Are representatives in authoritarian legislatures encouraged to take positions on salient issues? More generally, why do some autocracies allow public debate on hot topics at all? Understanding the dynamics of public legislative debate is important for the roles authoritarian legislatures are theorized to play in regime legitimation and information provision. I argue that the decision to allow public debate depends on autocratic incentives to mobilize public sentiment against the bureaucracy. While allowing debate on salient issues risks galvanizing antiregime sentiment, doing so may also mobilize public opinion against wayward government officials to improve performance and deflect blame. Therefore, I predict that autocrats will only allow public debate on issues they have delegated to the government. I test this using an automated content analysis of debate in the Vietnam National Assembly, with results showing evidence of position taking on salient issues, but only on issues the party delegates to the state.
CoxG. (2006). The organization of democratic legislatures. In WeingastB.WittmanD. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political economy (pp. 141-161). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
6.
CoxG.McCubbinsM. (1993). Legislative leviathan: Party government in the house. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
7.
DucH. (2012). Bên Thắng Cuộc II: Quyền Bính [The Winning Side]. New York, NY: Osin Books.
8.
EgorovG.GurievS.SoninK. (2009). Why resource-poor dictators allow freer media: A theory and evidence from panel data. American Political Science Review, 103, 645-668.
9.
GillG. (1994). The collapse of a single-party system. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
GrimmerJ.StewartB. (2013). Text as data: Promise and pitfalls of automated content analysis for political texts. Political Analysis, 21, 1-31.
12.
HopkinsR. (1970). The role of the M.P. in Tanzania. American Political Science Review, 64, 754-771.
13.
HuangH.YehY.-Y. (2019). Information from abroad: Foreign media, selective exposure and political support in China. British Journal of Political Science, 49(2), 611-636.
14.
KingG.PanJ.RobertsM. (2014). Reverse engineering censorship in China: Randomized experimentation and participant observation. Science, 345, 1-10.
15.
LorentzenP. (2014). China’s strategic censorship. American Journal of Political Science, 58, 402-414.
16.
MaleskyE.AbramiR.ZhengY. (2011). Institutions and inequality in single-party regimes: A comparative analysis of Vietnam and China. Comparative Politics, 43, 409-427.
17.
MaleskyE.SchulerP. (2009). Paint-by-numbers democracy: The stakes, structure, and results of the 2007 Vietnamese National Assembly election. Journal of Vietnamese Studies, 4, 1-48.
18.
MaleskyE.SchulerP. (2010). Nodding or needling: Analyzing delegate responsiveness in an authoritarian parliament. American Political Science Review, 104, 482-502.
19.
MaltzmanF.SigelmanL. (1996). The politics of talk: Unconstrained floor time in the U.S. House of Representatives. Journal of Politics, 58, 819-830.
20.
ManionM. (2014). Authoritarian parochialism: Local congressional representation in China. The China Quarterly, 218, 311-338.
21.
ManionM. (2016). Information for autocrats: Representation in Chinese Local Congresses. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
22.
ManionM. (2017). “Good types” in authoritarian elections: The selectoral connection in Chinese Local Congresses. Comparative Political Studies, 50, 362-394.
23.
MayhewD. (1974). Congress: The electoral connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
24.
MellonJ. (2014). Internet search data and issue salience: The properties of Google Trends as a measure of issue salience. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties, 24, 45-72.
25.
MillerA. (2008). The CCP Central Committee’s leading small groups. China Leadership Monitor, 26, 1-21.
PikeD. (1992). Vietnam in 1991: The turning point. Asian Survey, 32, 74-81.
31.
ProkschS.-O.SlapinJ. (2015). The politics of parliamentary debate. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
32.
QuinnK.MonroeB.ColaresiM.CrespinM.RadevD. (2010). How to analyze political attention with minimal assumptions and costs. American Journal of Political Science, 54, 209-228.
33.
RipbergerJ. (2011). Capturing curiosity: Using Internet search trends to measure public attentiveness. Policy Studies Journal, 39, 239-259.
34.
SchulerP.MaleskyE. (2015). Authoritarian legislatures. In Oxford handbook of legislatures (pp. 676-695). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
35.
SchulerP.OstwaldK. (2016, January16). Delayed transition: The end of consensus leadership in Vietnam?ISEAS Perspective, 2016(2), 1-9.
36.
ScottJ. (1990). Domination and the arts of resistance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
37.
ShirkS. (1993). The political logic of economic reform in China. Berkeley: University of California Press.
38.
SorokaS. (2002). Agenda-setting dynamics in Canada. Vancouver, Canada: University of British Columbia Press.
ThayerC. (1991). Political developments in Vietnam: From the sixth to seventh National Party Congress. Canberra: Australian National University.
41.
TruexR. (2014). Who believes the people’s daily? Bias and credibility in authoritarian media (Working paper).
42.
TruexR. (2016). Making autocracy work: Representation and information in China. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
43.
United Nations Development Programme. (2017). PAPI 2016: The Viet Nam Provincial Governance and Public Administration Performance Index. Hanoi, Vietnam: Author.
44.
Vietnam lawmaker calls for investigation of Gov’t. (2010, November2). Associated Press. Retrieved from advance-lexis-com.
45.
VliegenthartR.WalgraveS. (2011). Content matters: The dynamics of parliamentary questioning in Belgium and Denmark. Comparative Political Studies, 44(8), 1031-1059.
46.
WalgraveS.SorokaS.NuytemansM. (2008). The mass media’s political agenda setting power: A longitudinal analysis of media, parliament, and government in Belgium (1993 to 2000). Comparative Political Studies, 41, 814-836.
47.
WedeenL. (2015). Ambiguities of domination: Politics, rhetoric, and symbols in contemporary Syria (pp. 1031-1059). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
48.
WhiteS.NelsonD. (Eds.). (1982). Communist legislatures in comparative perspective. Albany: State University of New York Press.
49.
WilkersonJ.CasasA. (2017). Large-scale data computerized text analysis in political science: Opportunities and challenges. Annual Review of Political Science, 17, 529-544.
50.
WomackB. (1997). Vietnam in 1996: Reform immobilism. Asian Survey, 37, 79-87.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
