Turmoil in South Korea After Brief Martial Law: Stanford’s Gi-Wook Shin Weighs In
News Type
Commentary
Date
Paragraphs
Story last updated December 15, 2024
On December 3, 2024, South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol abruptly declared martial law in a dramatic response to the political deadlock that has stymied his tenure, only to rescind the decision six hours later, sparking widespread protests and plunging the nation — one of the United States’ closest allies — into turmoil.
What were Yoon’s motivations? What happens now? What are the implications of the dramatic events for South Korea’s democracy?
Stanford sociologist Gi-Wook Shin, the William J. Perry Professor of Contemporary Korea and the director of APARC and its Korea Program, has written extensively about South Korea’s democratic decay and is the co-editor of the volume "South Korea’s Democracy in Crisis: The Threats of Illiberalism, Populism, and Polarization" (Shorenstein APARC, 2022). This news roundup highlights Shin's commentary on Korea's political turmoil, published in national and international media. We update it as this developing story unfolds.
Sign up for APARC newsletters to receive our scholars' commentary and analysis >
Elected in 2022 by a razor-thin margin of less than one percentage point over his left-wing rival, Yoon entered office as a political outsider with an unyielding approach to leadership. “He may have been a successful prosecutor, but he entered politics without much preparation,” Shin told the Financial Times. “He is completely out of touch if he thought he could run the country through martial law.”
Yoon came into power in a toxic political environment, where democratic norms have become increasingly rare. Korean politics, shaped by a winner-take-all electoral system and a dominant presidency, has further heightened the tensions between the executive and legislative branches, writes Shin in a Stanford University Press blog post, explaining the historical and sociopolitical contexts of Yoon’s martial law declaration and its aftermath.
Yoon has been a “lame duck” president since the opposition Democratic Party (DP) secured a landslide victory in the April 2024 National Assembly elections. His audacious martial law declaration was “a surprising last-ditch move to grab political power" in the face of steadily falling approval ratings, Shin told AFP and Vox. But this move “is basically political suicide” that “will only fasten the demise of his political career," Shin added.
On the morning following his short-lived martial law bid, members of the DP submitted a motion to impeach Yoon. “He really has two options: resign or face impeachment,” Shin said in an interview with BBC Newsday. Yoon has lost the public trust, legitimacy, and even his mandate to rule the country. “He should resign, it's better for him and the country, but I doubt that he will,” noted Shin, predicting a political ruckus over impeachment during the coming days and weeks. Watch the complete interview below:
Image
Should Korean citizens be worried about the future of their democracy? Yes and no, explained Shin in an interview on NPR’s "All Things Considered." In the short term, there will likely be significant political instability and societal uncertainty, with potential economic repercussions, he said. In the long run, however, Shin believes that Korea’s strong democratic institutions will ensure its democracy will prevail. He emphasized that he remains optimistic and encouraged by how swiftly and decisively the martial law attempt failed. Listen to the conversation:
Martial law was last imposed in South Korea in 1980 by Chun Doon Whan, a general who seized power through a coup after the 1979 assassination of President Park Chung Hee — himself a former general who had also used martial law to crack down on student-led dissent during his rule. Chun brutally suppressed civilian protests in the city of Kwangju in May 1980. Many Korean people, including Shin, who was a student at the time, still hold painful memories of this violent episode in Korean history. Shin reflected on that period in an interview on WBUR’s OnPoint program (listen starting 35:24).
But the situation today is very different from when South Korea was fighting against dictatorship, Shin told The Washington Post. “Democracy was not given to the Korean people. It was hard fought and won,” he said. “I believe Korean democracy will come out stronger after this.”
This week’s turn of events has highlighted “both the vulnerabilities and resilience of South Korean democracy”, Shin told the Financial Times. It has exposed challenges and problems including polarization, potential executive overreach, and weakened public trust, "but the swift rejection of martial law by the National Assembly and public outcry demonstrated strong institutional checks, civic engagement, and the opportunity to reinforce democratic safeguards.”
Yoon justified the imposition of martial law as a measure to protect South Korea from the threats of North Korea's communist threat and prevent gridlock by “anti-state” forces, referring to the DP, his liberal opposition.
“I am sure North Korea will be watching the situation very closely and may issue a statement condemning the martial law [...] Other than that, I don't think they will take any immediate action,” Shin told Newsweek in the hours before Yoon reversed course, predicting that Yoon’s ploy would be short-lived as it would face fierce national resistance.
