Democracy
-

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). 

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
Seminars
News Type
Q&As
Date
Paragraphs

For 14 years, Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar has been a tireless Stanford professor who has strengthened the fabric of university’s interdisciplinary nature. Joining the faculty at Stanford Law School in 2001, Cuéllar soon found a second home for himself at the Freeman Spogli for International Studies. He held various leadership roles throughout the institute for several years – including serving as co-director of the Center for International Security and Cooperation. He took the helm of FSI as the institute’s director in 2013, and oversaw a tremendous expansion of faculty, research activity and student engagement. 

An expert in administrative law, criminal law, international law, and executive power and legislation, Cuéllar is now taking on a new role. He leaves Stanford this month to serve as justice of the California Supreme Court and will be succeeded at FSI by Michael McFaul on Jan. 5.

 As the academic quarter comes to a close, Cuéllar took some time to discuss his achievements at FSI and the institute’s role on campus. And his 2014 Annual Letter and Report can be read here.

You’ve had an active 20 months as FSI’s director. But what do you feel are your major accomplishments? 

We started with a superb faculty and made it even stronger. We hired six new faculty members in areas ranging from health and drug policy to nuclear security to governance. We also strengthened our capacity to generate rigorous research on key global issues, including nuclear security, global poverty, cybersecurity, and health policy. Second, we developed our focus on teaching and education. Our new International Policy Implementation Lab brings faculty and students together to work on applied projects, like reducing air pollution in Bangladesh, and improving opportunities for rural schoolchildren in China.  We renewed FSI's focus on the Ford Dorsey Program in International Policy Studies, adding faculty and fellowships, and launched a new Stanford Global Student Fellows program to give Stanford students global experiences through research opportunities.   Third, we bolstered FSI's core infrastructure to support research and education, by improving the Institute's financial position and moving forward with plans to enhance the Encina complex that houses FSI.

Finally, we forged strong partnerships with critical allies across campus. The Graduate School of Business is our partner on a campus-wide Global Development and Poverty Initiative supporting new research to mitigate global poverty.  We've also worked with the Law School and the School of Engineering to help launch the new Stanford Cyber Initiative with $15 million in funding from the Hewlett Foundation. We are engaging more faculty with new health policy working groups launched with the School of Medicine and an international and comparative education venture with the Graduate School of Education. 

Those partnerships speak very strongly to the interdisciplinary nature of Stanford and FSI. How do these relationships reflect FSI's goals?

The genius of Stanford has been its investment in interdisciplinary institutions. FSI is one of the largest. We should be judged not only by what we do within our four walls, but by what activity we catalyze and support across campus. With the business school, we've launched the initiative to support research on global poverty across the university. This is a part of the SEED initiative of the business school and it is very complementary to our priorities on researching and understanding global poverty and how to alleviate. It's brought together researchers from the business school, from FSI, from the medical school, and from the economics department.  

Another example would be our health policy working groups with the School of Medicine. Here, we're leveraging FSI’s Center for Health Policy, which is a great joint venture and allows us to convene people who are interested in the implementation of healthcare reforms and compare the perspective and on why lifesaving interventions are not implemented in developing countries and how we can better manage biosecurity risks. These working groups are a forum for people to understand each other's research agendas, to collaborate on seeking funding and to engage students. 

I could tell a similar story about our Mexico Initiative.  We organize these groups so that they cut across generations of scholars so that they engage people who are experienced researchers but also new fellows, who are developing their own agenda for their careers. Sometimes it takes resources, sometimes it takes the engagement of people, but often what we've found at FSI is that by working together with some of our partners across the university, we have a more lasting impact.

Looking at a growing spectrum of global challenges, where would you like to see FSI increase its attention? 

FSI's faculty, students, staff, and space represent a unique resource to engage Stanford in taking on challenges like global hunger, infectious disease, forced migration, and weak institutions.  The  key breakthrough for FSI has been growing from its roots in international relations, geopolitics, and security to focusing on shared global challenges, of which four are at the core of our work: security, governance, international development, and  health. 

