ABSTRACT SELLING AUTHORITARIANISM: SINGAPORE AND CHINA’S BRANDING PROCESSES by Connor Joseph Gahre This thesis explores the phenomena of nation branding, an informal political institution of national reputation and its usefulness to authoritarian countries, specifically Singapore and China. It discovers that branding has been a vital part of the enduring stability of authoritarian regimes by pacifying the populace against greater calls for democratization. Singapore and China both had to contend with and use history in their respective branding projects in order to continually hold power internally against an international pressure toward more democratic government throughout the world. SELLING AUTHORITARIANISM: SINGAPORE AND CHINA’S BRANDING PROCESSES A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Miami University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts by Connor Joseph Gahre Miami University Oxford, Ohio 2019 Advisor: Yihong Pan Reader: Stephen Norris Reader: Ann Wainscott ©2019 Connor Joseph Gahre This thesis titled SELLING AUTHORITARIANISM: SINGAPORE AND CHINA’S BRANDING PROCESSES by Connor Joseph Gahre has been approved for publication by The College of Arts and Sciences and Department of History Dr. Yihong Pan Dr. Stephen Norris Dr. Ann Wainscott Table of Contents Acknowledgements iv Introduction 1 Chapter 1 13 Chapter 2 36 Conclusion 55 Bibliography 58 iii Acknowledgements This project is something that I always envisioned as so far in the future that I wouldn’t have to deal with it. But here it is. This represents the culmination of my time at Miami University and the experiences thereof. Hopefully that experience has improved my knowledge and made me a better person. Regardless of my hopes, there are people I must thank that helped me to this point. First, I must thank my committee and the three professors that helped me so much through my time. Dr. Yihong Pan helped me narrow down my ideas that seemed so overwhelming at first, her help, especially with Chinese knowledge and history made my thesis and experience much better. Dr. Stephen Norris was able to help me bring this project even close to completion, as I was awash in confusion and poor conceptualization until I visited him before my summer of research. He always welcomed my anxious questions whenever I had them, and I cannot thank him enough for that. Finally, Dr. Ann Wainscott aided me in making this thesis into something I not only am proud of, but also enjoyed. Without her class on authoritarian political systems and her consistent advice to me, this thesis would be nowhere near as complete and important as it is today. Furthermore, she helped me enjoy the process of interacting with different disciplines and broadening my horizons to match my curiosity. I cannot thank these three enough for their contributions. Even though he was not on my committee, Dr. Will Brown provided so much advice to me that he cannot be overlooked, I was able to teach under his supervision, and he made me a better teacher, and more able to approach the difficulties of academic life. No scholar is an island, and I would not have been able to call my experience a success without the connections and friendships I made within my cohort at Miami University. Adam Bruno consistently provided support, whether it being discussing an idea, editing a paper, or venting frustrations. Similarly, Ed Strong read numerous drafts of my first chapter, and consistently counselled me in my work and in life. If there is a person more caring than Erin Johnson, I have not met them yet. She always made time for me to discuss ideas and proofread my papers. She helped me through numerous colloquia, and I would not be as strong of a writer without her. She never made me feel bad about myself, even if I felt woefully overwhelmed with school or life. Of course, I cannot forget the others within the history department that helped me in some way or another. Amanda, Hannah, Kristin, Austin, Paul, Terry, and all the others, too numerous to list. Thank you all. You truly made this a remarkable experience. Finally, I have to thank my friends and family from California. Even though most of you never knew exactly what my project meant, you all helped away. Jocelyn Aguilar consistently challenged me intellectually, and drove me to be a better scholar and a better person. Ray Calderon would always have time for my ideas or concerns, day or night. Anthony Martin has never been anything but my best friend. Amber and Cassidee always sated my thirst for philosophy and political ideas. Ivan allowed me to never take things too seriously. And of course, my father and mother, as well as my grandmother. I can never repay you for all the things you have given me, but hopefully this is one thing that will always make you proud. Thank you to all of you for what you have done, even though it made me a little homesick along the way. iv Introduction Authoritarianism will not be extinguished. Despite many predictions and theorems of its ultimate demise, authoritarian regimes have not only survived, but also have grown more