The United States, which has around 28,500 troops stationed in South Korea, was unaware of Yoon's intention to declare martial law. The White House voiced relief over Yoon’s decision to rescind his martial law bid, emphasizing that the United States reaffirms its “support for the people of Korea and the U.S.-ROK alliance based on shared principles of democracy and the rule of law.” Shin believes the alliance is resilient enough to weather Korea’s political turmoil. "I don't think the situation will affect the alliance that much," he remarked on NPR’s "All Things Considered."
This episode is also a stern warning to the world: People should take democratic backsliding in their countries seriously. If such an event can happen in Korea [...] then it can happen anywhere that is experiencing similar democratic challenges.
Gi-Wook Shin, Journal of Democracy
A Tumultuous Road Ahead — And Lessons for Democracies Worldwide
What's next for South Korea after the martial law crisis? If Yoon does not resign, then the main opposition party will pursue impeachment. The National Assembly must vote on the motion within 72 hours after it is introduced, and the Constitutional Court has 180 days to make a ruling. A snap election would follow if impeachment is upheld, explains Shin.
The conservative People Power Party (PPP) will need to evaluate carefully the political landscape and their election prospects, and might not necessarily abandon President Yoon. “There is a difference between voting to stop martial law and voting in favor of an impeachment that would likely guarantee an opposition victory in the snap election to follow,” Shin told TIME Magazine.
While PPP leader Han Dong-hoon, once Yoon's protégé, has urged the president to resign, citing “significant risks” to the nation, impeachment poses a tough choice for the ruling party, which remains haunted by the 2017 impeachment of Park Geun Hye, Shin explains in the Journal of Democracy. Conservative leaders lost the snap election following Park's removal and faced intense political retribution under her liberal successor, Moon Jae In. History could repeat itself now, although DP opposition leader Lee Jae Myung is facing trial on multiple criminal charges. "This alternative to Yoon does not appear as promising for Korean democracy as one would hope," Shin notes.
Yoon's doomed power grab is "a stern warning to the world: People should take democratic backsliding in their countries seriously," Shin concludes his Journal of Democracy essay. "If such an event can happen in Korea — an advanced nation long regarded as an exemplary case of the 'third wave' of democratization — then it can happen anywhere that is experiencing similar democratic challenges. This is a critical lesson for democracies worldwide."
As Shin expected, President Yoon avoided impeachment on Saturday, December 7, after PPP lawmakers boycotted a parliamentary vote on the impeachment motion proposed by opposition parties, despite massive public protests outside the National Assembly.
The PPP defended its decision, stating it acted to prevent "severe division and chaos" and pledged to address the crisis "responsibly." PPP leader Han Dong-hoon claimed Yoon had agreed to step down and would be "effectively excluded from his duties," with the prime minister and party taking over governance in the interim.
“I don't think Korean people have the patience to wait for this plan to work out,” said Shin in a BBC News interview. He explained that the ruling PPP is trying to buy time, but Yoon will have to go sooner or later. The opposition parties have declared their intent to file an impeachment motion against Yoon every week until it is passed. With growing public anger and mounting demonstrations, pressure on the ruling party is expected to intensify, Shin said. Watch:
Image
As Yoon clung to power, the National Assembly passed a bill on December 10 mandating a special counsel to investigate insurrection charges against him. The ruling party "might delay the demise of Yoon's tenure but won't prevent it — its road will be messier," Shin told AFP.
Shin is concerned that this crisis in political leadership and the resulting leadership vacuum spell trouble for South Korea on the world stage. The nation already faces mounting foreign policy challenges with President-elect Trump’s anticipated policies and a new prime minister in Japan. It’s unclear how it can effectively navigate critical issues involving the United States, Japan, North Korea, and China amidst such instability, Shin told BBC News.
While preparing for a new political leadership, Koreans can reflect on their conflict-ridden journey to democracy and turn this crisis into an opportunity for political reforms.
Gi-Wook Shin, Stanford University Press Blog
Winds of Change
On December 14, South Korea's National Assembly voted to impeach Yoon, passing the motion 204-85 (including a dozen ruling party members) as jubilant crowds celebrated a triumph for the country’s democracy. Yoon's presidential duties were suspended, and Prime Minister Han Duck-soo will take over as acting president. The Constitutional Court now has 180 days to decide whether to remove Yoon from office or reinstate him. If he is removed, a national election to select his successor must be held within 60 days.
