In the field of international relations, there is a theory called “domestic audience cost.” According to this theory, the political leaders of a country might send out signals to intensify a conflict with an enemy state in the hope that this will function as a deterrent to the state in question. This is risky, however, because if they then pull back once conflict intensifies, they run the risk of disappointing their domestic audience. The cost of that could affect their political standing.
In democracies, the domestic audience cost is evaluated in regular elections where voters can punish those leaders that have disappointed them through their ballots. In authoritarian countries, however, there are no regular elections to highlight domestic audience cost.
According to the theory, as the risk of conflict intensifies, democratic states are better than non-democratic states at clearly conveying a credible deterrent.
The domestic audience cost analysis is generally used to explain the domestic effect encountered by political leaders during ongoing conflicts and their understanding of the intentions of the leaders of the enemy state.
Simply put, because of the higher degree of transparency in democratic states there are more effective restraints on the power of political leaders, and this makes it easier for their opponents to see their intentions.
If the political leaders in a democracy send out signals that will lead to the intensification of a conflict, those statements will inevitably create a domestic reaction. That reaction will quickly make the statements of political leaders self--fulfilling, and as such, must be taken seriously.
By comparison, the domestic audience cost is lower in events aimed at creating peace. If a leader in a democratic country expresses a wish to create peace with a belligerent state, but later regrets having done so, some domestic peace proponents might criticize the leader’s moral rectitude, but generally speaking, the strength of their condemnation might not be as strong as the support from those who are in favor of a more hawkish stance, particularly if the democratic state in question is under threat.
How believable is it if a non-democratic state sends out signals that it wants peace?
Non-democratic states are not transparent and there are no restraints on their powers. This makes it very likely that people would doubt claims that they are interested in peace.
To go one step further, if political leaders in an authoritarian state retreat from a claim that they want peace and instead move in a more hawkish direction, that creates almost no domestic reaction because in such a state people are more likely to hold a jingoistic attitude toward the outside world. Peace activists will find it very difficult to make their voices heard in such a state.
Further, if this non-democratic state is threatening another state, any promise of peace should be met with even more skepticism. For the leaders of a non-democratic state, therefore, the domestic audience cost of retreating from a call for peace will be lower than in a democratic state and lower than if they step back from a promise to increase the tension in a conflict.
It will also be lower than it would be in a state that is under threat.
This means that a move toward peace by a non-democratic state that is also threatening another state is the least credible of all.
This theory provides a clear explanation of why Chinese official Jiang Ping’s (江平) statements at the Tokyo Film Festival triggered such a vehement response in Taiwan so quickly. It also explains why China’s promises to Taiwan of peace are always met with suspicion and expectations that it has ulterior motives.
In terms of cross-strait relations, precisely because Taiwan is a democratic state and China is not, and precisely because Taiwan is under threat, but China is not, the domestic audience cost for any promise of peace on behalf of China will be extremely low. This is why it is so difficult for China’s political leaders to win the trust of the Taiwanese public no matter how hard they try and no matter how many concessions they may make in Taiwan’s favor.
Hsu Szu-chien is an assistant research fellow in the provisional office of Academia Sinica’s Institute of Political Science.
TRANSLATED BY PERRY SVENSSON
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS