Exam Advice (Writing an Essay under Timed conditions) Please bring your pen/ pencil as well as a spare. You only have two hours: Use your time wisely. Begin by writing up your thesis and paper road map. That way you don't get lost midway through your paper. Try to be familiar with all the key concepts we have studied in class. Resource Mobilization Theory, Political opportunity Theory, Liberalism, Democracy,the Different Electoral systems, etc. When responding to questions, Please remember that “You will be asked to answer one exam question (choose one out of two questions) and three short answer questions (choose three out of four questions).” Please choose to answer questions on topics you are very comfortable with. Be prepared to answer anything, but note that you will be more comfortable with some questions than you are with others. In other words, be smart! For example, if you are presented with a question like “Explain the Black Lives Matter protest in terms of relative deprivation theory or resource mobilisation theory. Was it a successful movement, why or why not? ”. If and only if you know both theories equally well, should you then answer with respect to any of them. Otherwise, play to your strength. Now is not the time to say “Hmmm, even though my TA gave me a 45 on my essay on resource mobilisation theory, and I haven't really taken a look at it since Week 4, Now is my time to shine and go out in a blaze of glory because I just really like resource mobilisation theory”. That line of reasoning would be very very bad. Stick to what you know really well. With that said, try to be familiar with every theme and concept because you must be prepared for anything on the exam. Concepts you should be familiar with Fukuyama: the end of history Kaplan: democracy is just a moment First past the post electoral systems, how they work, strengths and weaknesses, who they favor and why Proportional representation electoral systems, how they work, strengths and weaknesses, who they favor and why Rational choice theory, free riders, and political participation Does political participation matter to democracy? Social movement theories and what they explain Woodly: role of social movements in democracy Liberalism: fundamental principles, religion and liberalism, why is liberalism conservative, how is reform liberalism different from classical liberalism How is race constructed? Why is race constructed? What is the north-south issue in climate change negotiations, and how is it being resolved? What are the features of Canadian colonialism? How did the TRC work and what was its purpose? How does the Canadian government seek to use reconciliation? What are the 94 Calls to Action? What is the duty to consult and how does it work? Sandel: Tyranny of merit: definition, causes, consequences The politics of individual responsibility: definition, causes, consequences, examples Why is addressing climate change a collective action problem? What do Bernstein and Hoffman see as the solution to this collective action problem? What are the COPs and what are the 3 main issues that were discussed/negotiated in COP28? Second, please don't give answers based on your feelings. Give answers based on the class material. Stick to what professor Jung, the readings, and your TA have said about the topic. The question I put in the email I sent out was “Must a liberal state be a democratic state? Why? ”. What we will in fact study today is a little different? I am subverting the question a bit so you are forced to think through your answers and the concepts in full. C Question : Must a Democratic state be a liberal state? Why? (500-600 words) There are no right or wrong answers to this question. There are, however, strong or weak arguments based on references and familiarity with the class material. First, state your thesis. The history of democratic practices tell us that democracies can exist without being a liberal state. Notwithstanding moral claims, on an analytical level, a democracy may exist without being a liberal one. To make this distinction, We consider the nature of democracy in terms of its central characteristics and its differences from modern and classical liberalisms. Next, define your terms: If there is a singular definition for your terms when answering a question, state it. If there are multiple definitions and there is one that you will be using, state it and explain why with reference to the text, (this doesn’t mean you literally have to cite chicago style, unless the question asks you to do so) However, Just a generic reference like “Alan Ryan quotes Rawls as invoking the maximin principle” shows the reader/ grader that you are familiar with the text. If you want to use the differing definitions to make your arguments, do so but make sure it actually answers the question. However you define your terms, it must do three things: First, it must be reasonably accurate with respect to your class material. In other words, you can define things expansively or narrowly in ways that satisfy your needs, but they must be reasonably accurate in terms of what has been discussed in class or in the readings. Second, Try to be concise. Your definitions should cover as much ground as possible in as little words as possible. Unless the question is itself asking for a