Shin believes the likelihood the Constitutional Court will overturn the impeachment is low, as Yoon’s constitutional violations appear quite clear. “Certainly, Yoon will go down in Korean history as a very poor political leader,” he remarked in the latest interview with BBC News, several hours after the impeachment vote.
The day after the passage of the impeachment bill, Han Dong-hoon announced his resignation as leader of the ruling People Power party, saying his position had become untenable after he backed Yoon’s impeachment. The PPP is in turmoil, attempting to buy time to be better prepared for the potential snap election that could follow than it was in the 2017 scenario, Shin explained, expressing skepticism about the PPP’s chances of success. Watch the interview:
Image
The crisis offers Korean people an opportunity to reflect on their tumultuous democratic journey and push for necessary reforms stymied by political calculations, Shin writes on Stanford University Press’ blog. He explains that addressing the negative consequences of the nation’s extremely powerful presidency and the winner-take-all voting system requires constitutional and electoral reforms.
“Korea’s political culture must also change,” Shin emphasizes. “Demonizing opponents, divisive identity politics, and insular political fandoms and populism have no place in a healthy democracy.”
Additional Media Commentary
- The Economist
- Politiken (Danish)
- Il Messaggero (Italian)
- Caixin Weekly (Chinese)
- Voice of America (Korean)
- Korean Media
- Fortune Korea
- The Value News (in Korean)
- Edaily News (here and here)
Read More
All News button
1
Subtitle
As political chaos plays out in South Korea following President Yoon Suk Yeol's short-lived martial law attempt, Stanford sociologist Gi-Wook Shin, the director of APARC and its Korea Program, analyzes the fast-moving developments.
Book Launch | The Great Retreat, by Didi Kuo
-
Once a centralizing force of the democratic process, political parties have eroded over the past fifty years. In her forthcoming book, The Great Retreat: How Political Parties Should Behave and Why They Don't, Didi Kuo explores the development of political parties as democracy expanded across the West in the nineteenth century. While parties have become professionalized and nationalized, they have lost the robust organizational density that made them effective representatives. After the Cold War, the combination of a neoliberal economic consensus, changes to campaign finance, and shifting party priorities weakened the party systems of Western democracies. In order for democracy to adapt to a new era of global capitalism, The Great Retreat makes the case for stronger parties in the form of socially embedded institutions with deep connections to communities and citizens.
Kuo will give a brief talk about the book before being joined by Jake Grumbach, Julia Azari, and Bruce Cain for a panel discussion.
speakers
Didi Kuo is a Center Fellow at the Freeman-Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University. Her research interests include democratization, political parties, state-building, and the political economy of representation. She is the author of The Great Retreat: How Political Parties Should Behave - and Why They Don't (Oxford University Press) and Clientelism, Capitalism, and Democracy: the Rise of Programmatic Politics in the United States and Britain (Cambridge University Press 2018). She was an Eric and Wendy Schmidt Fellow at New America, is a non-resident scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and is an adjunct fellow at the Niskanen Center.
Jake Grumbach
Associate Professor, Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley
Panelist
Jake Grumbach is an associate professor at the Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley. He was previously associate professor of political science at the University of Washington and a postdoctoral fellow at the Center for the Study of Democratic Politics at Princeton.
He studies the political economy of the United States, with interests in democratic institutions, labor, federalism, racial and economic inequality, and statistical methods. His book, Laboratories Against Democracy (Princeton University Press 2022), investigates the causes and consequences of the nationalization of state politics.
Before graduate school, he earned a B.A. from Columbia University and worked as a public health researcher. Outside of academia, he's a nerd for 70s funk/soul and 90s hip hop, as well as a Warriors fan.
Julia Azari
Professor of Political Science, Marquette University
Panelist
Julia Azari is Professor of Political Science at Marquette University. An active public-facing scholar, she has published commentary on presidential and party politics in FiveThirtyEight, Politico, Vox, The New York Times, The Washington Post, MSNBC, and The Guardian.
