Essay Questions Flashcards
(19 cards)
What are two possible models for power-sharing in divided societies? In terms of democratic representation, which of these models would you argue is preferable and why?
Consociationalism:
- political system of power sharing arrangements to prevent ethnic conflict
- proportional representation to ensure all group interests are protected
centripetalism:
- encourages vote pooling
- depoliticization of ethnicity
- cross ethnic voting to encourage accommodation between rival groups
Argument: in terms of democratic representation, I would argue that consociationalism better promotes a shared sense of identity, while centripetalism might lead to partiality towards the larger segments of society. The effectiveness of either would depend on the historical and cultural dynamics of the country. In a perfect society where the government is impartial to the majority, consociationalism would be more democratic because it ensure political equality of all citizens
A necessary precondition of democratic transition is an elite split in an authoritarian coalition. Agree or disagree? Justify your response.
Thesis: it is not necessary as democratic transition can occur without elite polarization in neo-patrimonial regimes where political change is driven from below rather than by elite divisions.
Context:
Neopatrimonial regimes, are chracteristically marked by personalistic leaders who rule through personal patronage rather than ideology.
- incumbents leaders are most interested in their political survival
- any political transition is seen as a last resort, and incumbents who lose coercive power join the opposition for political survival - therefore regime does not transition, a new leader takes their place
- Argument: political incentives based on personal loyalty explains why elite divisions rarely lead to regime transition
- rule is built on personal loyalty therefore no institutional ties - so their supporters are only there for the money
- any objection to their rule is met by coercion by material reward of repression
- political liberation is not an option for them because their supporters are paid for so they lie to incumbents about any possible openings for liberalization - Argument: elite poltical pacts are unlikely in neopatrimonial regimes
- incumbents and opposition are so polarized - no chance of agreement
- any political transition will result from the loss of one party
- political leaders never have enough legitimacy to make pacts because they are not backed by any party - not small number of clients - Political transitions originate in social protest
- economic disparities in these regimes = mass protest
- the struggle over property rights = middle class joins opposition party for democratic transition
- this is the only transition that might work, as their opposition would be the military alone against the powerful middle class
Evaluate the statement war makes states. How does the European experience of state-making differ from the experience of other regions?
Thesis statement: the European experience is a history characterized by war, thus state making is the process of the state gaining capacity to carry out its political goals and ability to make war. This differs from the path or social relations making states, and revolution making states.
Context: Europe’s history in violence: started as patrimonialism - not enough state capacity to make war - the problem of over extension - empires collapsed.
Argument 1: European state making is based on state capacity to make war - all efforts to centralize power
Argument 2: history rooted in labour regressive agrarian structure
- threat of violent uprising prevented mobilization of workers to increase capacity for war
Argument 3: china revolution through armed struggle
- controlled mobilization to increase state capacity
- a sort of civil war to get rid of war lords
- highly centralized and monopolized system
What are the challenges to ending civil wars and why, even when reached, do negotiated settlements often fail? How might these barriers be overcome to make negotiated settlements more effective?
Thesis: the challenges to ending civil wars are based on the lack of trust between the conflicting parties that prevents them from coming to an agreement. Each party does not trust that the other will keep their end of the agreement, so they prefer to stay in a state of war rather than com dot an agreement. Therefore, the solution would be to have a neutral third party to facilitate the settlement
Context: credible commitment argument and security guarantees
Credible commitment argument: all situations where a third party is present, an agreement between the two conflicting parties will be successful
- security guarantees: there must be some sort of desire to negotiate
- weak political arrangements must have security guarantees rooted in strong military force Lebanon civil war had weak agreement from the government for poltical arrangements but strong military deterrent forces
- strong political arrangements can have weaker military force but strong political arrangements for distinct financial arrangement - eg Sudanese rebels
Argument: relationship between security guarantees tells us a desire for peace is necessary - so weak political arrangements must be facilitated by a strong military deterrent force
- third party force must have continual presence - not just in signing of agreement but must see to it that agreement is carried out
Intervention must be seen as the starting point, and it MUST bee backed by force - otherwise it is not seen as legitimate
What role do the military/armed forces/security sector play in supporting authoritarianism?
Coercive powers
Extracting revenue
Defending borders
To what extent does Performance Legitimacy assist in stabilizing an authoritarian regime? What are its limits?
- Good economic performance leads to happy citizens
- Government relies on accomplishing concrete goals such as economic growth, social stability, strengthening powers, and good governance to retain legitimacy
Eg CCP - very effective in creating strong leadership, so performance legitimacy is very good at assisting
Under what conditions should we expect mass mobilization to facilitate regime change? Justify your
response.
