Democracy
Authors
Sebastian Dettman
News Type
Blogs
Date
Paragraphs
As a 2018-19 Postdoctoral Fellow in Contemporary Asia at the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center, I have been working on my book manuscript Pathways to Power: Opposition Party and Coalition Building in Multiethnic Malaysia. The book examines the dilemmas faced by opposition parties in authoritarian regimes as they try to build electoral and political power. In this brief blog post, I’ll discuss the motivation for the book project, the main argument, and some of its findings.
 
Competitive authoritarian regimes, where opposition parties compete against powerful incumbents that skew political and electoral institutions in their favor, are the most common type of non-democratic regime today. As conceptualized by political scientists Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way, competitive authoritarian regimes feature the trappings of democracy, including regular elections and multiparty political competition, but with an electoral playing field that heavily favors the ruling government. Ruling powers in these regimes use a variety of tools to stay in power, including electoral fraud, targeted arrests or harassment of opposition leaders, and subtler strategies to divide and coopt potential opposition.
 
Nevertheless, opposition parties in such regimes sometimes succeed in growing substantial electoral support against the authoritarian odds. My book analyzes how and why some opposition parties are able to do so – and provides a novel explanation for the conditions under which opposition parties build broad-based and coordinated electoral challenges. I examine two key electoral strategies used by opposition parties: Individual strategies used by parties to win over new voters from the ruling government, and collective strategies, where opposition parties coordinate or build coalitions with each other in elections. Even as these two strategies allow parties to win over new blocs of voters away from the ruling government, I focus on the dilemmas that these strategies create for the opposition. First, parties face different constraints in trying to appeal to new voters while maintaining the issues and identities around which they mobilize core support. Second, individual and collective electoral strategies are in fundamental tension with each other. When parties coordinate with each other in elections, I argue that they are less likely to broaden their individual base of support. As a result, coordination and coalition building constrains the ability of individual parties to develop a broad base of support across territory and among new demographics.
 
The manuscript examines these dilemmas through tracing opposition party emergence and growth in Malaysia. Malaysia is an interesting and important case for several reasons. First, a single party, the United Malays National Organization (UMNO), dominated the country’s ruling coalitions from the country’s independence in 1957 until 2018. But against this backdrop of extraordinary stability, Malaysia’s opposition parties gradually built up electoral power to the point of unseating UMNO from national power for the first time in 2018. Second, Malaysia is a country of incredible diversity: Its largest ethnic group, the Malays, makes up about half of the population, and it contains significant ethnic minority populations of Chinese, Indian, and other indigenous groups. This made the challenges faced by the opposition even more pronounced as they sought to expand support across ethnoreligious lines while also building cross-cleavage coalitions. I draw on diverse evidence from my fieldwork in Malaysia, including in-depth interviews with party elites and leaders from all major parties, data on elections at the subnational and national level, as well as evidence from political campaigns, party congresses, and archival research.
 
The empirical chapters trace the strategies of four opposition parties: The Democratic Action Party (DAP), Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS), The People’s Justice Party (PKR), and The United Indigenous Party of Malaysia (Bersatu) in the period of 1999-2018 as they sought to respond to new electoral opportunities to scale up their support. I examine their varying attempts to expand their individual appeal, while showing how their increasingly coordinated electoral challenges paradoxically strengthened their reliance on existing ethnoreligious bases of support. I analyze how these strategies set the stage for their success in the 2018 elections, where three of these four parties won power and formed a new national government. Another empirical chapter brings the theoretical argument to bear on additional cases, providing an in-depth examination of three other cases of authoritarian regimes to demonstrate the generalizability of the argument beyond Malaysia. 
 
The book seeks to make three contributions to the academic literature. First, it brings a new theoretical perspective to the study of political competition under authoritarianism that sheds light on the determinants of opposition party success and failure. Second, it provides evidence and analysis of the factors leading to Malaysia’s unprecedented transition of government in 2018. Finally, it provides new insights into a broader literature on party adaptation in multiethnic societies and the study of the relationship between opposition parties and democratic transition.
 

 

All News button
1
Authors
Noa Ronkin
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

STANFORD, CA, May 21, 2019 — Stanford University’s Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (APARC) announced today that the esteemed journalist Maria Ressa is the recipient of the 2019 Shorenstein Journalism Award. Ressa, the cofounder, CEO, and executive editor of the Philippine news platform Rappler, has been a highly-regarded journalist in Asia for more than thirty years and commended worldwide for her courageous work in fighting disinformation and attempts to silence the free press. Presented annually by APARC, the Shorenstein award is conferred upon a journalist who has contributed significantly to greater understanding of Asia through outstanding reporting on critical issues affecting the region. Ressa will receive the award at a ceremony at Stanford in fall quarter 2019.

Ressa spent nearly two decades at CNN, where she was lead investigative reporter focusing on terrorism in Southeast Asia and served as the network’s bureau chief in Manila, then Jakarta. She then became head of news and current affairs at ABS-CBN, the largest media network in the Philippines. Her work aimed to redefine journalism by combining traditional broadcast and new media for social change. In 2012, Ressa launched Rappler, turning it into one of the Philippines’ most influential news organizations and integrating data, content, and new technologies to promote public service journalism and civic engagement. With a commitment to editorial independence, Rappler has often produced critical coverage of Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte’s controversial policies and actions. In response to these reports, Duterte and his government have repeatedly targeted Rappler and Ressa with threats and lawsuits. Ressa has been arrested twice in recent months.

“Maria Ressa is a champion of digital journalism innovation, and a paragon of protecting democracy and speaking truth to power,” said Gi-Wook Shin, Shorenstein APARC director. “For decades, before she became internationally acclaimed for her brave fight to ‘hold the line,’ Maria’s work had provided deep insights into the complexities of Southeast Asia based on her nuanced knowledge, investigative skills, and the ability to draw upon them to connect with audiences around the world. We are honored to recognize her with the Shorenstein Journalism Award.”

Ressa has taught courses in politics and the press in Southeast Asia for her alma mater, Princeton University, and in broadcast journalism for the University of the Philippines. She is the author of two books: From Bin Laden to Facebook (2012), which traces the spread of terrorism from the training camps of Afghanistan to Southeast Asia and the Philippines, and Seeds of Terror: An Eyewitness Account of Al-Qaeda’s Newest Center of Operations in Southeast Asia (2003), which documented the changing tactics of Al-Qaeda and its next-generation roots in the Muslim strongholds in the Philippines and Indonesia.

The Shorenstein Journalism Award, which carries a $10,000 cash prize, honors the legacy of APARC’s benefactor, Mr. Walter H. Shorenstein, and his twin passions for promoting excellence in journalism and understanding of Asia. APARC recently introduced a new selection committee for the award that presides over the judging of nominees and honoree selection. “We are grateful to the Shorenstein family for its support of our Center and its mission, and to our selection committee members for their expertise and service,” noted Shin. “Our sincere thanks also to the members of the award’s previous jury for their contributions over the years.”

The independent selection committee for the Shorenstein Journalism Award, which unanimously chose Ressa as the 2019 honoree, includes Wendy Cutler, Vice President and Managing Director, Washington, D.C. Office, Asia Society Policy Institute; James Hamilton, Hearst Professor of Communication, Chair of the Department of Communication, and Director of the Stanford Journalism Program, Stanford University; Raju Narisetti, Director of the Knight-Bagehot Fellowship in Economics and Business Journalism and Professor of Professional Practice at Columbia Journalism School; Philip Pan, Asia Editor, The New York Times; and Prashanth Parameswaran, Senior Editor, The Diplomat.  

“Maria Ressa is recognized around the world as a stellar leader in accountability journalism,” said committee member James Hamilton. “As an investigative reporter at CNN, she shed light on terrorism’s threats in Southeast Asia. In cofounding and leading the online news outlet Rappler, she’s brought attention to contentious politics and policies in the Philippines even as she endured politically motivated arrests for her coverage.”

