Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 March 2016
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.
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.
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
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 Colton, Timothy J., “Babes in Partyland: The Riddle of Partisanship in Post-Soviet Russia” (unpublished manuscript); Gunther, Richard, Montero, Jose Ramon, and Linz, Juan, eds., Political Parties: Old Concepts and New Challenges (Oxford: Oxford University Press,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.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.CrossRefGoogle 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.
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.
13. Holmberg, , “Are Political Parties Necessary?”
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
24. Rose, , Mishler, , and Haerpfer, , Democracy and Its Alternatives; Shin, Doh Chull, Mass Politics and Culture in Democratizing Korea (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).
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
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.CrossRefGoogle 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.
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.
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.
Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.