Elections
-
100% Democracy Book Talk

Today’s headlines are filled with arguments over restrictions on the right to vote and attempts to expand it. But what if we leapt over the current argument, and made a commitment to a ‘100% Democracy’, an election process where every citizen has the right to vote and full opportunities to do so—but also the duty to vote, a requirement to participate in our national choices?

In 100% Democracy:  The Case for Universal Voting, co-authors E.J. Dionne and Miles Rapoport argue for just that, and it’s not as far out as it sounds at first hearing.  Twenty-six countries around the world require participation in elections including Australia, which has required citizens to cast a ballot since 1924 and had over 90% voter turnout in their last major election. The U.S. on the other hand lags behind other democracies, with only 66.8% of eligible voters participating in the record-turnout election of 2020. If Americans are required to pay taxes and serve on juries, why not ask—or require—every American to vote?

Join us on Tuesday, April 5, for a conversation with Dionne and Rapoport about 100% Democracy, universal voting, and how it might be implemented. Is it time for the United States to take a major leap forward and recognize voting as both a fundamental civil right and a solemn civic duty?

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Image
EJ Dionne
E.J. Dionne is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a syndicated columnist for The Washington Post, a professor at Georgetown University, and visiting professor at Harvard University. He is the author of Code Red: How Progressives and Moderates Can Unite to Save Our Country.
 

Image
Miles Rapoport
Miles Rapoport is the Senior Practice Fellow in American Democracy at the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation at the Harvard Kennedy School. He formerly served in the Connecticut state legislature and as Connecticut’s secretary of the state. He also served as president of Demos and of Common Cause.

Didi Kuo
E.J. Dionne Senior Fellow Author Brookings Institution
Miles Rapoport Senior Practice Fellow in American Democracy Author Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation at the Harvard Kennedy School
Lectures
Authors
Gi-Wook Shin
Haley Gordon
Hannah June Kim
News Type
Commentary
Date
Paragraphs

This article first appeared in the online magazine American Purpose.  

On March 9, South Koreans head to the voting booths to elect their new president. Although conventional wisdom posits that foreign affairs have little effect on voting preferences, South Koreans have defied this prediction in the past—and now, they may once again. Indeed, the atmosphere in this year’s election recalls that of 2002, when anti-American sentiments swept the South Korean presidential election. This time, it may be anti-Chinese sentiments that make an impact.


Sign up for APARC newsletters to receive our experts' commentary and analysis.


According to our survey of over one thousand South Koreans, conducted this past January, a large majority of respondents—78 percent—indicated that Republic of Korea (ROK)-China relations will be an important consideration when deciding which presidential candidate to vote for. Given that younger South Koreans are expected to be the deciding factor in this election, it is particularly significant that the figure rises to 82 percent for respondents in their twenties. Twenty years ago, anti-American sentiments tipped the vote in favor of Roh Moo-hyun, the liberal candidate, who pledged not to kowtow to the United States. This time, how will anti-Chinese sentiment play out in Seoul? Will it work in favor of the conservatives, who tend to be tougher on China and emphasize the U.S.-ROK alliance? And what does this mean for Washington?

Read More

Young people protesting in South Korea
Commentary

South Koreans Are Rethinking What China Means to Their Nation

A new study illuminates the potential effects of anti-Chinese sentiment in Korea.
South Koreans Are Rethinking What China Means to Their Nation
Yoon Seok-Youl
Commentary

What Does Korea’s 2022 Presidential Election Mean for Its Democracy?