Ressa has earned multiple honors and awards by professional peers and international press freedom organizations, including the Golden Pen of Freedom Award from the World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers, the Knight International Journalism Award of the International Center for Journalists, the Gwen Ifill Press Freedom Award of the Committee to Protect Journalists, the Free Media Pioneer Award from the International Press Institute, the National Democratic Institute’s Democracy Award, and the 2018 Time magazine Person of the Year.

Seventeen journalists have previously received the Shorenstein award, including most recently Anna Fifield, the Washington Post’s Beijing Bureau Chief and long-time North Korea watcher; Siddharth Varadarajan, founding editor of the Wire and former editor of the Hindu; Ian Johnson, a veteran journalist with a focus on Chinese society, religion, and history; and Yoichi Funabashi, former editor-in-chief of the Asahi Shimbun.

Information about the 2019 Shorenstein Journalism Award ceremonies featuring Ressa will be forthcoming in the fall quarter.

Find out more at aparc.fsi.stanford.edu/events/shorenstein-journalism-award.


Media Contact:

Noa Ronkin
Associate Director for Communications and External Relations
Shorenstein APARC
noa.ronkin@stanford.edu

 

 

All News button
1

Please join Larry Diamond, Senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Affairs and the Hoover Institution for the launch of his latest book, "Ill Winds: Saving Democracy from Russian Rage, Chinese Ambition, and American Complacency."

 

Featuring a Panel Conversation with:

 

Zin Mar Aung

Burmese MP and political activist

 

Vladimir Kara-Murza

Russian journalist and anti-corruption crusader

 

Cara McCormick

CEO, Chamberlain Project, Co-founder/Co-leader of The

Committee for Ranked Choice Voting in Maine

 

*Reception to follow

Bechtel Conference Center

Encina Hall

616 Serra Mall

Stanford, CA 94305

Room 212, Crown Quadrangle
559 Nathan Abbott Way
Stanford, CA 94305-8610

650.736.8771
0
Lecturer in Residence, Stanford Law School
jamie-oconnell-3-400x400.jpg

Jamie O’Connell is a Lecturer in Residence at Stanford Law School. He teaches and writes on political and legal development and has particular expertise in law and development, transitional justice, democratization, post-conflict reconstruction, and business and human rights. Until 2018, he was a Senior Fellow of the Honorable G. William and Ariadna Miller Institute for Global Challenges and the Law at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, as well as a Lecturer in Residence, teaching both law and undergraduate students.

O’Connell has worked on human rights and development in over a dozen countries in Africa, the Americas, Asia, and Europe, under the auspices of the United Nations, local and international non-governmental organizations, and academic institutions. He co-founded International Professional Partnerships for Sierra Leone, a non-governmental organization that worked with the government of Sierra Leone to enhance the performance of its agencies and civil servants. Earlier in his career, O’Connell studied international business as a researcher at Harvard Business School, publishing numerous case studies. He has directed the Human Rights Clinic at the University of Sierra Leone and taught as a visitor at Harvard Law School and Columbia Law School. O’Connell clerked for the Honorable James R. Browning on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and is admitted to practice in California (inactive status) and New York. In 2016-17, he was a visiting professor and Fulbright Senior Scholar at the University of Valencia (Spain) Faculty of Law.

O’Connell’s scholarship includes “Representation, Paternalism, and Exclusion: The Divergent Impacts of the AKP’s Populism on Human Rights In Turkey” in Human Rights in a Time of Populism: Challenges and Responses (2020); “When Prosecution Is Not Enough: How the International Criminal Court Can Prevent Atrocity and Advance Accountability by Emulating Regional Human Rights Institutions” (with James L. Cavallaro, Yale Journal of International Law, 2020); “Common Interests, Closer Allies: How Democracy in Arab States Can Benefit the West” (Stanford Journal of International Law, 2012); “Empowering the Disadvantaged after Dictatorship and Conflict: Legal Empowerment, Transitions and Transitional Justice,” in Legal Empowerment: Practitioners’ Perspectives (2010); “East Timor 1999,” in The Responsibility to Protect: Moving the Campaign Forward (2007); “Gambling with the Psyche: Does Prosecuting Human Rights Violators Console Their Victims?” (Harvard International Law Journal, 2005); “Here Interest Meets Humanity: How to End the War and Support Reconstruction in Liberia, and the Case for Modest American Leadership” (Harvard Human Rights Journal, 2004); and Sierra Leone’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission and Special Court: A Citizen’s Handbook (with Paul James-Allen and Sheku B.S. Lahai, 2003).