Her scholarly work has appeared in journals such as The Forum, Perspectives on Politics, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Foreign Affairs, and Social Science History. She has contributed invited chapters to books published by the University Press of Kansas, University of Pennsylvania Press, Cambridge University Press, and University of Edinburgh Press. Azari is the author of Delivering the People’s Message: The Changing Politics of the Presidential Mandate (Cornell, 2014), coeditor of The Presidential Leadership Dilemma (SUNY, 2013), and co-editor of The Trump Legacy (under contract, University Press of Kansas).
Bruce Cain
Charles Louis Ducommun Professor, Humanities and Sciences; Director, Bill Lane Center for the American West; and Professor, Political Science
Moderator
full 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 to 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. He is currently working on a book about political reform in the US.
Bruce E. Cain
In-person: William J. Perry Conference Room (Encina Hall, 2nd floor, 616 Jane Stanford Way, Stanford)
Online: Via Zoom
Didi Kuo
Encina Hall, C150
616 Jane Stanford Way
Stanford, CA 94305
0
jdkuo@stanford.edu
Center Fellow, Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies
Didi Kuo is a Center Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI) at Stanford University. She is a scholar of comparative politics with a focus on democratization, corruption and clientelism, political parties and institutions, and political reform. She is the author of The Great Retreat: How Political Parties Should Behave and Why They Don’t (Oxford University Press, forthcoming) and Clientelism, Capitalism, and Democracy: the rise of programmatic politics in the United States and Britain (Cambridge University Press, 2018).
She has been at Stanford since 2013 as the manager of the Program on American Democracy in Comparative Perspective and is co-director of the Fisher Family Honors Program at CDDRL. She was an Eric and Wendy Schmidt Fellow at New America and is a non-resident fellow with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. She received a PhD in political science from Harvard University, an MSc in Economic and Social History from Oxford University, where she studied as a Marshall Scholar, and a BA from Emory University.
Hide publication sections
Off
Lectures
Knowledge and support for AI in the public sector: a deliberative poll experiment
Paragraphs
We are on the verge of a revolution in public sector decision-making processes, where computers will take over many of the governance tasks previously assigned to human bureaucrats. Governance decisions based on algorithmic information processing are increasing in numbers and scope, contributing to decisions that impact the lives of individual citizens. While significant attention in the recent few years has been devoted to normative discussions on fairness, accountability, and transparency related to algorithmic decision-making based on artificial intelligence, less is known about citizens’ considered views on this issue. To put society in-the-loop, a Deliberative Poll was thus carried out on the topic of using artificial intelligence in the public sector, as a form of in-depth public consultation. The three use cases that were selected for deliberation were refugee reallocation, a welfare-to-work program, and parole. A key finding was that after having acquired more knowledge about the concrete use cases, participants were overall more supportive of using artificial intelligence in the decision processes. The event was set up with a pretest/post-test control group experimental design, and as such, the results offer experimental evidence to extant observational studies showing positive associations between knowledge and support for using artificial intelligence.
All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
AI & SOCIETY
The Transformative Power of Anger Under Authoritarian Repression
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs
In a REDS Seminar co-sponsored by CDDRL and The Europe Center (TEC), Cornell Assistant Professor of Political Science Bryn Rosenfeld explored a compelling question: Why do people in authoritarian regimes take bold political actions — such as protesting, voting for the opposition, or criticizing the government — despite the threat of severe consequences? Her research highlights the role of emotions, particularly anger, in motivating these high-risk decisions and provides fresh insights into the dynamics of dissent under repressive regimes.
Rosenfeld challenged the common assumption that high-risk political activism requires strong organizational ties, such as membership in activist groups or networks. While this holds true in some cases, she argued that recent civic uprisings in authoritarian regimes often involve ordinary individuals — novices with no prior links to organized activism. These participants act despite the threat of repression, presenting a puzzle for traditional theories of political participation.
Central to Rosenfeld's argument is the critical role of emotions in shaping political behavior. Authoritarian regimes often use repression as a tool to silence dissent, but her findings show that this strategy frequently backfires by triggering anger. When people experience acts of repression — such as arrests or violence during protests — they often view these actions as deeply unjust, fueling their anger. This anger reduces fear of risks, shifts focus from personal consequences to collective grievances, and creates a sense of urgency to act. As a result, anger motivates bold political actions like protesting or voting against the regime. In contrast, fear amplifies the perception of danger, discourages action, and reinforces passivity. Rosenfeld’s work demonstrates how anger can transform repression into a catalyst for resistance, showing that attempts to suppress dissent often inspire even greater mobilization.