The ongoing South Korean presidential race holds significant sociopolitical implications for the future of democracy as democratic backsliding has now become an undeniable reality in South Korea.
What Does Korea’s 2022 Presidential Election Mean for Its Democracy?
Members of the K-pop band BTS.
News

“K-Pop Stars, Too, Should Speak Out on Human Rights Issues,” Says Stanford Sociologist Gi-Wook Shin

K-pop and North Korean human rights are the subjects of two documentaries to be released this spring to mark the 20th anniversary of Stanford University’s Korea Program, reveals Professor Gi-Wook Shin.
“K-Pop Stars, Too, Should Speak Out on Human Rights Issues,” Says Stanford Sociologist Gi-Wook Shin
Hero Image
3D illustration of voter on a background of South Korea flag
All News button
1
Subtitle

Anti-Chinese sentiment surges—especially among the young—in advance of the March 9 elections.

Paragraphs
3D mockup cover of APARC's volume 'South Korea's Democracy in Crisis'

Like in many other states worldwide, democracy is in trouble in South Korea, entering a state of regression in the past decade, barely thirty years after its emergence in 1987. The society that recently had ordinary citizens leading “candlelight protests” demanding the impeachment of Park Geun-hye in 2016-17 has become polarized amid an upsurge of populism, driven by persistent structural inequalities, globalization, and the rise of the information society. 

The symptoms of democratic decline are increasingly hard to miss: political opponents are demonized, democratic norms are eroded, and the independence of the courts is whittled away. Perhaps most disturbing is that this all takes place under a government dominated by former pro-democracy activists.

The contributors to this volume trace the sources of illiberalism in today’s Korea; examine how political polarization is plaguing its party system; discuss how civil society and the courts have become politicized; look at the roles of inequality, education, and social media in the country’s democratic decline; and consider how illiberalism has affected Korea’s foreign policy. 

Table of Contents

Introduction
Korea’s Democratic Decay: Worrisome Trends and Pressing Challenges
Gi-Wook Shin and Ho-Ki Kim

1. Why Is Korean Democracy Majoritarian but Not Liberal?
Byongjin Ahn

2. Uses and Misuses of Nationalism in the Democratic Politics of Korea
Aram Hur

3. The Weakness of Party Politics and Rise of Populism in Korea
Kwanhu Lee

4. The Politicization of Civil Society: No Longer Watchdogs of Power, Former Democratic Activists Are Becoming New Authoritarian Leaders 
Myoung-Ho Park

5. The Politicization of the Judiciary in Korea: Challenges in Maintaining the Balance of Power
Seongwook Heo

6. Two Divergences in Korea’s Economy and Democracy: Regional and Generational Disparities
Jun-Ho Jeong and Il-Young Lee

7. Democracy and the Educational System in Korea 
Seongsoo Choi

8. Social Media and the Salience of Polarization in Korea
Yong Suk Lee

9. Illiberalism in Korean Foreign Policy
Victor Cha

10. The Democratic Recession: A Global and Comparative Perspective
Larry Diamond

Epilogue
Korea’s 2022 Presidential Election: Populism in the Post-Truth Era
Ho-Ki Kim and Gi-Wook Shin

Media Coverage

To celebrate the publication of South Korea's Democracy in Crisis, APARC held a book launch seminar in Seoul on June 14, 2022. The event received extensive coverage in Korean media, including the following:

Desk, examination, or review copies can be requested through Stanford University Press.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Books
Publication Date
Subtitle

The Threats of Illiberalism, Populism, and Polarization

Authors
Gi-Wook Shin
Book Publisher
Shorenstein APARC

This event is made possible by generous support from the Korea Foundation and other friends of the Korea Program.

On the heels of South Korea's presidential election, an expert panel will examine the election results and their likely policy implications.

Speakers:

Image
portrait of Jae-ho Yeom

Jae-ho Yeom is an Emeritus Professor of Policy Studies at Korea University where he also served as the 19th President. Previously, he served as President of Korean Association for Policy Studies; President of Korean Association for Contemporary Japanese Studies; and Chief Editor of Asian Research Policy. He also served in government as a leader in Inspection and Evaluation Group at the Ministry of Planning and Budget; Chair of Policy Advisory Committee at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Chair of Committee for Innovation and Development at the Board of Audit and Inspection of Korea; and as Advisor for Korean Presidential Commission of Science and Technology Policy. He wrote columns in major Korean newspapers, and moderated a debate show on SBS and a 2002 presidential debate. He is regarded as a scholar who has a discerning eye on social transformations, keen understanding of changing societies and corporate social values. He received a Ph.D. in Political Science from Stanford University.

