Despite a desire to remain in power, many dictators hold competitive elections. However, elections are uncertain and manipulation is necessary to ensure the desired outcome. Nevertheless, excessive manipulation can reduce not only the legitimacy of the election itself but also the legitimacy of the regime. In other words, dictators face a dilemma between achieving their goals through manipulation and maintaining legitimacy. This article highlights the case of village chief elections in Laos, in which the Lao People’s Revolutionary Party achieves its goals by skillfully manipulating the elections while firmly maintaining the appearance of “democratic” elections. The party strives to resolve this dilemma by reflecting the voices of voters in the candidate selection process. Although the elections may be a farce, they are an important means for the party to create the perception of democracy and share the values of democracy with the people. This article suggests that demonstrating a commitment to democracy is important to both resolving the electoral dilemma and legitimizing the dictatorial regime.

As China continues to expand its engagement in international development projects, domestic researchers have become increasingly interested in establishing International Development Studies (IDS) as a distinct field. However, the nature of IDS in China remains largely unexplored. This paper aims to shed light on the emergence and expansion of IDS in China and the potential for departing from a Western-centric approach to the field. Drawing on an analysis of the establishment of research and educational institutions in the field of international development as well as an analysis of the scholarly activities of representative Chinese researchers, this paper reveals that IDS in China initially absorbed Western perspectives but has since expanded through a process of mergers, resistance, and further differentiation. Chinese researchers seek to establish the value of China’s international development by distinguishing themselves from their Western counterparts and highlighting China’s contributions to international development goals. A feature of contemporary Chinese IDS researchers is their emphasis on pragmatism in constructing theoretical frameworks and conducting empirical research on the effectiveness of the development efforts. This paper contributes to the ongoing debate over the decentralization of knowledge production through offering insights into the nature of IDS in China as a non-Western context.