Midterm review October 17 Modernization theory (Lipset) - posits that economic development and modernization lead to democratization. According to Lipset, as societies become wealthier, more educated, and industrialized, they develop a middle class that demands greater political participation, leading to the emergence and stabilization of democratic institutions. Semi-presidential system - combines a directly elected president, who serves in office for a fixed term, and a prime minister, who is responsible to parliament (Elgie 1999). Such arrangements are common in Western Europe (e.g. Austria, France, Ireland, Portugal), Eastern Europe (e.g. Bulgaria, Poland, Romania, Ukraine), etc State (definitional features) - Monopoly of legitimate violence, Territoriality, Sovereignty, and Population (Not perceived as a mere demographic entity but as a people). “Prime ministerial” government - Collective deliberation by the cabinet replaced by monocratic decision-making by the PM. The PM may decide policy across all issue areas, key issues, or a governing ethos, hence making other ministers simple agents of the PM’s will. (Sources of) Legitimacy (Weber) - 1. Traditional Legitimacy: Builts by habit and custom over time, stressing history while the government is strongly institutionalized (Ex: Queen Elizabeth). 2. Charismatic Legitimacy: Built on the force of ideas and the presence of the leader; weakly institutionalized (Ex: Revolutionary hero Lenin) 3. Rational-Legal Legitimacy: Built on rules and procedures and the offices that create and enforce those rules; strongly institutionalized (Ex: US presidents) Divided government (in presidential systems) - the presidency is held by one party and (at least one chamber of) the Congress is controlled by the other party Three waves of democratization - The theory that democratization has come in three waves each followed by a reverse wave of undemocratization. First, long wave of democratization (1828-1926). Second, short wave of democratization (1943-1962). Third, wave of democratization (1974-?). Coalition government (in parliamentary systems) - Where multiple political parties join forces to create a majority in the legislature. Definition of democracy: Procedural vs. substantive - Procedural definition: Focus on democracy as a method (means), How the regime is organized, The processes by which representation, accountability, and (legal-rational) legitimacy are assured. Substantive definition: Focus on democracy as to achieve a purpose (ends), The goals and effectiveness of the regime: fairness, inclusion, liberty, and equity, The extent to which the will of the people might be served: to realize the common good. Typology of constitution 1. The absolutist constitution: Centralized and absolute authority to produce and change legal norms. The rulers are ‘above the law’ Rejects or limits popular sovereignty, rights, and separation of powers. 2. The legislative supremacy constitution: where the legislature holds the ultimate authority in government, with no higher legal power to override its laws or decisions., The constitutions can be changed by the regular legislative process, and Courts cannot overrule the parliament’s legislation (Ex: UK). 3. The ‘higher law’ constitution: Substantive constraints on the exercise of public authority in the form of constitutional rights, Establishes an independent judicial means of enforcing rights, and Expressly reject legislative sovereignty. Constitutions cannot be easily changed and amendment procedures are difficult. Fused-power system - A dependent relationship between the executive and the legislative branches. Parliaments select the executive branch (the “government” in its narrow sense) from among its own members (MPs). The executive branch is formally responsible to the parliament; and the PM can be removed from office at any time should a majority of the parliament oppose. Constitutional review: American vs. European American Judicial Review: The review power decentralized to the judiciary, i.e. courts at any level, not just the Supreme Court. A concrete mode, activated by substantial constitutional questions. In the U.S., constitutional review is concrete, meaning that courts review the constitutionality of a law in the context of a specific legal case or controversy. European Constitutional Review: Exercised by special courts, Constitutional courts, which are formally detached from the judiciary and legislature. In abstract review, certain political bodies (such as the president, members of parliament, or state governments) can request the court to assess the constitutionality of a law before it is applied, without needing a specific case. Answer the questions with two or three short paragraphs; use examples (country cases) as you see fit. 1. What are the three main research traditions (analytical perspectives) of Comparative Political studies? What is the representative academic work for each tradition? In the comparative political analysis, institutions, interests, and ideas represent three critical perspectives for understanding political systems and outcomes: Institutions: Rooted in classical political analysis dating back to Aristotle, the institutional perspective focuses on the formal structures of governance—such as constitutions, electoral systems, and bureaucratic organizations—and their role in shaping political behavior and outcomes. Institutional theory has evolved, and different forms now contribute to the field. For example, normative institutionalism explores how institutions develop norms and rules that guide behavior, while rational choice institutionalism examines how institutions provide incentives that shape individuals' actions. Historical institutionalism emphasizes how initial institutional choices can create enduring patterns, as seen in welfare policies. Representative works in this tradition include James March and Johan P. Olsen's work on normative institutionalism and Paul Pierson's studies on historical institutionalism(Comparative_ POLITICS). Institutionalists are more concerned about static difference rather than dynamic elements among systems. Better at explaining persistence/stability/institutional equilibrium than explaining or predicting change. Interests: Interest-based approaches focus on how individual and group preferences, often driven by self-interest, influence political actions and policies. This perspective is closely associated with rational choice theory, which assumes that actors are utility maximizers who engage in politics to secure benefits or avoid costs. Comparative political studies using interest-based approaches often explore how societal interests (e.g., business, labor) interact with the state, as seen in the literature on corporatism and pluralism. Mancur Olson's "The Logic of Collective Action" is a key text here, illustrating how interest groups operate within political systems to influence policy outcomes(Comparative_ POLITICS). Ideas: The ideational approach emphasizes the role of political culture, ideologies, and policy ideas in shaping political behavior and outcomes. Political culture encompasses deep-seated values and beliefs that influence how societies view governance, as seen in Almond and Verba’s "The Civic Culture". Ideologies, like socialism, neoliberalism, or nationalism, offer frameworks for interpreting and engaging with political systems. Specific policy ideas, such as Keynesian economics or monetarism, have historically driven major shifts in government approaches to economic management. This perspective highlights that beyond material interests, ideas and values play a significant role in shaping political landscapes(Comparative_ POLITICS). 2. Assess the different paths of democratization with the two dimensions of developing democracy. Briefly refer to real-world cases to illustrate. Democratization can follow different paths based on two dimensions: top-down vs. bottom-up and gradual vs. rapid transitions. A top-down path occurs when elites initiate reforms, like in Spain after Franco's death, whereas bottom-up democratization is driven by popular movements, as seen in Tunisia during the Arab Spring. A gradual transition involves a slow, negotiated process, like in South Africa’s transition from apartheid, while rapid transitions, as in Eastern Europe after the fall of communism, happen swiftly but may face instability. 3. What are the dimensions of Lijphart’s and Gerring et al.’s combined typology of democracy? Use country cases to explain the four types of democracy produced by this typology. majoritarian vs. proportional and unitary vs. decentralist systems. These dimensions create four distinct types of democracy, with each reflecting a unique way of organizing political power and representation. Majoritarian-Unitary Democracy: In this type, political power is concentrated both at the national level and within a single dominant political party or coalition. The electoral system typically favors majoritarian outcomes, such as "first-past-the-post" voting, which often results in single-party governments. Example: The United Kingdom – The UK has a majoritarian system where parliamentary seats are awarded based on simple plurality (majoritarian). It also has a unitary structure, with centralized decision-making, although devolved assemblies in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland have increased decentralization somewhat in recent years. Proportional-Unitary Democracy: Here, political power is centralized, but representation is more inclusive, using proportional representation (PR) to allocate seats based on the percentage of votes each party receives. This system often leads to coalition governments. Example: Sweden – Sweden combines proportional representation with a unitary government structure. It has a centralized authority with minimal regional autonomy, yet its PR system ensures that multiple political parties are represented in parliament. Majoritarian-Decentralist Democracy: In this model, power is distributed across regions or states, with significant autonomy at the local level, but the electoral system remains majoritarian. Example: The United States – The U.S. combines a majoritarian electoral system (with "winner-takes-all" elections for most positions) with a highly decentralized federal structure. States have considerable power over domestic issues, even while the national government is shaped by majoritarian processes, especially in presidential and congressional elections. Proportional-Decentralist Democracy: This type features both decentralization of political power and proportional representation, promoting both local autonomy and inclusive political representation. Example: Switzerland – Switzerland has a highly decentralized federal system, where cantons enjoy substantial autonomy. It also uses proportional representation in elections, which leads to coalition governments and ensures that a wide array of political views are represented in the national legislature. 