CDDRL Affiliated Scholar
Date Label
Authors
Donald K. Emmerson
News Type
Commentary
Date
Paragraphs

Indonesia’s latest and current experiment with democracy is twenty years old. The fifth national election to be held during that period is set to occur on 17 April 2019. More than 190 million Indonesians are eligible to vote. Those who do will elect the country’s president and vice-president and legislators at four different levels—national, provincial, district, and municipal. Since the collapse of General Suharto’s authoritarian regime in 1998, there have been no coups, and the process of campaigning and balloting every five years has proven to be peaceful with remarkably few and small exceptions.  So far so good. 

Regarding the top slot, this fifth election is a re-run of the fourth.  In 2014, Joko Widodo (“Jokowi”) ran for president against Prabowo Subianto and won.  The two men face each other again.  For the 2019 race, Jokowi picked Mar’uf Amin to be his vice-president; Prabowo picked Sandiaga Uno to be his.  All four men are Muslims.

Compared with Prabowo, Jokowi is a man of the people.  Jokowi is the first-ever Indonesian president with a non-elite background.  His first career was not in politics, and not in Indonesia’s megalopolis and capital, Jakarta, but in small business in Central Java.  He made and sold wood furniture in Surakarta, a city a fraction of Jakarta’s size.  He benefited from having begun his political career as Surakarta’s first directly elected mayor.  That post afforded him face-to-face contact with his constituents and gained him popularity based on his success in reforming governance, reducing corruption, and improving public services. 

Jokowi burnished that reputation as the elected governor of Jakarta.  Among his accomplishments on that larger scale were socioeconomic betterment and attention to public transportation.  Construction of Indonesia’s very first subway system began in Jakarta on Jokowi’s watch.  To his political advantage, the project’s first phase—ten miles of underground and elevated track—was completed and opened to the public in March 2019 mere weeks before the national election in April.

Prabowo’s father was a leading figure in Indonesia’s economy, diplomacy, and politics.  Prabowo was schooled in Europe before returning to Indonesia to embark upon a 24-year career in the army.  He rose to the rank of a lieutenant general, but his record was marred by association with violence and insubordination.  Especially brutal were his roles in crushing movements for independence from coercive Indonesian rule in East Timor and Papua and in the abusive repression of democracy activists during riots in Jakarta in 1998. When Indonesia transitioned to democratic rule later that year, he was, in effect, dishonorably discharged.  In 2000 he was denied an American visa, apparently on human rights grounds.  Upon leaving the military, Prabowo began a lucrative career in business. He lost the 2014 presidential election to Jokowi, 47-to-53 percent.

ndonesian Presidential candidate Prabowo Subianto addresses to his supporters at the Kridosono stadium during election campaign rally on April 8, 2019 in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Photo by Ulet Ifansasti/Getty Images Indonesian Presidential candidate Prabowo Subianto addresses to his supporters at the Kridosono stadium during election campaign rally on April 8, 2019 in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Photo by Ulet Ifansasti/Getty Images

Muslims account for an estimated 87 percent of the 269 million people who live in Indonesia, the world’s fourth largest country and the third largest democracy after India and America.  It is mathematically understandable that majoritarian Muslim faith and sentiment might drive the country’s politics.  But Indonesia is not an Islamic state.  Its leaders have, more or less effectively, curated an ethno-religiously plural national identity that legitimates not only Islam but, in theory, Buddhist, Catholic, Confucian, Hindu, and Protestant beliefs as well. 