Her research is grounded in extensive data collected between 2021 and 2023 in Russia, a period marked by significant political upheaval, including the arrest of opposition leader Alexei Navalny, widespread protests, and the invasion of Ukraine. Through surveys and experiments, she measured participants’ emotions, risk attitudes, and political intentions in response to different scenarios. Participants exposed to information about repression reported higher levels of anger, which translated into a greater willingness to protest or take other political risks. For example, participants in the repression treatment group showed significantly higher risk acceptance scores than those in the control group, highlighting anger’s pivotal role in driving political action.
Rosenfeld’s findings have far-reaching implications. They challenge the assumption that repression is an effective tool for silencing dissent, showing instead that it often fuels resistance by mobilizing anger and encouraging the acceptance of risk. Her work also explains why ordinary citizens — those without activist ties — sometimes take extraordinary risks to stand up to authoritarian regimes. By focusing on the interplay of emotions and risk, Rosenfeld underscores the paradox of repression: rather than quelling dissent, it can inspire ordinary people to take extraordinary risks in the pursuit of justice. Anger, often seen as a destructive force, emerges in her work as a powerful driver of political change.
Read More
Hero Image
All News button
1
Subtitle
Cornell Assistant Professor of Political Science Bryn Rosenfeld’s work explains why ordinary citizens — those without activist ties — sometimes take extraordinary risks to stand up to authoritarian regimes.
A Conversation with Leopoldo López: How to Defend Democracy and Fight Autocracy
-
Registration for this event is now closed.
Join us for an inspiring conversation with Leopoldo López, General Secretary of the World Liberty Congress, Venezuelan opposition leader, and pro-democracy activist. In this talk, López will reflect on his recent TED Talk, where he passionately advocated for defending democracy worldwide and resisting the rise of autocratic regimes.
According to López, seventy-two percent of the world's population lives under some form of autocratic rule. Drawing from his harrowing personal experience of imprisonment, house arrest, and eventual exile for opposing Nicolás Maduro's regime in Venezuela, he will share his vision for uniting global efforts to champion freedom and push back against authoritarianism.
This event is co-sponsored by the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law (CDDRL), CDDRL's Poverty, Violence, and Governance Lab, and the Stanford Society for Latin American Politics.
Speakers
Leopoldo López
General Secretary of the World Liberty Congress, Venezuelan opposition leader, and pro-democracy activist
Leopoldo López is a Venezuelan opposition leader and pro-democracy activist. He was the 2018 Robert G. Wesson Lecturer in International Relations Theory and Practice at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University. He founded the Venezuelan opposition party Voluntad Popular and served as mayor of the Chacao municipality in Caracas.
In 2014, Leopoldo was arrested on trumped-up charges for leading peaceful, nationwide protests denouncing Nicolás Maduro’s regime. After a 19-month show trial, he was sentenced to nearly 14 years in prison.
He spent the first four years in solitary confinement in a military prison. He was subsequently placed under house arrest as a result of international pressure and outrage within Venezuela. Amnesty International named him a prisoner of conscience in 2015. Leopoldo escaped house arrest and was hosted at the Spanish embassy in Caracas. After a daring escape from Venezuela in October 2020, Leopoldo was reunited with his family in Spain, where he now lives in exile.
Today, he continues to be a leading voice in calling for democracy not only in Venezuela but also across the globe. Leopoldo is a co-founder of the World Liberty Congress, which he strongly believes will be instrumental in unifying pro-democracy and human rights activists to combat the global trend toward authoritarianism.
Isamar Marte, '26
President, Stanford Society for Latin American Politics (SSLAP)
Moderator
Isamar Marte is the president of the Stanford Society for Latin American Politics (SSLAP). She is an undergraduate student majoring in Economics and double minoring in Data Science and Education. Inspired by her experience growing up in the Dominican Republic, her main interests stand in the intersection between policy, education, and development.
Isamar Marte, '26
William J. Perry Conference Room (Encina Hall, 2nd floor, 616 Jane Stanford Way, Stanford)
Leopoldo López
Lectures
Venezuela: Cultivating Democratic Resilience Against Authoritarianism
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs
María Corina Machado, Venezuela’s popular democracy leader, told a Stanford audience that support from the global community and the U.S. is a moral imperative for those protesting Nicolás Maduro’s despotic government.