Image
portrait of Eunjung Lim

Eunjung Lim is an Associate Professor at the Division of International Studies at  Kongju National University where she also serves as Vice President for International Affairs, Dean of Institute of International Language Education, and Dean of Institute of Korean Culture and Education. Her specializations include international cooperation in the Asia-Pacific, comparative and global governance, energy, nuclear, and climate change policies of East Asian countries. Since 2018, she has served as a board member of Korea Institute of Nuclear Nonproliferation and Control, and is currently a member of Policy Advisory Committee at the Ministry of Unification. Previously Dr. Lim was an Assistant Professor at the College of International Relations, Ritsumeikan University, in Kyoto, Japan. She also taught at Johns Hopkins University, Yonsei University, and Korea University. She has been a researcher and a visiting fellow at the Center for Contemporary Korean Studies at Interfaculty Initiative in Information Studies at the University of Tokyo, the Institute of Japanese Studies at Seoul National University, the Institute of Japan Studies at Kookmin University, and Institute of Energy Economics, Japan. She received a B.A. from the University of Tokyo, an M.I.A. from Columbia University and a Ph.D. from Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies.

Moderator: Gi-Wook Shin, director of APARC and the Korea Program, Stanford University

Via Zoom. Register at https://bit.ly/34kA4tO

Panel Discussions
-
course poster
İBB President Ekrem İmamoğlu visits the district market in Avcılar Yeşilkent Neighborhood on January 20, 2022. | İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi

In 2019, Ekrem İmamoğlu, the opposition candidate in Istanbul, defeated the city's ruling party for a second time. The ruling party had governed Istanbul for the previous 25 years and Turkey for 17. This triumph of Turkey’s opposition against President Erdogan’s regime took place in a tilted playing field marked with heavy censorship on media, criminalization of opposition politicians and journalists, and the government’s control of the election authority. Among the forces behind this victory was a successful election campaign.

Necati Özkan, the director of the İmamoğlu Campaign, will explain the background of Istanbul's elections, the opposition’s challenges, and campaign strategies in beating populist authoritarian regimes as Turkey is preparing for its next general elections scheduled in June 2023.

ABOUT THE SPEAKER

Image
 Necati Özkan
Necati Özkan is the founder and president of ÖYKÜ / Dialogue International (an Istanbul-based independent creative agency) and Reform Institute (an Istanbul-based think tank). He has been managing the marketing campaigns of national and international brands for more than 30 years. He has also served as a political consultant and/or campaign manager for political parties, mayors, candidates, and NGOs. He managed more than 160 local, national, presidential, and international political campaigns in Turkey and around. He won more than 70 awards; including 17 Pollie Awards, 11 Reed Awards, 15 Polaris Awards, 11 Goldie Awards, 2 Adrian Awards, 7 Felis Awards, and several national awards. Mr. Özkan is a former president of EAPC, former chairman of Dialogue International (A Pan-European independent agencies network), and a member of EAPC, AAPC, IAPC, IAA. He teaches "Strategy" at the Brand School of Istanbul Bilgi University. He has 5 books on strategy and campaign management.

Ayça Alemdaroğlu
Aytuğ Şaşmaz

Online via Zoom

Necati Özkan Founder and President OYKU / Dialogue International Istanbul
Paragraphs

Why do voters support executive aggrandizement? One possible answer is that they do so because they think this will ease their preferred leader’s hand in putting their partisan vision into action, provided that the leader will continue winning elections.

