Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T07:42:12.674Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Partisanship and Democratization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 March 2016

Doh Chull Shin  and
Rollin F. Tusalem
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

How do attachments to political parties among the mass publics of East Asia affect the process of democratization in the region? Analyses of the East Asia Barometer surveys reveal that partisanship motivates East Asians to endorse the democratic performance of their political system and embrace democracy as the best possible system of government. These findings accord, by and large, with the socialization, cognitive dissonance, and rational choice theories of partisanship.

Keywords

cognitive dissonancedemocratizationEast Asianspartisanshiprational choiceand socialization
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of East Asian Studies , Volume 7 , Issue 2: Special Issue: Party Choice and Partisanship in East Asia , August 2007 , pp. 323 - 343
Copyright
Copyright © East Asia Institute 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. “Democracy Without Parties? Political Parties and Regime Collapse in Fujimori's Peru,” paper presented at the Congress of the Latin American Studies Association, Washington, DC, September 6–8, 2001, p. 5.Google Scholar

2. Mainwaring, Scott, Rethinking Party Systems in Third Wave of Democratization (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999); Pridham, Geoffrey and Lewis, Paul G., eds., Stabilising Fragile Democracies: Comparing the New Party Systems in Southern and Eastern Europe (London and New York: Routledge, 1966).Google Scholar

3. Dalton, Russell J. and Weldon, Steven, “Partisanship and Party System Institutionalization,” Party Politics 13, no. 2 (March 2007); Randall, Vicky and Svåsand, Lars, “Party Institutionalization in New Democracies,” Party Politics 8, no. 1 (January 2002): 5–29.Google Scholar

4. McAllister, Ian and White, Stephen, “Democracy, Political Parties and Party Formation in Postcommunist Russia,” Party Politics 1 (1995): 49–72.Google Scholar

5. Colton, Timothy J., “Babes in Partyland: The Riddle of Partisanship in Post-Soviet Russia” (unpublished manuscript); Gunther, Richard, Montero, Jose Ramon, and Linz, Juan, eds., Political Parties: Old Concepts and New Challenges (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).Google Scholar

6. Dalton, Russell J., Citizen Politics: Public Opinion and Political Parties in Advanced Industrial Democracies, 4th ed. (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2005), p. 174. See also Bratton, Michael, Mattes, Robert, and Gyimah-Boadi, E., Public Opinion, Democracy, and Market Reform in Africa (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), p. 39.Google Scholar

7. Anderson, Christopher and Guillory, Christine A., “Political Institutions and Satisfaction with Democracy,” American Political Science Review 91, no. 1 (1997): 66–81; Bartels, Larry, “Beyond the Running Tally: Partisan Bias in Political Perceptions,” Political Behavior 24, no. 2 (2002): 117–150.Google Scholar

8. Anderson, Christian, “Parties, Party Systems, and Satisfaction with Democratic Performance in the New Europe,” Political Studies 46, no. 4 (1998): 572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9. Anderson, Christopher et al., Loser's Consent: Elections and Democracy Legitimacy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005); Dennis, Jack and Owen, Diana, “Popular Satisfaction with the Party System and Representative Democracy in the United States,” International Political Science Review 22, no. 4 (2001): 399–415; Holmberg, Soren, “Are Political Parties Necessary?” Electoral Studies 22, no. 2 (2003): 287–299.Google Scholar

10. Rose, Richard, Mishler, William, and Haerpfer, Christian, Democracy and Its Alternatives (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998), p. 157.Google Scholar

11. Bratton, Mattes, and Gyimah-Boadi, , Public Opinion, Democracy, and Market Reform, pp. 259–261.Google Scholar

12. The study reported in this paper is based on the first wave of the EAB surveys conducted in 2002 and 2003. These multinational public opinion data consist of responses collected through face-to-face interviews with randomly selected voters in Japan (N = 1,360), South Korea (N = 1,500), Mongolia (N = 1,144), the Philippines (N = 1,199), Taiwan (N = 1,350), and Thailand (N = 1,546) (though surveys were conducted in China and Hong Kong, these are not included in this study). Further information about questionnaire design, sampling methodology, and fieldwork is available at www.eastasiabarometer.org.Google Scholar

13. Holmberg, , “Are Political Parties Necessary?” Google Scholar

14. Anderson, et al., Loser's Consent, p. 76; Paskeviciute, Aida and Anderson, Christopher J., “Political Parties, Partisanship, and Attitudes Toward Government in Democracies,” presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois, April 2004.Google Scholar

15. Anderson, et al., Loser's Consent, p. 75; Anderson, Christopher and Tverdova, Yuliya, “Winners, Losers, and Attitudes About Government in Contemporary Democracies,” International Political Science Review 22, no. 4 (2001): 323.Google Scholar