When Jokowi ran for governor of Jakarta in 2012, his running mate was Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, an ethnic-Chinese Christian Indonesian better known by his nickname “Ahok.”  When the ticket won, Ahok became vice-governor.  A man of probity and candor with a background in business and science, Ahok quickly earned kudos for his efforts to curb poverty, corruption, and traffic congestion, among other ills of the metropolis.  In 2014, when Jokowi took a leave of absence to run for president, Ahok replaced him as the acting governor of Jakarta. When Jokowi defeated Pabowo to become president later that year, Ahok became governor in his own right—the first-ever ethnic Chinese and the first non-Muslim in half a century to fill that position. Sinophobia has a long history in Indonesia. In the context of the economic and political crises that obliged Suharto to resign in 1998, for example, anti-Chinese mobs ran riot in Jakarta.  Prabowo, Suharto’s son-in-law at the time, may have been at least indirectly involved in that outbreak of racial violence.

In a speech in September 2016, Ahok made an unscripted reference to the possibility that, were he to run again, some Muslims might not vote for him.  But all he said was that voters should not believe those who intentionally lie about—misinterpret—verse 51 in Al-Ma’idah, a chapter in the Qur’an that seems to advise Muslims against becoming allies of Jews and Christians.  Some Islamists had indeed glossed that verse as an obligation for Muslims not to vote for a non-Muslim to occupy public office.  An edited version of the video made it sound as though Ahok were not accusing some people of lying about what the verse meant, but was instead blaming the falsehood on the Qur’an itself—Allah’s own words.

The altered video went viral. Extreme Islamist organizations pressed for Ahok’s arrest and imprisonment for having violated Indonesia’s law on the Misuse and Insult of Religion.  He was tried, sentenced, and incarcerated in May 2017.

A man is draped with a flag showing the images of Indonesian President Joao Widodo and his Vice Presidential running mate Ma'ruf Amin at a concert and political rally for President Joko Widodo.
A man is draped with a flag showing the images of Indonesian President Joao Widodo and his Vice Presidential running mate Ma'ruf Amin at a concert and political rally for President Joko Widodo. Photo by Ed Wray/Getty Images

Ahok regained his freedom in January 2019. When he was released, Jokowi’s and Prabowo’s presidential campaigns had already begun. Six months before, Jokowi’s partisan allies, knowing how closely associated with Ahok their candidate had been, had persuaded him to strengthen his Islamic appeal by choosing Mar’uf Amin to fill the vice-presidential slot on his ticket.  At the time, Amin chaired Indonesia’s if not the world’s largest independent Islamic organization, Nahdlatul Ulama. Amin also headed a state-supported Indonesian Ulama Council that issues rulings ( fatwa ) on Islamic matters.  Under Amin’s leadership in November 2016, the Council had gone so far as to insist, in a statement he signed on the Council’s behalf, that verse 51 in Al-Ma’idah really does forbid Jews and Christians from becoming leaders and does obligate Muslims to choose to be led only by Muslims—and that to deny this is to insult the Qur’an, the ulama, and the Muslim community.  Yet there is nothing in Indonesia’s constitution or its laws that endorses, let alone requires, prejudicial voting—ballot-box communalism—of this kind.

Beyond boosting Jokowi’s image in the eyes of illiberal Muslims, Amin was an attractive choice for two other reasons as well:  NU’s demographic strength, notably in the heavily populated provinces of East and Central Java; and the hoped-for gravitas of Amin’s age and wisdom that some voters might read into his being 76 years old on election day—seventeen more than Jokowi’s 58.

In choosing Sandiago (“Sandi”) Uno for the vice-presidential slot on his ticket, Prabowo may also have taken age into account, but in the reverse direction.  Sixty-seven years old on election day, Prabowo may have chosen his running mate hoping to benefit from the image of relatively youthful energy and savvy modernity that Sandi, eighteen years younger, might evoke in voters’ minds.  Not to mention Sandi’s money.  Forbes Magazine ranked him 27 th among the 40 richest Indonesians in 2010, although he has since fallen off that list.  Sandi’s proven ability to attract support, having been elected vice-governor of Jakarta in 2017, likely also favored his selection. 