We study this phenomenon through a survey experiment in Turkey, by manipulating voters’ perceptions about the potential results of the first presidential election after a constitutional referendum of executive aggrandizement. We find that voters from both sides display what we call “elastic support” for executive aggrandizement; that is, they change previously revealed constitutional preferences in response to varying winning chances. This elasticity increases not only when citizens feel greater social distance to perceived political “others” (i.e., affective polarization) but also when voters are concerned about economic management in a potential post-incumbent era. Our findings contribute to the literature on how polarization and economic anxiety contribute to executive aggrandizement and democratic backsliding.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Subtitle

Why do voters support executive aggrandizement?

Journal Publisher
Comparative Political Studies
Authors
Aytuğ Şaşmaz
Number
January 2022
Authors
Melissa Morgan
News Type
Commentary
Date
Paragraphs

A year ago, a crowd on the National Mall violently breached the halls of the U.S. Capitol with the intent of disrupting the formal ratification of the 2020 presidential election. Despite the chaos, Joe Biden was inaugurated as the president, the prosecution of individual perpetrators has begun, and the House of Representatives January 6 Commitee's investigation is ongoing. Yet there remains a sense that something fundamental to American democracy has changed. Where is America now, one year from the attack?

To mark the first anniversary of the January 6 Capitol riot, scholars from across the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies share their thoughts on what has happened in the year since, and what the ongoing effects of the violence signal about the future of democracy and the integrity of America’s image at home and abroad.


Intensifying Divisions

Larry Diamond, Mosbacher Senior Fellow in Global Democracy

The January 6 insurrection was the gravest assault on American democracy since the Civil War, and it came much closer to disrupting the peaceful transfer of power (and possibly our democracy itself) than we realized at the time.

Rather than providing a sobering lesson of the dangers of political polarization, the insurrection seems only to have intensified our divisions, and the willingness to contemplate or condone the use of violence. According to a recent Washington Post survey, a third of Americans feel violence against the government could be justified in some circumstances —a sharp increase from 16 percent in 2010 and 23 percent in 2015.

Sadly, many politicians have not been the least bit chastened by the close brush with a constitutional catastrophe. The “Big Lie” that Biden did not legitimately win the 2020 election retains the support of most Republicans and a substantial proportion of independents. Around the country, Republican legislatures have been introducing, and in many states adopting, bills that would give Republican legislatures the ability to reverse or sabotage legitimate electoral outcomes, and other bills that make it more difficult for people (especially Democratic-leaning groups) to vote. All of this is doing deep damage to the global reputation and hence “soft power” of American democracy.

Although they are generally relieved that Trump is no longer president, our allies remain deeply worried about the stability and effectiveness of American democracy.

What gives me some hope is the expanding network of civil society organizations documenting the multiple threats to electoral integrity in the U.S. But we are going to need much more widespread and resourceful mobilization to counter the downward spiral of our democracy.

Professor Larry Diamond

Larry Diamond

Mosbacher Senior Fellow in Global Democracy at FSI
Full Profile

Problems at Home, Issues Abroad

Francis Fukuyama, Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow

The Capitol uprising on January 6 marked a grave crisis in American institutions, when a sitting President refused to transfer power peacefully and sought to actively overturn an election.  The Republican Party, rather than repudiating the uprising and marginalizing its organizers, instead rallied in subsequent weeks to normalize the event.  These developments, while bad in themselves from the standpoint of US politics, also sent an unmistakable geopolitical signal that the Biden presidency would not represent an American return to “normal” internationalism.  The Administration would lead a deeply polarized country uncertain of its own global role.

This is the point at which geopolitics and domestic unrest come together. The single greatest weakness of the United States today does not lie in its economy or military power, but in the deep polarization that has affected American politics.  This is not just speculation, but something underlined by Kremlin-linked commentators, as Françoise Thom has detailed: in the words of one, "the decrepit empire of the Stars and Stripes, weakened by LGBT, BLM, etc." makes "it is clear that it will not survive a two-front war."  They see that a significant number of Republicans believe that the Democratic Party represents a bigger threat to the American way of life than does Russia.  A country that cannot rally around sensible public health measures during a pandemic will not rally around defense of freedom abroad.  This is the significance of January 6:  it has hardened partisan divisions rather than being the occasion for national soul-searching.