These issues cross borders. They are not the concern of any one country. 

Geopolitics remain important to the institute, and some critical and important work is going on at the Center for International Security and Cooperation to help us manage the threat of nuclear proliferation, for example. But even nuclear proliferation is an example of how the transnational issues cut across the international divide. Norms about law, the capacity of transnational criminal networks, smuggling rings, the use of information technology, cybersecurity threats – all of these factors can affect even a traditional geopolitical issue like nuclear proliferation. 

So I can see a research and education agenda focused on evolving transnational pressures that will affect humanity in years to come. How a child fares when she is growing up in Africa will depend at least as much on these shared global challenges involving hunger and poverty, health, security, the role of information technology and humanity as they will on traditional relations between governments, for instance. 

What are some concrete achievements that demonstrate how FSI has helped create an environment for policy decisions to be better understood and implemented?

We forged a productive collaboration with the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees through a project on refugee settlements that convened architects, Stanford researchers, students and experienced humanitarian responders to improve the design of settlements that house refugees and are supposed to meet their human needs. That is now an ongoing effort at the UN Refugee Agency, which has also benefited from collaboration with us on data visualization and internship for Stanford students. 

Our faculty and fellows continue the Institute's longstanding research to improve security and educate policymakers. We sometimes play a role in Track II diplomacy on sensitive issues involving global security – including in South Asia and Northeast Asia.  Together with Hoover, We convened a first-ever cyber bootcamp to help legislative staff understand the Internet and its vulnerabilities. We have researchers who are in regular contact with policymakers working on understanding how governance failures can affect the world's ability to meet pressing health challenges, including infectious diseases, such as Ebola.

On issues of economic policy and development, our faculty convened a summit of Japanese prefectural officials work with the private sector to understand strategies to develop the Japanese economy.  

And we continued educating the next generation of leaders on global issues through the Draper Hills summer fellows program and our honors programs in security and in democracy and the rule of law. 

How do you see FSI’s role as one of Stanford’s independent laboratories?

It's important to recognize that FSI's growth comes at particularly interesting time in the history of higher education – where universities are under pressure, where the question of how best to advance human knowledge is a very hotly debated question, where universities are diverging from each other in some ways and where we all have to ask ourselves how best to be faithful to our mission but to innovate. And in that respect, FSI is a laboratory. It is an experimental venture that can help us to understand how a university like Stanford can organize itself to advance the mission of many units, that's the partnership point, but to do so in a somewhat different way with a deep engagement to practicality and to the current challenges facing the world without abandoning a similarly deep commitment to theory, empirical investigation, and rigorous scholarship.

What have you learned from your time at Stanford and as director of FSI that will inform and influence how you approach your role on the state’s highest court?

Universities play an essential role in human wellbeing because they help us advance knowledge and prepare leaders for a difficult world. To do this, universities need to be islands of integrity, they need to be engaged enough with the outside world to understand it but removed enough from it to keep to the special rules that are necessary to advance the university's mission. 

Some of these challenges are also reflected in the role of courts. They also need to be islands of integrity in a tumultuous world, and they require fidelity to high standards to protect the rights of the public and to implement laws fairly and equally.  

This takes constant vigilance, commitment to principle, and a practical understanding of how the world works. It takes a combination of humility and determination. It requires listening carefully, it requires being decisive and it requires understanding that when it's part of a journey that allows for discovery but also requires deep understanding of the past.

Hero Image
tino mug
All News button
1
Shorenstein APARCStanford UniversityEncina Hall, Room E301Stanford,  CA  94305-6055
0
Visiting Scholar
risa_toha_logo.jpg PhD

Risa J. Toha is a Visiting Scholar at the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (Shorenstein APARC). She is a Fellow at the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation at the Harvard Kennedy School, and starting from Fall 2014, she will be a Visiting Professor at Wheaton College, IL. 