Sandi has an MBA from George Washington University. Whatever he learned about good business practices while there, however, did not prevent his name from surfacing in the “Paradise Papers” and in research by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, sources that linked him to shell companies registered in Panama, the British Virgin Islands, and other tax-haven locations.

Sandiaga Uno, Vice-Presidential candidate and running mate of Indonesian Presidential candidate Prabowo Subianto Waves to supporters
Sandiaga Uno, Vice-Presidential candidate and running mate of Indonesian Presidential candidate Prabowo Subianto Waves to supporters after giving a speech at the National Stadium on April 7, 2019 in Jakarta, Indonesia. Photo by Ed Wray/Getty Images.

Prabowo did not excel in his televised debates with Jokowi.  The many polls conducted again and again during the campaign showed Jokowi ahead of Prabowo in the public’s opinion by as much as twenty percent.  As election day neared, the gap between the two men may have narrowed.  But that evidence may have been tainted by unreliable polls that Prabowo’s camp may have incentivized to exaggerate his support. [1]

Prabowo has in the past cultivated relations with Islamist figures and groups. A question to be settled on 17 April is whether Jokowi’s supporters among softer-line, mainstream Muslims and their associations will outvote the harder-line Islamist and more Sinophobic voters to whom Prabowo has appealed.  Relevant, too, is the credulity of voters regarding fake news on social media, including hoaxes designed to stoke fears of Chinese immigration.  One viral claim blamed Jokowi for welcoming investments from China to the point of making Indonesians compete for jobs with an influx of as many as ten million China-born workers. If official Indonesian data are accurate, of 95,335 foreign workers in the country in 2018, only 32,000 were from China. [2]

In the past, Indonesia has been lauded for exemplifying the compatibility of Islam and democracy and for cultivating ethnic tolerance as well.  For democracy to survive and succeed, however, as Americans are learning, it must be continually safeguarded and reconfirmed.  One of the concepts that will crucially affect the further institutionalization of democracy in Indonesia is the extent to which its large and ethnically Malay Muslim majority will be accountable to the country as a whole and not be demagogued into violating minority rights and freedoms.  A populist who inflames his partisan base should not enjoy immunity from oversight. Crucial, too, is the notion of a loyal opposition whose leader is willing and able to reaffirm allegiance to a system in which it has just lost an election fairly.  Additionally essential to the implementation of these core ideas, as polarized Americans are being reminded, is the empathy necessary to bridge identity-based cleavages by imagining oneself in the shoes or sandals of “the other.” 

In any event, one can hope for the best: that the fifth electoral testing of Indonesia’s two-decades-long experiment with democratic rule in 2019, and the 59th American presidential election in 2020, including their respective aftermaths, will reinvigorate the purpose and power of democratic principles as inoculations against the risks, in both countries, of authoritarian division from within.

Donald K. Emmerson last visited Indonesia in December 2018 to speak at the 11th  Bali Democracy Forum.  Without implicating them in the above, he is grateful to Bill Liddle, Wayne Forrest, and Lisa Lee for helpful comments on its first draft.
 


[1] Compare Seth Soderberg, “Indonesia: How the Polls are Performing,” 15 April 2019, New Mandala , https://www.newmandala.org/indonesia-how-the-polls-are-performing/ , with Malvyandie Haryadi, “Hasil Survei Pilpres Terbaru: 7 Lembaga Survei Menangkan Jokowi, 4 Lembaga Unggulkan Prabowo,” (Latest Presidential Election Surveys: 7 Surveyers Show Jokowi Winning, 4 Surveyers Put Prabowo on Top), Tribunnews.com , 10 April 2019, http://www.tribunnews.com/pilpres-2019/2019/04/10/hasil-survei-pilpres-terbaru-7-lembaga-survei-menangkan-jokowi-4-lembaga-unggulkan-prabowo .

[2] Amy Chew, “‘Let’s Copy Malaysia’: Fake News Stokes Fears for Chinese Indonesians,” South China Morning Post , 7 April 2019, https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/article/3004909/indonesia-election-anti-beijing-sentiments-spread-will-chinese .