16. Anderson, Christopher and Tverdova, Yuliya V., “Corruption, Political Allegiances, and Attitudes Toward Government in Contemporary Democracies,” American Journal of Political Science 47, no. 1 (2003): 91–109.Google Scholar

17. Campbell, Angus et al., The American Voter (New York: Wiley, 1960); Fiorina, Morris, “Parties and Partisanship: A Forty Year Retrospective,” Political Behavior 24, no. 2 (2002): 93–115.Google Scholar

18. Dalton, Russell, Democratic Challenges, Democratic Choice: The Erosion of Political Support in Advanced Industrial Democracies (Oxford: Oxford University Press), p. 33; see also Greene, Steven, “The Social-Psychological Measurement of Partisanship,” Political Behavior 24, no. 3 (2002): 171–197.Google Scholar

19. Ruling parties are Japan's Liberal Democratic Party; Korea's Uri Party; Mongolia's People's Revolutionary Party; the Philippines' governing coalition of Gloria Arroyo Party, Lakas Ng Tao, Liberal Party, and People Power Coalition (48 percent); Taiwan's Democratic Progressive Party (56 percent); and Thailand's Thai Rak Thai Party (90 percent).Google Scholar

20. Bunce, Valerie, “Rethinking Recent Democratization: Lessons from the Postcommunist Experience,” World Politics 55, no. 2 (2003): 167–192; Whitehead, Laurence, Democratization: Theory and Experience (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).Google Scholar

21. Dalton, Russell, “Political Support for Advanced Industrial Democracies.” In Norris, Pippa, ed., Critical Citizens (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), pp. 57–77.Google Scholar

22. Klingemann, Hans-Dieter, “Mapping Political Support in the 1990s: A Global Analysis,” in Norris, , ed., Critical Citizens, pp. 31–56; Shin, Doh Chull, “Democratization: Perspectives from Global Citizenries.” In Dalton, Russell and Klingemann, Hans-Dieter, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 259–282.Google Scholar

23. Mishler, William and Rose, Richard, “Political Support for Incomplete Democracies,” International Political Science Review 22, no. 4 (2001): 303–320.Google Scholar

24. Rose, , Mishler, , and Haerpfer, , Democracy and Its Alternatives; Shin, Doh Chull, Mass Politics and Culture in Democratizing Korea (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).Google Scholar

25. Lipset, Seymour and Rokkan, Stein, eds., Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross National Perspectives (New York: Free Press, 1967). See also Ian McAllister's article in this issue.Google Scholar

26. Sachsenroder, Wolfgang and Frings, Ulrike, eds., Political Party Systems and Democratic Developments in East and Southeast Asia (London: Ashgate, 1998).Google Scholar

27. Croissant, Aurel, “Parliamentary Elections in Thailand, March 2000 and January 2001,” Electoral Studies 22, no. 1 (March 2003): 153–160.Google Scholar

28. Of the six East Asian democracies, the Philippines is the only country where a majority of winning partisans refused to endorse the current regime. This is probably because the congress impeached President Estrada and the Supreme Courts swore in Gloria Arroyo as acting president on January 20, 2001. For further details, see Rogers, Steven, “Philippine Politics and the Rule of Law,” Journal of Democracy 15, no. 4 (October 2004): 111–125.Google Scholar

29. Anderson, Christopher and Mendes, Silvia, “Learning to Lose: Election Outcomes, Democratic Experience and Political Protest Potential,” British Journal of Political Science 36, no. 4 (2005): 91–111; Anderson, and Tverdova, , “Winners, Losers, and Attitudes”; Paskeviciute, and Anderson, , “Political Parties, Partisanship, and Attitudes.” CrossRefGoogle Scholar

30. Bratton, Mattes, and Gyimah-Boadi, , Public Opinion, Democracy, and Market Reform; Rose, , Mishler, , and Haerpfer, , Democracy and Its Alternatives ; Shin, , Mass Politics and Culture in Democratizing Korea. Google Scholar

31. Age, school, and class standing were measured in terms of five categories. Community type was measured in terms of two categories, rural and urban.Google Scholar

32. Andrew, Frank, Morgan, James, and Gouquist, James, Multiple Classification Analysis (Ann Arbor: Survey Research Center, the University of Michigan, 1973).Google Scholar

33. Anderson, , “Parties, Party Systems, and Satisfaction”; Anderson, et al., Losers' Consent (2005); Holmberg, , “Are Political Parties Necessary?” Google Scholar

34. Anderson, et al., Losers' Consent, p. 527.Google Scholar