Abstract:

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). 

Is communication technology conducive to collective violence? Recent studies have provided conflicting answers to the same question. While some see the introduction of cellular communication as a contributing factor to civil conflict in Africa (Pierskalla and Hollenbach APSR 2013), others ascribe an opposite effect to mobile communications in Iraq (Shapiro and Weidmann IO forthcoming). During the talk, I will further explore the logic behind "Why the revolution will not be tweeted", and argue that the answer lies in contagion processes of collective action at the periphery, not the hierarchical schemes of central coordination as was argued before. To provide evidence, I will draw on historical accounts of social revolutions, a GIS study of the Syrian Civil War, a convenience survey sample from the 2011 Egyptian Revolution, as well as network experiments of collective risk-taking in a controlled setting.

Speaker Bio

Navid Hassanpour

Navid Hassanpour (Ph.D.s in Political Science from Yale'14, and Electrical Engineering from Stanford'06) studies political contestation, in its contentious and electoral forms. Following an inquiry into collective and relational dimensions of contentious politics, currently he is working on a project that examines the history, emergence, and the dynamics of representative democracy outside the Western World. This year he is a Niehaus postdoctoral fellow at Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School of public and International Affairs. His work has appeared in Political Communication as well as IEEE Transactions on Information Theory. His book project, Leading from the Periphery, is under consideration at Cambridge University Press' Structural Analysis in the Social Sciences Series.

This event is part of the Liberation Technology Seminar Series. 

Three years ago, world leaders from 8 countries came together to launch the Open Government Partnership (OGP) - a multi-stakeholder initiative that brings together domestic reformers committed to making their governments more open, accountable and responsive to citizens. Since then, the partnership has rapidly grown from 8 to 65 countries. In this talk, Linda Frey speaks about OGP's new approach to multilateralism, and how the uniqueness of its model is helping to spur progress on concrete open government reforms in a diverse group of countries.  Frey will draw on the findings of OGP's Independent Reporting Mechanism to speak to early successes, as well as implementation challenges and areas for further study.  

Speaker Bio

Image

Munyema Hasan

Program Officer
Open Government Partnership, Support Unit

Munyema joined the OGP Support Unit in January 2014 as Program Officer. She has spent the past four years working in the field of transparent and accountable governance, with organizations like the World Bank, International Budget Partnership, Stanford University and the Affiliated Network for Social Accountability. Munyema holds a M.Sc. in Development Studies from the London School of Economics and a B.A. in Economics and Political Science from the American University in Cairo, Egypt and the University of California, Berkeley.

This event is part of the Liberation Technology Seminar Series. 

ABSTRACT

While a growing number of women are becoming cabinet ministers in African governments, there is considerable cross-national variation in the extent to which women exercise influence across policy domains. We argue that this variation is the result of enduring cross-national differences in women’s economic rights. Where women are legally subject to male authority in accessing economic resources, they are less able to build the political capital needed to negotiate over leadership positions in largely clientelistic political systems. Using an original dataset on the allocation of ministerial portfolios in 34 African countries, we show that women ministers have less diversified policy portfolios and are less likely to be appointed to high prestige portfolios where women have unequal marriage property rights or are unable to serve as head of household. Our results are robust to controlling for relevant factors such as female labor force participation, legislative quotas, and customary law.

SPEAKER BIO

Image

ABSTRACT

When defined in terms of social identity and evaluations of in and out groups, the polarization of the American electorate has clearly increased. We elaborate on the question of affective polarization by developing and validating a measure of implicit or subconscious partisan affect. Using this measure, we demonstrate not only that hostility for the out party is ingrained or automatic in voters’ psyches, but also that partisan affect exceeds affect based on race and other social cleavages. After documenting the extent of affective party polarization, we demonstrate that party cues exert powerful effects on non-political judgments and behaviors. Partisans discriminate against out partisans, and do so to a degree that exceeds discrimination based on race. In concluding, we note that heightened partisan affect and the intrusion of partisan bias into non-political domains means that partisan affiliation in America now approximates the model of the “mass membership” party.

SPEAKER BIO

Image

[[{"fid":"217340","view_mode":"crop_870xauto","fields":{"format":"crop_870xauto","field_file_image_description[und][0][value]":"Iyengar Flyer","field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]":"","field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]":"","field_credit[und][0][value]":"","field_caption[und][0][value]":"Iyengar Flyer","field_related_image_aspect[und][0][value]":"","thumbnails":"crop_870xauto","pp_lightbox":false,"pp_description":false},"type":"media","attributes":{"height":"910","width":"870","class":"media-element file-crop-870xauto"}}]]

Abstract

Civil society is under siege in many parts of the world.  Governments have arrested human rights activists, closed humanitarian NGOs, and banned peaceful protests. Simply stated, governments are criminalizing dissent and confining civic space.  Join Doug Rutzen for a discussion of the global backlash against civil society and ongoing efforts to protect the freedoms of association and assembly around the world.

Speaker Bio

Douglas Rutzen

Doug Rutzen is President and CEO of the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law, which has worked on the legal framework for civil society in 100 countries.  Doug also teaches “global revolutions, social change, and NGOs” at Georgetown law school.  On the margins of the 2013 UN General Assembly, Doug joined President Obama on a panel discussing civil society.  Under Doug’s leadership, ICNL received a MacArthur Award for Creative and Effective Institutions, the organizational analogue to MacArthur's "genius award" for individuals.  Earlier this year, the Nonprofit Times named Doug as one of the most influential nonprofit leaders in the United States.

[[{"fid":"217338","view_mode":"crop_870xauto","fields":{"format":"crop_870xauto","field_file_image_description[und][0][value]":"PHR Rutzen Flyer","field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]":"","field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]":"","field_credit[und][0][value]":"","field_caption[und][0][value]":"PHR Rutzen Flyer","field_related_image_aspect[und][0][value]":"","thumbnails":"crop_870xauto","pp_lightbox":false,"pp_description":false},"type":"media","attributes":{"height":960,"width":870,"class":"media-element file-crop-870xauto"}}]]

ABSTRACT

Humanitarian aid for the victims of conflict may seem like a simple moral imperative – we should do whatever we can to help. But our good intentions can have unanticipated and unintended consequences. In order to understand the impact of humanitarian aid, we have to examine the context in which each operation takes place and the constraints which limit what can be achieved.

The seminar will look at the legal, financial, organisational, cultural and political context and constraints within which humanitarian aid is provided. It will suggest that states and international organisations are “blind” to ways in which aid could be delivered more effectively.

Finally, the seminar will explore what might be achieved at the World Humanitarian Summit in 2016.

SPEAKER BIO

Image