 

All News button
1
-

After the events of the Revolution of Dignity, Ukraine made a decisive historic choice in its shift towards democracy, notwithstanding current threats to security and sovereignty from Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the war in Donbas. Due to these circumstances, Ukraine is on the frontline of democracy between Russia and the West. In 2019, Ukrainians are facing major decisions in their country’s democratic development with the presidential and parliamentary elections. During the 2019 Presidential elections Ukrainians elected Volodymyr Zelenskiy, a former actor with no political background, with 73% of the vote. The more important Parliamentary elections are yet to come in the fall, and the resulting coalition will shape the future government.

In light of the elections the Ukrainian Emerging Leaders Program at the Stanford University Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law has gathered DC-based policy makers, high-level Ukrainian state officials and parliamentarians to discuss lessons that should be learned from the presidential elections, and what can we take away looking toward the October 2019 parliamentary elections.

The Ukrainian Emerging Leaders Program at the Stanford University Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law has organized a conference on these political developments to discuss pertinent policy issues that will affect Ukraine’s future. This conference reflects how UELP fellows are creating an important place for conversation on global development and Ukraine at Stanford University by raising key questions about the country’s future direction. They are also providing knowledge to their own community by connecting stakeholders in Ukraine to resources at Stanford and Silicon Valley.

 

 

VISIT CONFERENCE PAGE

 

Panels will include the following: 

9:15-10:45 Reforms in Ukraine

Since the Revolution of Dignity, Ukraine has been scrutinized for its record on implementing reforms. However, in the past five years there have been many more success stories than in the history of Ukrainian independence prior to 2014. This panel will explore some of the most successful reforms in post-Maidan Ukraine, such as steps taken to improve the health care system, economics, and anti-corruption efforts. Please join the discussion on Reforms Panel Moderated by former Ambassador Steven Pifer with the Minister of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine Oleksandra Saenko, Acting Minister of Health of Ukraine Dr. Ulana Suprun,  Member of the Ukrainian Parliament Mustafa Nayem and the Ukrainian Emerging Leader Fellows at Stanford – Natalia Mykolska, former Trade Representative of Ukraine and Oleksandra Ustinova, former Board Member of the Anti-Corruption Action Center in Ukraine.


11:00-12:30 Church and Identity

On January 5, 2019 the tomos of autocephaly of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church was signed, thus granting independence for the Ukrainian church, after centuries of subjugation to Russia. This was a historic move for Ukraine on many levels, from its cultural significance to its role in fighting Russian propaganda as the churches under the Moscow Patriarchate were massively used for propaganda  Since then, at least 340 parishes that were formerly under the Moscow Patriarchate have joined with the newly independent church. The creation of an independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church is a watershed moment in the global understanding of Ukrainian identity. 


12:30-2:00 Luncheon: New Faces in Ukrainian Politics

In light of the upcoming 2019 parliamentary elections you will have the opportunity to meet representatives from major political parties and movements who are considered up and coming reformers in Ukraine. The goal is to engage parliamentarians and others in a discussion about the future of Ukrainian political development. Stanford will bring together reform-minded stakeholders from prominent political parties that will be contending in the October 2019 parliamentary elections so that a multitude of opinions can be voiced and debated.


2:15-3:45 Security and Foreign Policy

One of the largest challenges Ukraine’s next president will face is the security of the country against Russian aggression. The 2018 Kerch Strait incident not only demonstrated the relentlessness of Russia’s continued incursions on Ukrainian sovereignty, but raised questions as to how Ukraine and the West should act in light of such attacks. Whoever wins the spring 2019 presidential elections will face important strategic decisions in the war effort and cooperation with international allies.