Read Francis Fukuyama's full commentary in American Purpose.

Francis Fukuyama

Francis Fukuyama

Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at FSI
Full Profile

Democracy vs. Partisanship

Didi Kuo, Senior Research Scholar at CDDRL

It has been a year since rioters stormed the United States Capitol in an effort—an organized, violent effort—to declare Donald Trump the rightful winner of the 2020 presidential election. The riots signaled a dangerous turn in American politics, an attack on the basic, fundamental institutions of democracy. For democracy to work, all sides must agree on the rules of the game: the fairness of the balloting and counting process, the routine and peaceful transfer of power. We now see what happens when the institutions and procedures of elections are delegitimated.

Our political leaders can act now to restore confidence in elections. They can do so by protecting election administrators from threats of violence, by depoliticizing oversight of elections, and by passing democratic reforms. Although President Biden’s Freedom to Vote Act and John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act have been blocked by Republicans, narrower versions of these bills could create stricter federal election standards. And Americans can organize to protect democracy through civic groups that push for ballot access and election integrity, particularly at the state level. Politicians and activists alike must make clear that election administration is not a partisan issue. As the nation enters the third year of a global pandemic and an upcoming midterm election, our leaders must make strengthening democracy their utmost priority.

Watch Kuo's conversation with Hakeem Jefferson about the anniversary of the riots at the U.S. Capitol.

Didi Kuo

Didi Kuo

Senior Research Scholar at CDDRL
Full Profile

Epistemic Fractures and Exploitation

Herbert Lin, Senior Research Scholar at CISAC

The failure of the Jan. 6 insurrection provided an opportunity for the United States to collectively take a step back from the conspiracy theories and lies that pervaded American political discourse in the preceding couple of years. But alas, the nation failed to take advantage of that opportunity, with tens of millions of Americans maintaining their delusions as strongly as ever. Substantial numbers of Americans continue to believe that Donald Trump really won the 2020 election, and the number of QAnon adherents and believers was virtually unchanged.

Even more alarming has been the cynical exploitation of such trends by elected officials in their quest to gain or retain political power. Rather than standing up for the rule of law and defending the conclusions of an independent judiciary regarding various allegations of election fraud, they have pointed to such outcomes as yet more evidence of a system rigged against them. We now live in a environment in which no conceivable evidence can persuade true believers to change their minds, and the resulting epistemic fractures translate into a once-unified nation sharply divided against itself.  A worse national posture to meet the challenges of coming great-power competition could not be imagined.

Read more of Herbert Lin's analysis of contemporary security issues and power competition in his latest book, Cyber Threats and Nuclear Weapons (Stanford University Press, 2021).

Dr. Hebert Lin

Herbert Lin

Senior Research Scholar at CISAC
Full Profile

The Need to Protect and Invest In Elections

Matthew Masterson, Non-resident Fellow at the Stanford Internet Observatory

The insurrection on January 6th left a scar on American Democracy. For the first time in our history, America did not have a peaceful transition of power. The effects of that day continue to be felt every day in election offices across the United States. Election officials, the guardians of our Democracy, are targets of harassment and threats fueled by the ongoing lies regarding the integrity and accuracy of the election. Worse yet, there have been little no consequences for these threats against our democracy. While some who participated in January 6th are being investigated and prosecuted, those responsible for the threats against election officials have faced little to no accountability for their actions. Facing ongoing threats and little support from law enforcement election officials are leaving their jobs out of fear for their own safety and the safety of their families.