definition, Definitions are a means to an end, not an end in and of themselves. Third, don’t undermine your argument. Your own provided definitions cannot be evidence that your argument is mistaken. Whatever you say in the body of your argument should support your core claims made in the definition. For example, you cannot define a democracy as one dependent on popular sovereignty and then say that Saudi Arabia is a democracy. Classical Liberalism is associated with John Locke, Adam smith and Hayek. It is concerned with limited government, maintenance of the rule of law, avoidance of arbitrary power, sanctity of private property and the responsibility of individuals for their own fates. Modern liberalism is exemplified by John Mill’s “on liberty” in that it appeals to man as a progressive being and seeks the development of his individuality as broadly conceived as possible. To that end, it does not treat property as sacrosanct because while it might believe in a welfare state, it does not share socialist ambitions. To that end liberalism features 4 apodictic characteristics: 1) Personal freedom – refers to the absence of coercion in the various realms of life, (and includes free speech, religious freedom, the right of private property, and the right of political opposition. 2) Limited government – the state is an instrument that serves a particular function in society and is not in general charge of all society. 3) Equality of right – everyone must abide by the same laws, which the state enforces impartially. 4). Consent of the governed/Popular sovereignty – government emanates from the people; government is responsible to the people, and government may be changed by the people. What is a democracy? At a bare minimum, a democracy must include regular free and fair elections – elections in which a majority of the population has a right to vote, they are able to express a real preference at the polls, and the candidate who wins a majority is able to take office and govern. This is what we call free and fair elections, and it is the most minimal working definition of democracy Then make your case You don't have unlimited time: try to be as clear, concise and deep as possible without taking up too much time. Also provide examples if possible. This always helps your case. Whatever examples you provide, be sure that this is accurate. You are better off not providing examples at all than providing wrong examples. For example, Canada is an example of a liberal democracy and its constitutional configuration is called a constitutional Monarchy. Germany is a liberal democracy that is constitutionally configured as a republic. If you write “a constitutional monarchy can be a liberal democracy, for example: Germany”, You’re in trouble. You are better off not giving an example, than giving wrong examples. Whatever you say should be relevant to the question. For example,personally, I have a tendency to go meandering off topic when answering a question. It makes me a great dinner guest, but a terrible essayist. You do not have enough space. You have 2 hours and are answering three short Questions and 1 long question. That is not nearly enough time to go off on side quests when answering a question. Stick to the topic at hand. It is better to think of this in terms of characteristics that liberal states share and democracies uphold. Democracy as a term has become laden with normative claims. This might be satisfying on a moral level, but it is a mistake. Democracy is nothing but an electoral mechanism. To that end, democracies are about the rule of the majority. As such, democracies can endorse all kinds of practices that liberalism both classical and liberal could never endorse. As Ryan points out by way of Madison, liberalism need not be a democratic doctrine because majoritarian rule does not need to respect property rights and rule of law. Liberalism is anti absolutist and anti theocratic. Democracy need not be any of these. Democracies may have a state religion held by the majority of the voters. A collective majority could vote overwhelmingly that christianity, islam, Buddhism etc is the new state religion that is recognised and supported by the state alongside punitive laws for those who do not uphold these practices. Liberalism could never tolerate this endeavour. Liberalism is best understood as a summary of the rights and privileges that accrue to individuals within a society. Democracies typically act to prioritise the collective wellbeing of a state and are not afraid to violate individual rights in service of majoritarian goals. Precisely because a democratic state is majoritarian, for all intents and purposes it is only circumscribed by the will of the majority. As such it can be inherently anti liberal even illiberal in terms of how it organises its society. A democratic state could be a socialist state. A democratic state could be rooted in a vision of ethnic superiority. A democratic state could hold a state religion. These positions might shock our collective sensibilities. We might find them to be deeply abhorrent but they are entirely compatible with the rule of the majority. Liberalism requires more than majority rule. Disclaimer: These words are not necessarily my beliefs! They are simply an example of how one could proceed when answering the question.
