Hello and welcome to DEEPER LOOK, coming to you once again from the Stanford University, here in the San Francisco Bay Area.

I'm Del Irani, it's great to have your company.

This year is a pivotal year for global democracy.

More than 4 billion people will have an opportunity to cast their votes in an election this year.

Now, one of those elections recently took place in Taiwan,

where voters selected Lai Ching-te as their next president.

As we delve deeper into Taiwan's recent elections,

and, of course, the potential shifts in the global democratic landscape, a pressing question emerges.

Is global democracy in crisis, or does it merely require more time for development?

These are some of the questions I'm going to put once again to Larry Diamond.

He's a democracy expert, who was in Taiwan during the recent elections.

Mr. Diamond is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, here at Stanford University,

and he chairs the Hoover Institution projects on Taiwan.

- Welcome back to the program, Larry Diamond, great to have you with us again.
- Thank you.

You recently returned from Taiwan.

What was the mood like there? And what was your take on how the elections went?

Did you see democracy in action?

Well, I did. That's why I went there.

And it's always an exhilarating experience to be in an election in Taiwan,

because there's a lot of enthusiasm, there are big crowds, there's a lot of signage.

Democracy is a very palpable, visible, spirited exercise in Taiwan.

At the same time, there's an element of democracy in Taiwan that is properly,

with relief for an American coming from some of our recent experiences, very boring.

Elections happen on a Saturday, the polls open at 8 am, people go and vote in person, the polls close at 4 pm.

They count the ballots at the polling stations,

the results are announced a few hours later, the losers congratulate the winner.

The winner comes out and thanks the country, and that's it.

- But that's usually a good sign, right?
- Oh, yeah.

- I mean, if it's boring, that means everything is working.
- Yes, it's very, very refreshing.

So, I will say two more things.

Number one: there was a lot of talk about voter apathy in Taiwan,

and disenchantment with all the parties and candidates.

This is a natural thing, that is... or a common thing, that's happening in a lot of democracies around the world,

and a lot of youth disenchantment, and so on.

But in the end, the voter turnout, 72%, was only slightly lower than in the previous election.

A lot of people saw the stakes in the election.

A lot of young people voted for the third-party candidate, the rising, more slightly populous candidate,

the former Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je, and you know, it was all, I'd say a healthy exercise.

What role do you think, if any, did political pressure from China play in these elections in Taiwan?

I think that that is hard to assess,

but that we can make the following speculations, but in foreign speculations.

Number one: the PRC certainly attempted to influence the election,

mainly through an increasingly sophisticated and abundant flow of digital disinformation,

through social media platforms into Taiwan's society.

Number two: it may have had some effect in undermining support for the ruling DPP.

But, you know, at most, I think it was modest.

Number three: I think there was an effect in the other direction.

That even though China's obvious dislike for the DPP and desire to swing the election to the main opposition party,

the KMT was quite pronounced and energetic.

It was pretty much rejected by the people of Taiwan.

What are some of the lessons that countries like the US

and other countries around the world that will be going to elections this year;

what lessons they can take away from Taiwanese elections, in terms of how to manage and handle,

you know, these really sophisticated misinformation campaigns?

I think one lesson is that you really need independent civil society to be in the lead,

or certainly to have a prominent role.

If it's neutral, respected, professional, credentialed actors with experience and expertise in civil society,

whether they're coming from universities, or from NGOs,

and there were two or three really good ones in Taiwan, it's got a lot more credibility.

And then they can say to their followers and to the society,

Look, here's what we're seeing, be alert to this.

Here are the characteristic mechanisms.

Here's a video that has floated on social media, we've analyzed that technically,

we think there's a high probability that it's a fake video, this sort of thing.

So, you need neutral, trusted, energetic, well-resourced,

technologically-sophisticated, you know, arbiters of what is happening.

Can you elaborate on potential, I guess, ripple effects and the role that Taiwan plays,

you know, in terms of being a democratic model in the region?

Well, first, let me put it in a global context.

As you know, 2024 is a year of elections.

Half of humanity lives in countries that will have a competitive election for something this year.

I don't count Belarus and Russia as very great examples of elections.

But you know, in India, 1.4 billion people, there are going to be quite competitive elections.

I personally think those elections are no longer democratic.

And I would not count India as a genuine electoral democracy anymore, I think.

Why do you say that?

I think that the ruling BJP party has so intimidated the press, civil society, political opposition,

they've so weaponized the mechanisms of law enforcement, tax enforcement,

so constrained the social media space with weaponization of cyber laws, and de facto censorship of social media.

And so struck fear into the hearts of journalists... I know journalists, intellectuals, business people

who are engaged in extensive self-censorship, because they don't want to go to jail.

You can't then say that the election was a free and fair election,

simply because the ballots were neutrally counted on election day.