Thesis: mass mobilization can be expected to facilitate regime change when it allows for a clear reading of mass sentiment, strengthens the opposition bargaining power, and feeds on itself through cycles of mobilization
Mass mobilization can lead to regime change if it is sustained and organized. This does not necissarily suggest democratization but it can result in transition or regime collapse. Mass mobilization is the collective action of a population within a state for the purpose of government reform or regime change for the good of the people. It can arise from nationalism, or grievances, or economic shifts
- Mass mobilization has a clear reading on mass sentiment:
- clear goal = the Arab spring: in Tunisia: clear goal: against government corruption - autocratic regime was corrupt, lacked political freedoms, economic downturn - clearly wanted a change in rule and regime - democratic and accountable government - Strengthen opposition bargaining power: the people power revolution in the Philippines
- opp party was united with protesters (student groups, professionals, religious groups) against fraudulent elections
- led to international support condemning fraud,
- OPP party got so strong incumbents leader fled - Movement is a continual cycle - usually a trigger
- the Arab spring in Tunisia had this - someone sacrificed themselves to spread a message about the corruption of the government - led to widespread anger and demonstrations begun - the anger did not leave - people wanted change
What role does the middle class play in facilitating regime change? What are its limits in facilitating
democratization?
Thesis: the middle class, in many cases, is in support of democracy and will increase the bargaining power of opposition parties in favour of regime change. It’s limits are shown in cases of extreme poverty where the impoverished are the ones demanding change
Context: Modernization thesis claims that economic development leads to democratization. We see the richest countries being democratic and the poorest being authoritarian. This theory rests on the idea that with industrialization, the middle class becomes more educated, more time to be political, they invest in small businesses which want stability and legal preotection that comes with democracy - thus they take to the streets for change
Argument 1: modernization theory is true for the most part
- there is a correlation between economic development and democracy seen in cases like Taiwan.
- this is a case where the Cold War led to the global imperative for industrialization, and the republic of China began economic growth through export oriented industrialization
- this led to the creation of the middle class and student led protests began, which led to the opening off the regime
Argument 2: it is a limited theory because sometimes economic reform does not lead to democracy - as we see in china - they are able to hold onto power because of the legitimacy through continued economic growth
- class coalitions and changing interests: the impoverished are taking to the streets - sometimes if you have really high levels of poverty and a moment that sparks change - there can be regime change 0 but there is no middle class to support it
- also, sometimes the middle class actually support regime change in favour of authoritarianism which is called democratic backsliding - when the democracy is not producing economic stability and the middle class think an authoritarian regime will better support that
How did colonialism and/or nationalism led to the types of regimes that we see emerge in the world?
Colonialism is to have direct/indirect rule over another state through settlers. This can led to nationalism when a population within the state feel as though the colonial settlers have oppressed them, and they form a shared identity that they reconceptualization themselves as sovereigns needing their own state - thus their struggle for independence can lead to the regimes we see emerging in the world
Context: colonialism can be a catalyst for nationalism, as national identity can be shared through the shared goal for sovereignty among an oppressed nation within a state.
- Cultural oppression and economic exploitation from colonial rule can lead to backlash and grievances -
- eg India under British rule
- imposition of western values were oppressive
- Extraction of resources was unfair
- political suppression
Nationalist movement begins:
- leaders of the movement emerged - conceptual shift to being seen as sovereign
- advocated for non violent civil disobedience
Can lead to democracies in the case of India
- maybe corruption and tumult but mostly democratic national
- because the leaders of the nationalist movement had democratic values - peaceful transfer of power through elections
Can lead to authoritarian rule in the case of Algeria - Algerian war for independence
- decolonization war between nationalists and France
- authoritarian rule due to internal divisions within the nationalist party led to political instability and eventually authoritarianism took over
What factors contribute the variation that we see in the duration of authoritarian regimes? Why do some last much longer than others?
- Capacity for coercive action
- surveillance and registration of citizens
- dependence on the state to survive
- capacity to extract revenue
In what ways are election a good marker for democratization, in what ways are they not? What purposes do elections serve for regimes either democratic or authoritarian?
Elections are used differently in authoritarian and democratic regimes, which is why just having elections is not a marker of democratization
Context: elections should be free and fair. In democracies, elections are used to ensure democratic rulers are chosen by the people and properly represent the majority of voters. In authoritarian regimes, often elections are a marker of transitioning to democracy, however these can become a new regime called competitive authoritarian, due to elections that are not free and fair
- Authoritarian regimes use elections to legitimize rule and monopolize power
- uneven playing field
- unequal access to money and media
- those in power can tilt the competition in their favour
- unequal access to the law - manipulate independent agencies to overlook illicit acts
- eg Mexico election - unequal access to media made it competitive - Regimes might have free and fair elections, but not meet other procedural democratic criteria
- human rights violations
- Egypt restricts freedom of expression
- Civil rights are suppressed
It is sometimes said that economic development is a precondition for democratization. Do you agree or disagree? Justify your response.