Machado engaged in a conversation on November 18 with Larry Diamond at an event hosted by the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law. Diamond is the Mosbacher Senior Fellow in Global Democracy at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies. They discussed Venezuela’s current political climate, challenges, and broader strategies for fostering democratic transitions in authoritarian environments.
Maduro’s attempts at electoral fraud overshadowed Venezuela's presidential election on July 28, 2024. Afterward, the Venezuelan democratic movement provided evidence showing that their candidate, Edmundo González, had won with about 70% of the vote. Since then, the Maduro regime has stifled the opposition and thwarted democratic reforms as he seeks to regain office in January. Meanwhile, Machado has been forced into hiding to evade arrest by Maduro's regime but remains resolute in her decision to stay in Venezuela, where she continues to lead the movement.
In 2023, Machado won the Venezuelan opposition primaries with 93% of the vote. But the Maduro regime immediately, and illegally, disqualified her from running in the 2024 presidential election. She then took charge of revitalizing the country’s pro-democracy movement, rebuilding it from the ground up and infusing it with renewed purpose.
In introducing Machado, Kathryn Stoner, the Mosbacher Director of CDDRL, said, “Her leadership has been a beacon of hope for millions of Venezuelans as she continues to inspire them in the fight against authoritarianism.”
‘We surprised everyone’
Machado spoke about the election aftermath and a “window of opportunity” to act now to safeguard democracy. “The final outcome of this process is certainly existential for the Venezuelan people. It is critically strategic for the region and of great importance for all Western democracies, especially for the United States, and that's why we've received bipartisan support.”
Today, Venezuela ranks last on the World Justice Project’s Rule of Law index — 142 out of 142 countries. “Every single democratic institution has been devastated,” said Machado, describing the current situation as a “full-fledged tyranny” and adding that 8 million people have been forced to flee her country.
Despite such conditions, she said, in the past two years, Venezuelans have built up a democratic movement — “they told us it was impossible” — that reflects a deeper social response. “We decided to understand, to heal, and to trust each other.”
The regime underestimated the growth of this movement, she said. “We defeated the regime in the streets and in the hearts of Venezuelan people. We defeated them before in the spiritual dimension and then in the electoral process. And we've surprised everyone.”
They created a well-organized network of citizen volunteers who could be deployed in every single polling station and other places, all of whom were profoundly motivated around the cause, Machado said. “We did it without media at all,” since Maduro's government would not allow her to appear in traditional media channels and the campaign couldn't run ads on social media — there was no money.
Machado said, “We united a country around common values — human dignity, solidarity, justice, private property, and freedom. We united Venezuela around a profound desire: We wanted our kids back home; we wanted our families reunited.”
In the election, González won by a landslide, she said, roughly 70 percent to Maduro’s 30 percent. Immediately, the regime struck back, detaining and arresting thousands of pro-democracy advocates and even torturing some people.
“The reaction of the regime was ferocious,” she said. “We are facing a situation where the regime wants to create terror and totally paralyze this movement.”
But the Venezuelan pushback to the Maduro repression has been dramatic, she said. Machado estimates that if the election were held today, the pro-democracy candidate would get 90 percent of the vote.
“We have a united opposition, more than ever before,” she said, noting vows of support from the international community. January 10 is the day when Maduro would be sworn in again as president. “We will never give up, and I'm sure freedom will prevail in our country.”
We have a united opposition, more than ever before. We will never give up, and I'm sure freedom will prevail in our country.
María Corina Machado
Leader of Venezuela’s Democratic Movement
International action
“The challenge,” Diamond said, “is to get President Maduro, who has lost the election, to acknowledge that he's lost and leave power.” He asked Machado what the international community should do. (On November 19, a day after the CDDRL event, the U.S. formally recognized González as the president-elect.)
She responded, “We have to make these people understand that they will be held accountable. If they keep repressing our people, international justice should act immediately, and that hasn’t happened yet.”
On top of this, she added, Maduro’s ties to criminal activities and black markets need to be examined by international partners. Even the Venezuelan military largely supported the pro-democracy opposition.
“The (global) law enforcement approach can be more comprehensive, involving different agencies and different countries, so these individuals understand this regime is not sustainable from financial, political, and human perspectives,” she said.
Diamond asked if criminal indictments of members of the Maduro regime could be on the table, whether by the United States, European countries, or the International Criminal Court.