Healing the wound of January 6th won’t be easy; there must be accountability for the damage done to our democracy. American democracy is resilient and strong, but can not survive the unchecked attacks against it. Those who seek to profit from the lies about 2020 need to be held accountable for selling out democracy in pursuit of their own political and financial gain. They must be defeated at the ballot box or their businesses made to pay the price  by Americans unwilling to accept holding democracy for ransom. As we bring accountability, we need to invest in continuing to improve the security, accessibility and integrity of the process. We need to fund elections on an ongoing basis like the national security issue they are. The only response to this sustained attack on our democracy is a sustained investment in protecting it.  

Matt Masterson

Matthew Masterson

Non-resident Fellow at the Stanford Internet Observatory
Full Profile

Read More

storming of capital 2021
News

To Support Democracy Abroad, the U.S. Needs To Set Its Own House In Order, says FSI Director Michael McFaul

Former U.S. ambassador to Russia and Stanford political scientist Michael McFaul recommends that the incoming Biden administration “go big” in its efforts to reaffirm core democratic values – including passing comprehensive, structural reforms.
To Support Democracy Abroad, the U.S. Needs To Set Its Own House In Order, says FSI Director Michael McFaul
Capitol Building
News

Stanford Scholars React to Capitol Hill Takeover

FSI scholars reflect on the occupation of the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday and suggest what needs to happen next to preserve democracy.
Stanford Scholars React to Capitol Hill Takeover
Hero Image
Protesters attack the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.
Protesters attacked the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021 in an attempt to disrupt the verification of the 2020 election results.
Getty
All News button
1
Subtitle

On the first anniversary of the riot at the U.S. Capitol, scholars from across FSI reflect on the ongoing ramifications the violence is having on America's domestic politics and international influence.

Date Label
0
Assistant Professor, Political Science
hakeem_jefferson_2022.jpg

Hakeem Jefferson is an assistant professor of political science at Stanford University where he is also a faculty affiliate with the Center for Comparative Studies in Race and Ethnicity and the Stanford Center for American Democracy. During the 2021-22 academic year he was also the SAGE Sara Miller McCune Fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences.

Hakeem’s work focuses primarily on the role identity plays in structuring political attitudes and behaviors in the U.S. His in-progress book project builds on his award-winning dissertation to consider how Black Americans come to support punitive social policies that target members of their racial group.

In other projects, Hakeem examines the causes of the racial divide in Americans’ reactions to officer-involved shootings; works to evaluate the meaningfulness of key political concepts, like ideological identification among Black Americans; and considers how white Americans navigate an identity that many within the group perceive as increasingly stigmatized. In these and other projects, Hakeem sets out to showcase and clarify the important and complex ways that identity matters across all domains of American life.

A public-facing, justice-oriented scholar, Hakeem is an academic contributor at FiveThirtyEight and his writings and commentary have been featured in places like the New York Times, The Washington Post, NPR, and other major outlets. He is also active on Twitter, and you can follow him @hakeemjefferson.

CDDRL Affiliated Faculty
CV
Authors
Nora Sulots
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

We are delighted to announce that Hakeem Jefferson, Assistant Professor of Political Science, is a new faculty affiliate at the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law.

Professor Jefferson’s research focuses primarily on the role identity plays in structuring political attitudes and behaviors in the U.S. He is especially interested in understanding how stigma shapes the politics of Black Americans, particularly as it relates to group members’ support for racialized punitive social policies. In other research projects, he examines the psychological and social roots of the racial divide in Americans’ reactions to officer-involved shootings and works to evaluate the meaningfulness of key political concepts, like ideological identification, among Black Americans.

"I am delighted that Hakeem Jefferson is joining the CDDRL community” shared Kathryn Stoner, Mosbacher Director of CDDRL. “Hakeem's work on race and politics in America is a welcome addition to the Center's expanding work on the quality of American democracy. I look forward to supporting his important work on the role that identity plays in the United States and elsewhere in structuring political behavior and social policies."