It is not always a precondition for democratization because there is also that economic downturn can decrease bargaining power of incumbents governments leading to the breakdown of authoritarian regimes and possibly democratization
Context: modernization theory states there is a correlation between economic development and democratization - that industrialization leads to economic development leads to rising middle class leads to democratization
- Significance of economic disparity on bargaining power of parties
- rulers and private sector lose confidence in government ability to manage crisis
- splits in leadership or ruling party
Eg. India - soft liners align with opposition - economic downturn leads to grievances - push for democratization = South Korea many uprisings - oil crisis recession - demands for economic reforms abd democratization
How does variation in the state’s method of resource extraction impact its relationship with the population it governs?
Patrimonial structure:
- middle age rulers
- dependent on military leaders or those who could organize resources
- not much cash and finances
- disadvantage relative to others with similar resources
Direct Rule:
- taxing population or military extracting resources directly
Why is ethnicity a common organizing principle around which groups mobilize to access state power? What explains why it often trumps other forms of identities?
Ethnicity is often the most powerful organizing principle because it directly links personal identity to action. Ethnicity becomes politicized when there is institutional categorization, preferential treatment.
Ethnicity: there is an imagined community where people perceive themselves as part of a group
- idea that all siblings belong idea of genetically transmitted attributes
Why is it so strong and causes mobilization?
- greed vs grievance
- Grievance:
- Kachin in Myanmar
- ethnic minorities with distinct cultural, linguistic, historical characteristics
- sense of injustice
- marginalized by government
- Underrepresented in politics
- economic disparities
- formed the Kachin independence army - armed resistance - Greed
- diamonds in Sierra Leone
- ethnic groups fighting for resources
Weak state could not regulate export of resources - wanted resources for themselves
- natural resources fueled insurgency rival ethnic groups seeking control saw diamonds as menas to end
What is the effect of organized violence during the process of state formation on the capacity of the state to govern afterwards?
States use organized violence to to increase its capacity to make war. This allows the state to centralize its power and carry out its political goals.
Organized violence is protection rackets made legitimate. This means that the government sells protection to merchants and uses the profit to increase state capacity.
- Organized violence increases state capacity for war making
- eliminating or neutralizing outside threats
- creates strong military
- creates strong international presence - Organized violence increases state capacity for state making
- eliminating or neutralizing inside threats
- creates centralized power
- police forces to carry out state policies - Organized violence increases state capacity for protection
- eliminating or neutralizing threats to merchants who buy protection
- allows merchants to develop their trades by getting rid of their competitors
- eventually, economy grows from this, and more clients to protect - Organized violence increases state capacity for extraction, which in turn increases state capacity to do the first three actions
- taxation!
- taxation for protection can grow too = funding for the rest of the activities
Is nationalism a top-down or bottom-up phenomenon, and how does this understanding of nationalism shape key state institutions?
Nationalism can be both a top down or bottom up phenomena -, depending on each. Top down nationalism leading to more formal state institutions. Bottom up nationalism shapes government institutions as well - less formal - more about basic rights rather than full state independence
- France as an example of of top down
- monarchy started nationalism through cultural reforms, education, national language, national symbols,
- ended up creating a notion that eroded the idea of monarchical legitimacy - French nationalists wanted more liberties
- French Revolution based on ideology based on liberties, democracy, equality
- overthrew the monarchy
- established key institutions eg national convention, committee of public safety - Kurds for Kurdistan = bottom up
- not as strong because it was an ethnic minority - not as much leverage
- they gained political representation - their autonomy
- their instiutions are shaped by struggle rather than revolution
What factors explain the success or failure of social movements in influencing government policy?
Provide examples in your response.
Movement strategies:
- framing
- size
- enduring infrastructure
External allies
- youth
- Experts
-Other social movements
- mass media
Political environment;
- elite conflict
-elite blunders
- Public opinion
How do social movements interact with the state? What factors are important in determining whether the state suppress, co-opt, or engage with these movements? Provide examples to illustrate your response.
- Organizational infrastructure:
- religious institutions
- educational sector
- labour unions - Threat: erosion of rights
- fraudulent elections
- military coups - Threat: state repressive actions
How are identities mobilized during times of conflict? How does it increase the risks and intensity of violence?
Identity: cultural groups, sexuality, religion, language, racial group, gender, class
Identities mobilized due to:
Riots: hostile relationship between groups
Authoritative social support: police partiality, public statement by riot leaders
Event trigger
Leads to larger scale violence: security dilemma - pre-emotive attacks when feeling threatened
State weakness
Fear, hatred, and rage
Violence entrepreneurs