Machado acknowledged this point and recommended a few international strategies: Maduro has to be totally isolated, and González has to be recognized as the president-elect; a global law enforcement approach needs to crack down on Maduro’s criminal activities; the International Criminal Court needs to make a decision on the election; and every democratic government in the world needs to advocate for a negotiated transition for Venezuela to peacefully move ahead.
Democracies worldwide
During the Q&A portion of the event, a student audience member asked what the expatriate Venezuelan community should know and do about the situation.
Machado said, “One of our main assets now is this great diaspora that has turned Venezuela into a global cause. People are preparing abroad, learning, and getting ready to come back and build a great society.”
She added that her country’s abundant oil reserves could literally transform Venezuelan society if used wisely, unlike under Maduro’s tenure, and be used as a key element to fund the country's energy transition.
As Stoner noted in her opening remarks, “The struggle for democracy in Venezuela is not just a national issue — it's a global one. The fate of Venezuela speaks to the broader challenges that democracies are facing worldwide, including our own.”
You can read more about this event in The Stanford Daily.
Read More
Hero Image
All News button
1
Subtitle
María Corina Machado, the leader of the Venezuelan pro-democracy movement, suggests that a strong international response to Venezuelan authoritarianism will help overcome electoral fraud against democracy in her country.
Shorenstein APARC 2023–24 Annual Report
Paragraphs
Shorenstein APARC's annual report for the academic year 2023-24 is now available.
Learn about the research, publications, and events produced by the Center and its programs over the last academic year. Read the feature sections, which look at the historic meeting at Stanford between the leaders of Korea and Japan and the launch of the Center's new Taiwan Program; learn about the research our faculty and postdoctoral fellows engaged in, including a study on China's integration of urban-rural health insurance and the policy work done by the Stanford Next Asia Policy Lab (SNAPL); and catch up on the Center's policy work, education initiatives, publications, and policy outreach. Download your copy or read it online below.
All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Annual Reports
Publication Date
Historic America in One Room Deliberative Poll Releases Data on First-Time Voters' Political Attitudes Ahead of Presidential Election
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs
Stanford, Calif. – August 13, 2024 – America in One Room: The Youth Vote today announced the results of its Deliberative Poll, revealing how first-time voters feel about key issues driving the 2024 Presidential Election: energy and the environment; the economy, AI, and taxes; health care; and democracy and elections, after deliberating with their peers.
A nationally representative sample of 430 first-time voters answered a questionnaire about public policy and voting intention before and after deliberating on the topics. America in One Room: The Youth Vote is a collaboration between Close Up Foundation, the Deliberative Democracy Lab at Stanford University's Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law, the Generation Lab, Helena, and the Neely Center for Ethical Leadership and Decision Making at the University of Southern California. Deliberative Polling® is a mechanism through which citizens can address complex issues and the trade-offs they pose in an environment curated for civil and respectful conversation across party lines.
James Fishkin, Director of the Stanford Deliberative Democracy Lab, noted: “These young voters came from all over the country, red states and blue states, urban and rural. They learned what the rest of their generation was thinking, connecting across their social media enclaves and political divisions. They listened to each other and determined what they really thought about the issues and the candidates. And they emerged with greater mutual respect for those they still disagreed with. It gave us all a glimpse of the American public opinion of the future.”
The results show dramatic changes in perspectives after deliberation on issues like contraceptive access, increasing the federal minimum wage, repealing the Affordable Care Act, and more. Some of the movements were more progressive, some more conservative. Notable results from America in One Room: The Youth Vote, include:
On energy and the environment, the participants were strongly committed to concerted climate action and, interestingly, became more supportive of American energy independence following the deliberations.
- Following deliberation, there was overwhelming support for the US reaching net zero by 2050, increasing government funding for clean energy technologies and battery storage solutions, and new generation nuclear energy
- At the same time, opposition to banning the sale of new gas and diesel cars also increased across the board after deliberation, from 45% to 59%
Surprisingly, participants’ support for traditionally progressive policies related to the economy, AI, and taxes decreased in many cases.
- Support for increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 dropped 14 points from 62% to 48%
- Support for the government covering the cost of college tuition at public universities for all students who could not otherwise afford it decreased from 66% to 56%
- Support for the federal government’s role in preventing the sale or use of biased algorithms increased from 48.6% to 54.5%
In an election year when health care, and abortion access in particular, have the potential to swing outcomes, results show young people across all political identifications support reproductive health care access and traditionally progressive health care policies.