4:00-5:30 Tech & Innovation: Shaping Ukrainian Future

IT industry is a growth engine of Ukraine’s economy. Ukraine IT outsourcing industry is a globally recognized leader. Tech ventures working with enterprise software, ML / AI, cyber security, life-science, big data management, gaming, agribusiness and e-commerce. Exports of Ukrainian ICT services is the third largest export sector showing constant growth. Foreign investments into the industry are increasing ($285 mln in 2018). Moreover, the number of SMEs tech companies is growing as well (4,000+ IT companies). Furthermore, from year to year the number of successful tech ventures with Ukrainian founding teams and R&D offices in Silicon Valley is increasing. Ukraine has the largest and fastest-growing engineering talent pool in Europe with 160,000 specialists in 2018 and 242,000 prognosis by 2025. The country’s universities and polytechnic institutes graduate over 100,000 new engineers annually incl. 23000+ IT graduates.

 

 

 

 

Koret-Taube Conference Center
366 Galvez Street
Stanford, CA 94305

 

Conferences
-

RSVPs for this event are now closed. This event is open only to the Stanford community; a valid Stanford ID will be required to enter. 

NOTE: THIS EVENT IS CLOSED TO THE MEDIA

Image
Kaohsiung Mayor Han Kuo-yu

Han Kuo-yu was elected Mayor of Kaohsiung, Taiwan, in November 2018, becoming the first member of the Kuomintang (KMT) to hold that office since 1998. He served as a member of the Legislative Yuan from Taipei County from 1993-2002, and later became the general manager of the Taipei Agricultural Products Marketing Corporation. 

Mr. Han graduated from Soochow University (Taipei) with a degree in English literature, and earned a master’s degree in law from National Chengchi University’s Graduate Institute of East Asian Studies.
 
This event is co-sponsored by the Hoover Institution and the Taiwan Democracy and Security Project, part of the U.S.-Asia Security Initiative
 

Philippines Room
616 Serra Mall
Encina Hall, 3rd Floor, Central (C330)
Stanford, CA 94305

Han Kuo-yu Mayor of Kaohsiung, Taiwan
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

Scholars Corner is an ongoing SPICE initiative to share FSI’s cutting-edge social science research with high school and college classrooms nationwide and international schools abroad.


This week we released “The Rise and Implications of Identity Politics,” the latest installment in our ongoing Scholars Corner series. Each Scholars Corner episode features a short video discussion with a scholar at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI) at Stanford University sharing his or her latest research.

This Scholars Corner video features New York Times bestselling author Francis Fukuyama discussing the recent rise of identity politics, both in the United States and around the world. “In the 20th century we had a politics that was organized around an economic axis, primarily. You had a left that worried about inequality…and you had a right that was in favor of the greatest amount of freedom,” summarizes Fukuyama. “[N]ow we are seeing a shift in many countries away from this focus on economic issues to a polarization based on identity.”

According to Fukuyama, this shift in politics is reflected in such domestic social movements as Black Lives Matter and #MeToo, as well as in international movements like the Catalan independence movement, white nationalism, and even the Islamic State.

The rise of identity politics may have troubling implications for modern democracies. “In the United States, for example, the Republican party increasingly has become a party of white people, and the Democratic party has become increasingly a party of minorities and women. In general, I think the problem for a democracy is that you’ve got these specific identities…[but] you need something more than that. You need an integrative sense of national identity [that’s] open to the existing diversity of the society that allows people to believe that they’re part of the same political community,” says Fukuyama.

“That, I think, is the challenge for modern democracy at the present moment.”

To hear more of Dr. Fukuyama’s analysis, view the video here: “The Rise and Implications of Identity Politics.” For other Scholars Corner episodes, visit our Scholars Corner webpage. Past videos have covered topics such as cybersecurity, immigration and integration, and climate change.

"Identity" hardcover book by Francis Fukuyama "Identity" hardcover book by Francis Fukuyama

Francis Fukuyama is a Senior Fellow at FSI and the Mosbacher Director of the Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law. This video is based on his recent book Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment, which was recognized as The Times (UK) Best Books of 2018, Politics, and Financial Times Best Books of 2018.

Stay informed of SPICE news by joining our email list or following us on Facebook and Twitter.


Related article:

 

 

All News button
1
Subscribe to Democracy