Political leaders and democratic change: A comparative case study of the Republic of China and Singapore

Prevailing democracy theory widely assumes that the process of democratic change and the establishment of democracy are driven by powerful economic or societal forces acting upon a resistant and fundamentally anti-democratic state. However, such explanations often fail to adequately or consistently address the varied experiences of many countries with democracy and democratic change, and specifically the often critical role that state factors have played in such change. Moreover, they do not capture the dynamic interaction between state and societal factors that is manifest in such change. This study, therefore, seeks to provide scholars a more inclusive, balanced picture of the process of democratic change by attempting to bring heretofore neglected factors into existing explanations, and highlighting the dynamic interaction between all factors.; Specifically, this dissertation, through a comparative examination of Chiang Ching-kuo in the Republic of China (Taiwan) and Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore, demonstrates the value and importance of bringing political leaders back into our explanations of democracy and democratic change. Utilizing a predominantly inductive comparative case study approach, this study argues that critical decision making behaviors of political leaders are often obscured in overbroad economic or societal based explanations. Moreover, through the use of key informant interviews, focus groups, and general data collection, this dissertation concludes that political leaders often substantively influence decisions or actions which affect democratic institutions, the parameters of the change process, and even the democratic values that between political leaders and other state and societal factors in the process of democratic change. Thus, from this comparative study, we have been able to broaden our understanding of relevant causal factors in democratic change, as well as develop typology of influential behaviors which can be used to examine other leaders and other causal factors. With such understanding, we can then more fully and accurately assess their contribution to a given change experience, and, it is hoped, fill in some of the gaps in the existing literature on democracy and democratic change.