robust as history has marched on. Scholars have been unable to explain the endurance of authoritarianism in the contemporary world, largely to a neglect of the informal institution of nation branding and authoritarian adaptability. One school of thought, immerses itself in the study of the institutions of authoritarianism, or how regimes co-opt opposition to stay in power.1 Those who discuss national branding always leave it in the realm of business interaction, and neglect the political element branding is used for. This thesis seeks to fill the gap in this historiography by exploring how authoritarians are able to adapt and retain power using branding as an informal institution. Furthermore, historical dimensions are a necessity in understanding the limitations of each branding process. The strength of authoritarian countries is not necessarily in their absolute control and stability, although those can be selling points, the strength of authoritarian countries is in their ability to adapt and change as the world does around them. The goal of this thesis is to fully explore that unique dimension of branding using China and Singapore as case studies. Legitimacy is a consistent obstacle for all regimes, but especially those which are not democratic. In democracy legitimacy is gained by consent, where the majority consistently reinforces its will within the government. Rebellions and seditious acts within democracy are often an oligarchic revolt, where a minority attempts to gain more power than the people over the government.2 In authoritarian regimes, the people do not provide legitimacy through the ballot box, and their legitimacy needs to be reinforced through other means. National parties and authoritarian leaders attempt many different things to try to create this legitimacy, and nation branding is one of the more novel forms of creating legitimacy. All regimes engage with nation branding. In order to maintain control, a regime has to sell itself to the populace in a different way. Similarly, in order to engage with other nations 1 Jennifer Gandhi, Political Institutions Under Dictatorship (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 38; Jason Brownlee, Authoritarianism in an Age of Democratization (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 25. 2 Aristotle, Aristotle’s Politics, trans. Carnes Lord. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013), 139-141. 1 without complications, those same regimes cannot afford isolation from everyone else. Most importantly, the branding process is a tool to reinforce internal consistency in an authoritarian party, while appearing to be an externally focused development of national image. The primary goal of any branding process is internal control and consistency over the populace. External benefits are helpful, especially in making the branded nation indispensable in a certain sphere of influence e.g. China in Southeast Asia, which would provide checks against international action against and authoritarian regime. Even that however, is to continue internal control within the authoritarian country, rather than mere international development goals. Due to this, a nation brand attempts to avoid certain international biases against the regime while the party shores up power and control as the brand requires it. This thesis is guided by the following questions as regards authoritarian branding processes: How do these regimes engage in branding their rule? What are the historical contingencies to the process? And how do these processes reinforce the legitimacy authoritarian rule? Defining Terms: Authoritarianism, Nation Branding, Legitimacy and Globalization This thesis borrows heavily from political science for defining authoritarianism, and hopes to avoid the conceptual murkiness that it often entails. Authoritarianism, in this analysis, is singular rule by a political party, which is not bounded by constitutional limits. Singapore is classified as “competitively authoritarian” a term defined by Steven Levitsky and Lucan A. Way’s Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes After the Cold War where they describe it as “…formal democratic institutions exist and are widely viewed as a primary means of gaining power, but in which the incumbents’ abuse of the state places them at a significant advantage vis-à-vis their opponents…the playing field is skewed heavily in favor of the incumbents.”3 Singapore holds regular elections that merits this classification they are open to opponents, nevertheless those elections are farcical, either with ballot forging, reporting incorrect numbers, or the destruction of votes for the opposing party, and no other party would come to power democratically without significant changes in the way the country is constituted. 3 Steven Levitsky and Lucan A. Way, Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes After the Cold War. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 3. 2 National brand, also referred to as the image or trademark, is an identifiable reputation that can be easily recognized by both citizens and foreigners.