The proposal that “Congress should pass a nationwide ban on medication abortion” attracted supermajority opposition, rising from 78% to 80% after deliberation
- The majority of Republicans (51%) also came to oppose a national medication abortion ban
Opposition to repealing the Affordable Care Act jumped 20 points, from 52% to 72%
While many portray Gen Z as losing faith in democratic institutions, when polled on democracy and elections following deliberation, the results showed notable increases in satisfaction with democracy. Participants also showed movement on proposals around voting rights and provided a snapshot of support for the Trump and Harris candidacies.
When asked “How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the way democracy is working in the U.S.” overall satisfaction increased an impressive 29 points – from 29% to 58%
- Republicans increased dramatically from 38% to 72%, Independents increased from 24% to 40%, and Democrats increased from 26% to 52%
The proposal to “Restore voting rights to citizens with felony convictions who are not incarcerated” increased overall by a dramatic 19 points from 61% to 80%.
- This was a bi-partisan movement, with Republicans specifically increasing by 17 points from minority to majority support (48% to 65%).
At the end of the event, Vice President Kamala Harris was the choice of 53% of the deliberators, former President Donald Trump was the choice of 27% of the deliberators, and 6% said they would vote for a third party.
“This historic event has something to teach us all. When we take the time to talk to and learn from people with different backgrounds and worldviews, we can build our own confidence in democracy and find agreement in the most unexpected of places,” said Close Up President Mia Charity. “For more than 50 years, Close Up’s work has been dedicated to empowering young people to become engaged citizens. We are excited to partner with Stanford’s Deliberative Democracy Lab this fall to host national deliberations and continue Close Up’s efforts to expand programs and professional development that bring a culture of deliberative dialogue to schools across the country.”
“Everyone likes to speak for young people, but rarely do young people get to speak for themselves,” said Cyrus Beschloss, Founder of Generation Lab. “As we hurtle towards a ground-shaking election, America will begin talking about the ‘youth vote.’ Rather than grab for the stereotype du jour about ‘Gen-Z,’ we must look to serious research like this study as we make decisions and policies for the next generation in America.”
“This event highlighted Gen Z’s acute awareness of AI’s rapid evolution and along with it, significant new ethical challenges,” said Nathanael Fast, Director of the Neely Center for Ethical Leadership and Decision Making at the USC Marshall School of Business. “Students demonstrated a strong belief that government should play a key role in ensuring AI safety, and their unique perspective on AI and social media reinforce the urgent need to make our tech ecosystem more transparent, inclusive, and democratic.” He also noted, “Participants returned home filled with confidence to drive change within their communities and a renewed trust that public officials value their perspectives. Together, these are profound shifts that pave the way for our country’s future leadership.”
“America in One Room represents the true ‘will of the people,’ and we are working toward a future where this deliberative process plays a much bigger role in how the US and other democracies make decisions,” said Henry Elkus, founder and CEO of Helena, a global problem-solving organization. “Gen Z is often misunderstood as nihilistic and unwilling to compromise, and America in One Room: The Youth Vote showed that couldn’t be further from the truth. It was incredibly inspiring to watch these young, first-time voters disrupt that narrative, discuss complex issues with nuance regardless of their political position, and leave feeling optimistic that they can shape the future.”
The America in One Room project was first deployed in 2019, bringing a representative microcosm of the entire American electorate together in the same location for the first time. As in other Deliberative Polls, the discussions proceeded in moderated small groups with questions from the small groups directed at experts in plenary sessions who answered the participants’ questions. The small group and plenary sessions alternated throughout the weekend.
The executive summary and full results of America in One Room: The Youth Vote’s results are available here. To learn more, visit the America in One Room site.
About America in One Room: The Youth Vote
A1R:TYV is a collaboration between Close Up Foundation, the Deliberative Democracy Lab at Stanford University, the Generation Lab, Helena, and the Neely Center for Ethical Leadership and Decision Making at the University of Southern California. Through Deliberative Polling, the experiment provides a unique opportunity to combine the qualitative richness of focus groups and the statistical representativeness of good survey research to meaningfully pulse a demographic that is frequently talked about, but rarely talked to, as they prepare for a historic presidential election.
Read More
Hero Image
All News button
1
Subtitle
Innovative project brings together first-ever representative sample of first-time voters from across the country to debate the key issues of our time.