Diana Davila Gordillo, Ph.D. Candidate


Leiden University

City: Leiden

Country: Netherlands

About Me:

I am a PhD candidate at the Institute of Political Science of Leiden University. I received a Master's degree (cum laude) from the same institue in 2015 . Prior to my master's degree I worked for the Ecuadorian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Human Mobility for 5 years. From 2009 to 2012 I was a Foreign Policy analyst based in Quito, and from 2012 to 2014 I was part of the Permanent Mission of Ecuador to the Organization of American States (OAS) in Washington D.C. working as Second Secretary, Alternate Representative of Ecuador.My current research concentrates on party success evaluations, party-voter linkages segmentation, and the effects of ethnicity and institutional design on party system fragmentation and voting behavior. I focus on the parties: Izquierda Democratica and Pachakutik. 

Research Interests

Latin American And Caribbean Politics

Political Parties and Interest Groups

Race, Ethnicity and Politics

Representation and Electoral Systems

Elections, Election Administration, and Voting Behavior


Ethnic Politics

Political Parties

Ethnic Political Parties

Party-voter Linkages

Party Success

Electoral Campaigns

Countries of Interest



Book Chapters:

(2017) The Radicalisation Awareness Network: Producing the EU counter-radicalisation discourse, Centre for European Policy Studies

In this chapter, we show that the RAN is one of the core institutions producing a new European discourse on security, in which terrorism is to be governed “through society”. The chapter examines how i) the discourse of the RAN conceives of policy recommendations that put communities at the centre of counterradicalisation policies; ii) it conceptualises the development of ‘tailor-made’ strategies; and iii) it reformulates grievances as mere ‘perceptions’, avoiding engagement with factual data. Finally, the chapter shows how the RAN relies on the engagement of iv) key individuals and v) front-line practitioners tasked with propagating the state-sanctioned narrative about radicalisation, with the concomitant exclusion of alternative voices. We show how these recommendations promote a state that ‘rules at a distance’, through proxies but which nonetheless is more in control of the situation within the communities by having people on the ground.