Her research encompasses questions about democracy, development, ethnicity, and violence, with an area focus on Southeast Asia. At Shorenstein APARC, she will complete a few manuscripts on democratic transition, political inclusion, and riots in Indonesia, as well as participate actively in various interdisciplinary forums at the Center. 

Toha holds a Ph.D. and an MA in Political Science from the University of California, Los Angeles, and an AB in the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs from Princeton University.

-
South Korea ranks second globally in smart phone ownership, and among larger countries its Internet penetration rate ties Germany for second place. It is thus not surprising that social networking services (SNS) have been playing an ever-increasing role in South Korean life, including electoral politics. The hope was that SNS would enable citizens to make more informed choices about the candidates and thereby strengthen democracy and governance, but the most recent presidential election campaign witnessed an unprecedented proliferation of rumors and slander against all the candidates due in significant measure to the rise SNS. Meanwhile, traditional media outlets have not done a good job of inspecting candidates on behalf of the electorate. Mr. Sungchul Hong, a visiting scholar in the Stanford Korean Studies Program and a senior journalist with Korea Broadcasting System (KBS), will examine these developments and their implications for Korean democracy, and offer recommendations for improving the media’s performance in the responsible vetting of candidates.
 

Philippines Conference Room

Shorenstein APARC
Stanford University
Encina Hall E301
Stanford, CA 94305-6055

(650) 736-0691 (650) 723-6530
0
2013-2014 Visiting Scholar
HONG_Sungchul_1_3x4.jpg

Sungchul Hong is a visting scholar in Korean studies for the 2013-14 academic year. As vice-chief news correspondent at the Korea Broadcasting System, Mr. Hong has widely covered political and social affairs in both national and international sections.

He holds a BA in sociology from Yonsei University.

Sungchul Hong Visiting Scholar in Korean Studies, APARC Speaker
Seminars
-
South Korean voters have chosen six presidents since the country’s democratization in 1987. Unlike the United States, where newly elected presidents pass signature legislation thanks to a "honeymoon" with Congress, new South Korean presidents immediately face parliamentary obstructionism. Korea’s current president, Park Geun-hye, who recently completed her first year in office, has not been an exception. During the past year, the ruling and opposition parties did not even engage in genuine dialogue, much less reach substantial compromises in the National Assembly. The damage to national governance is all the more serious as Korean presidents may serve only a single, five-year term. 
 
What explains this first year "jinx" for Korean presidents? While the causes include deficiencies in governmental and political institutions, 2013-2014 APARC Fellow Guem-nak Choe argues that a primary factor is the role played by Korean journalism. Himself a former senior journalist and the top public relations aide to the previous Korean president, Mr. Choe will compare Korean and American journalism and offer recommendations for Korean media reform.

Philippines Conference Room

Shorenstein APARC
Stanford University
Encina Hall C332
Stanford, CA 94305-6055

(650) 725-0938 (650) 723-6530
0
2013-2014 APARC Fellow
CHOE,_Guem-Nak_1_3x4.jpg

Gordon Guem-nak Choe joins the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center as an APARC Fellow for the 2013-14 academic year. He will be involved with our Korean Studies Program. 

His research encompasses the relationship between media and politics. During his time at Shorenstein APARC, Gordon will work on a comparative study on communication skills between presidents of Korea and the United States.

Choe has over 25 years of experience as a journalist, reporting with Korea’s major broadcasting stations including MBC (Munhwa Broadcasting Company) and SBS (Seoul Broadcasting System). He was SBS's chief correspondent to Washington, DC during the Clinton admistration. He also worked as editor-in-chief and vice president for news and sports at SBS. Later he joined the public sector as Senior Secretary for Public Relations to then-South Korean President Lee Myung-bak. Choe holds a BA in economics from the Seoul National University.