Hakeem's work on race and politics in America is a welcome addition to the Center's expanding work on the quality of American democracy.
Kathryn Stoner
Mosbacher Director of CDDRL

Professor Jefferson is also a faculty affiliate with the Center for Comparative Studies in Race and Ethnicity and the Stanford Center for American Democracy. He received his PhD in political science from the University of Michigan and a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science and African American Studies from the University of South Carolina.

In 2020, his dissertation, "Policing Norms: Punishment and the Politics of Respectability Among Black Americans," was a co-winner of the Best Dissertation Award from the Political Psychology Section of the American Political Science Association.

Hakeem Jefferson

Hakeem Jefferson

Assistant Professor, Political Science and CDDRL Affiliated Faculty
Read more about Hakeem
Hero Image
Hakeem Jefferson Photo by Andrew Brodhead
All News button
1
Subtitle

Jefferson, an assistant professor of political science at Stanford University, will join the center as a faculty affiliate.

-

About the Seminar: On January 6, 2021, the U. S. Capitol was attacked as Congress certified the presidential election results. On the anniversary of this historic event, join Hakeem Jefferson and Didi Kuo for a discussion of January 6th’s impact on American politics, violence and election legitimacy, and the ongoing crisis of democracy.

 

About the Speaker: 

Image
Hakeem Jefferson
Hakeem Jefferson is an assistant professor of political science at Stanford University where he also is a faculty affiliate with the Center for Comparative Studies in Race and Ethnicity and the Stanford Center for American Democracy. He received his PhD in political science from the University of Michigan and a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science and African American Studies from the University of South Carolina.

His research focuses primarily on the role identity plays in structuring political attitudes and behaviors in the U.S. He is especially interested in understanding how stigma shapes the politics of Black Americans, particularly as it relates to group members’ support for racialized punitive social policies. In other research projects, Hakeem examines the psychological and social roots of the racial divide in Americans’ reactions to officer-involved shootings and work to evaluate the meaningfulness of key political concepts, like ideological identification, among Black Americans.

Hakeem’s dissertation, "Policing Norms: Punishment and the Politics of Respectability Among Black Americans," was a co-winner of the 2020 Best Dissertation Award from the Political Psychology Section of the American Political Science Association.

Related: 

Statement from CDDRL Leadership on the Events of Jan. 6

January 6 and the Crisis of American Democracy

Online, via Zoom

0
Assistant Professor, Political Science
hakeem_jefferson_2022.jpg

Hakeem Jefferson is an assistant professor of political science at Stanford University where he is also a faculty affiliate with the Center for Comparative Studies in Race and Ethnicity and the Stanford Center for American Democracy. During the 2021-22 academic year he was also the SAGE Sara Miller McCune Fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences.

Hakeem’s work focuses primarily on the role identity plays in structuring political attitudes and behaviors in the U.S. His in-progress book project builds on his award-winning dissertation to consider how Black Americans come to support punitive social policies that target members of their racial group.

In other projects, Hakeem examines the causes of the racial divide in Americans’ reactions to officer-involved shootings; works to evaluate the meaningfulness of key political concepts, like ideological identification among Black Americans; and considers how white Americans navigate an identity that many within the group perceive as increasingly stigmatized. In these and other projects, Hakeem sets out to showcase and clarify the important and complex ways that identity matters across all domains of American life.

A public-facing, justice-oriented scholar, Hakeem is an academic contributor at FiveThirtyEight and his writings and commentary have been featured in places like the New York Times, The Washington Post, NPR, and other major outlets. He is also active on Twitter, and you can follow him @hakeemjefferson.

CDDRL Affiliated Faculty
CV
Assistant Professor of Political Science at Stanford University

Encina Hall, C150
616 Jane Stanford Way
Stanford, CA 94305

0
Center Fellow, Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies
didi_kuo_2023.jpg

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) 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.

Date Label
Seminars
Subscribe to Elections