What about some of the other elections that we have happening this year?

Let's talk about EU and the rise of the far right.

How concerned are you about that?

I'm quite concerned; you know, the EU is struggling with some of the stresses that we are in the US,

and some other advanced industrial democracies with the... you know, the tough, some of the tough consequences of globalization,

in terms of immigration, adapting to more complex societies, and so on.

And the backlash of globalization economically, a lot of manufacturing jobs disappearing,

and more economic competition, rising inequality within most countries.

And so, I think this has contributed to the rise of the Alternative for Germany,

the National Rally—formally the National Front—in France, and Marine Le Pen.

I think the bigger danger for the European Union elections is that they're not national elections,

who will determine who rules in a country.

So, they're less salience to people, and the people who are angrier are more likely to turn out to vote.

So, the vote, unless people really mobilize and take it seriously,

may not really be a snapshot of public opinion.

You coined the term, the phrase "democratic recession" over a decade ago.

Are we still in a recession?

Well, I think we are still in a democratic recession.

If you look at the overall numbers,

if you just look at how many countries have changed their extent of freedom and democracy in a significant way,

between the time the democratic recession began, around 2007, and now, 15-16 years.

The vast majority of those that had a significant change in one direction or another, went downwards.

And not only toward less democracy, but it's very important to appreciate that the authoritarian countries,

Russia, China, Iran, and so on, became significantly more repressive.

Given that the crucial moment we're at, what can history teach us?

I think one of the lessons of history, that's on our side, if you're someone who believes in democracy, and you're watching this show,

is that authoritarian regimes, always in the end, discredit themselves with their corruption and tyranny.

Because in the absence of the mechanism of electoral accountability,

if you misrule, if you are corrupt, I can throw you out of power.

In the absence of that ultimate check,

power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely; they all go bad.

- You can see it happening now in China with Xi Jinping.
- Right.

I mean, he's increasingly hated by his own people and his own elites.

Because he's been so tyrannical, so paranoid, so ineffective,

so concentrating in power, and the Chinese economy is now plummeting.

You see the corruption seeping in in countries:

Venezuela has been ruined by it, Zimbabwe has been ruined by it,

Turkey is being ruined by it, Hungary is being undermined by it.

And take my word for it: it's gonna happen in India, right?

The economic miracle now, it's great; I'm happy for India.

But you know, if India keeps moving in an authoritarian direction, the BJP will become more and more corrupt.

There'll be no judicial or media checks on its corruption.

And eventually, people are going to rise up and say, "Sorry, we're not going to take this!"

So that historical cycle, we've seen it so many times, is a great asset.

The other thing we see is that this can be turned back.

And we have instances of countries that were moving in an undemocratic, illiberal direction,

whether authoritarian populism from the right or authoritarian populism from the left.

That was kind of getting on track that way in Greece,

that was kind of getting on track that way in Colombia, that had gone far down the tracks in Poland.

And electoral alternatives emerged, and they used responsible, transparent tactics within the system,

to mobilize voters, develop better messages, and they won at the ballot box,

and they returned the countries to a democratic path.

We've got a big election year, you know, 4 billion people going to... potentially going to the polls.

What are the things that countries can do to help get themselves back on track with democracy?

People that care about democracy have to be active citizens.

And "active citizens" doesn't just mean well, you got to show up at the polls and vote.

Actually, you do; you have no right to complain, if you don't.

And even if you don't like the choices, which is going to be the case in the United States in 2024,

in the fall election, when we have two, you know, nearly-or-over-80-year-old men, running against each other for the presidency.

You know, you've got to make a choice!

And there are many instances where the choices are, you know, uninspiring to many people,

including maybe many young people, but you got to reflect on what's at stake.

One of the things that I have surmised, from looking around at countries, not least including my own,

is that there's been a deterioration of civic education.

In the schools, well, it isn't that important, we're already a democracy; let's focus on STEM, you know, maybe the arts or something.

Well, wonderful, I favor all of that.

But we've got to go back to basics, civically, as well.

We're trying to do this at Stanford University now, with our own curriculum,

because democracy needs to be learned by every generation, internalized by every generation.

And sometimes it may need to be fought for and defended by every generation.

And you cannot take it for granted, that it's just out there in the ether.

And young people or even older people might have forgotten.

We'll just kind of absorb it, because they exist in a democracy.

- Thank you so much for your time and insights. We really appreciate it.
- OK. Thank you for having me.

2024 is a pivotal moment that could either prove a boon for democracy, or signal a decline.

As nations find themselves at an inflection point, the unfolding dynamics of many elections

will significantly reshape the narrative of democracy on a global scale.

I'm Del Irani, thanks for your company.

I'll see you next time on DEEPER LOOK.