Guem-Nak Choe 2013-2014 APARC Fellow Speaker the Shorentein Asia-Pacific Research Center, Stanford University
Seminars
-

Over the past 23 years, Mongolia’s democracy has advanced on many fronts. The initial transition to democracy was peaceful in both economic and political areas. Since embracing democracy in 1990, democratic development in Mongolia has been coupled with rapid economic growth, sustained by a neo-liberal economic policy. Regionally, Mongolia is often seen as a successful case of democratic transition and development. However, in recent years, the fragilities in Mongolian democracy have revealed themselves, especially domestically, in the booming economic climate that is unparalleled in the country's history.

Mongolia, located in north East Asia, locked between China and Russia, has a unique geopolitical situation, unlike any other country in the world. With these two large, powerful and politically changing neighbors, Mongolia pays constant and careful attention to maintaining diplomatic balance. Russia's historical, political, and cultural influence on Mongolia's 20th century cannot be underestimated. China, in complicated and important areas, represents vast economic opportunities. These economic opportunities, and the development that they drive, are viewed with increased suspicion domestically and regionally. However, Mongolia’s rapid economic development and democratic reforms may create additional opportunities and positive political developments in the region.

Philippines Conference Room

Zandanshatar Gombojav Visting Scholar 2014, Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law Speaker Stanford University
Seminars
Date Label
Paragraphs

Southeast Asia Program director Donald K. Emmerson's essay by the above title appears in the just-published volume, Producing Indonesia: The State of the Field of Indonesian Studies, ed. Eric Tagliacozzo, available for purchase at the Cornell University Press.

The book's authors, to quote the publisher, reflect on "the development of Indonesian studies over recent tumultuous decades...Not everyone sees the development of Indonesian studies in the same way. Yet one senses—and this collection confirms—that disagreements among its practitioners have fostered a vibrant, resilient intellectual community."

The disagreements featured in Emmerson's chapter, to quote him, "arose over how to interpret two consequential changes of regime in Indonesia," namely, "the demise of liberal democracy and the rise of President Sukarno's leftward 'Guided Democracy' in 1959, and the latter's replacement by General Suharto's anti-leftist 'New Order' starting in 1965." At stake in these controversies were facts, minds, and formats: "perspectival commitments developed inside the minds, disciplines, and careers of professional analysts of Indonesia."

At the center of his essay lies a consequential question of choice: whether to maintain or to change one's argument in the face of evidence against it. The issue is framed at the outset of the essay by two contrasting quotations:  

“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

                                      -- John Maynard Keynes on the Great Depression

"I didn't change. The world changed."

                                      -- Dick Cheney on 9/11

About the Essay

The 26 scholars contributing to this volume, Producing Indonesia: The State of the Field of Indonesian Studies, ed. Eric Tagliacozzo, have helped shape the field of Indonesian studies over the last three decades. They represent a broad geographic background—Indonesia, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Australia, the United States, Canada—and have studied in a wide array of key disciplines—anthropology, history, linguistics and literature, government and politics, art history, and ethnomusicology. Together they reflect on the “arc of our field,” the development of Indonesian studies over recent tumultuous decades. They consider what has been achieved and what still needs to be accomplished as they interpret the groundbreaking works of their predecessors and colleagues.

This volume is the product of a lively conference sponsored by Cornell University, with contributions revised following those interactions. Not everyone sees the development of Indonesian studies in the same way. Yet one senses—and this collection confirms—that disagreements among its practitioners have fostered a vibrant, resilient intellectual community. Contributors discuss photography and the creation of identity, the power of ethnic pop music, cross-border influences on Indonesian contemporary art, violence in the margins, and the shadows inherent in Indonesian literature. These various perspectives illuminate a diverse nation in flux and provide direction for its future exploration.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Books
Journal Publisher
Cornell University Press
Authors
Donald K. Emmerson
Subscribe to Democracy