs to be done by leading democratic countries on what prosperity entails for societies that may not be as wealthy as others.

“What’s the counter vision? So that’s where I see the gap. Of course, there is military cooperation (with the U.S.). That’s important. But it can’t just be military cooperation,” he said.

As for China, their top-down manufacturing policies are a challenge for democratic countries like India. Gandhi recommends that India follows a more decentralized manufacturing process.

“You cannot simply ignore the manufacturing might of China. You have to compete with. I don’t think it’s an option. So, what does that competition look like? I’m not talking about conflict, I’m talking about competition. How do we create an alternative vision?” he said, adding that it was a “fatal mistake” for the U.S. to parcel out its manufacturing in recent decades to China.

In response to an audience question on India’s position of formal neutrality in the Ukraine-Russia war, Gandhi said, “We have a relationship with Russia, and we have certain dependencies on Russia. So, I would have a very similar stance as the government of India. I mean, it might not be popular, but it is what it is. At the end of the day, we have to also look out for our interests.”

Democracy and Political Opposition

Mistree shared in an email prior to the event that Gandhi believes that India and the U.S. could work together in better ways on trade and economics.

For example, Gandhi’s view is that India could become a manufacturing powerhouse, which is a departure from the current ruling party’s position, while the U.S. continues to innovate and turns to India for more of its manufacturing needs, Mistree said.

“There’s a lot of space for these two countries to work much more closely together,” he said, adding that the Indian diaspora in America represents the second largest immigrant group in the country right now, and both countries share common security challenges in Asia.

Larry Diamond, Mosbacher Senior Fellow in Global Democracy at FSI, noted that Gandhi is the leader of the most important opposition party in India.

“You can’t have a democracy unless you have a political opposition that is free to criticize the ruling party, and contest for power. He has also been questioning directly the concentration and abuse of power by the current government,” Diamond wrote in an email prior to Gandhi’s talk.

Diamond added that U.S. and India have important, economic and strategic interests that should move forward in partnership based on their own logic.

“We need to hear and take seriously the concerns of political opposition and civil society in India, and we need to make clear to the Indian government that violations of basic democratic standards present obstacles to the deepening of U.S.-Indian ties,” Diamond said.

Gandhi was on a six-day visit to the United States to interact with the Indian diaspora and express his party’s commitment to democratic values in India and across the world.

He said, “There are difficult times, but there are also times of opportunity. I think there are times when acts of imagination and acts of true power will resonate and can transform the way we think of ourselves.”

The newly-founded Stanford Democracy Initiative, which brings together scholars and community stakeholders to examine Stanford’s role in the promotion of democratic norms nationally and globally, has compiled and released a list of courses, projects and activities at Stanford that the initiative claims advance democracy.

Read the full article in The Stanford Daily.