4. What are the different types of authoritarian regimes? Why do some autocracies tend to be more enduring than others (i.e. what are the factors that contribute to authoritarian states’ longevity)? Authoritarian regimes can be categorized into four primary types: personalist dictatorships, single-party regimes, monarchies, and military regimes. Each type varies in its structure, leadership, and the factors that contribute to its longevity. Personalist Dictatorships: In personalist dictatorships, power is highly concentrated in the hands of a single leader who often uses patronage, repression, and charismatic authority to maintain control. The regime’s institutions are weak, and the leader’s personal network dominates politics. Examples include North Korea under Kim Jong-un and Iraq under Saddam Hussein. These regimes tend to be fragile because they rely heavily on the leader’s personal authority. Once the leader dies or loses power, the regime often collapses due to a lack of strong institutions to maintain order. Single-Party Regimes: Single-party regimes are governed by a dominant political party that controls all major institutions and decision-making processes. This party often co-opts opposition and controls the political space through mechanisms like patronage and surveillance. Examples include China’s Communist Party and Mexico’s Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) during much of the 20th century. These regimes tend to be more durable because they can institutionalize power, manage elite conflicts within the party, and adapt to societal changes through reforms or controlled political participation. Monarchies: Monarchies are regimes where a royal family maintains control, often through hereditary succession. These regimes rely on traditional authority and can also involve significant power-sharing with elites or religious authorities to maintain stability. Examples include Saudi Arabia and Jordan. Monarchies tend to be resilient due to the legitimacy conferred by tradition, established lines of succession, and power-sharing arrangements with key elites or factions, such as tribes or religious leaders. Military Regimes: In military regimes, the government is controlled by the armed forces, either directly or through a civilian figurehead controlled by the military. These regimes often arise after a coup and are justified by the military as necessary for maintaining order or national security. Examples include Egypt under various military rulers and Chile under Augusto Pinochet. Military regimes tend to be less stable over the long term, as internal divisions within the military or external pressures for democratization often lead to a transition back to civilian rule. The factors contributing to the longevity of authoritarian regimes can be understood through a combination of repression, legitimacy, economic performance, and co-optation. These strategies vary in effectiveness across different types of authoritarian regimes—personalist dictatorships, single-party regimes, monarchies, and military regimes—leading to differing levels of durability. Repression: Repression is a key tool for maintaining control in authoritarian regimes, often involving imprisonment, purges, and violence against opposition. More repressive regimes, such as Saudi Arabia, tend to survive longer as they eliminate dissent and prevent organized opposition(Comparative_ POLITICS). However, this can create risks as regimes may lose touch with popular sentiment and face backlash if repression weakens(Comparative_ POLITICS). Legitimacy: Authoritarian regimes that are able to establish a sense of legitimacy, whether through historical or religious claims (as in monarchies), or through performance-based legitimacy (e.g., economic success), tend to endure longer. Monarchies like those in the Gulf states often claim traditional authority, which can insulate them from the same pressures faced by less legitimate regimes during crises such as the Arab Spring(Comparative_ POLITICS). Economic Performance: Economic growth can also stabilize authoritarian regimes. Countries like China and Singapore have used economic performance as a key pillar of regime legitimacy, often lifting large segments of the population out of poverty, which strengthens their rule. High growth can reduce the appeal of opposition movements by demonstrating the benefits of stability under authoritarian governance(Comparative_ POLITICS). Co-optation: Co-opting elites and potential opposition is another critical strategy. This can include offering elites financial rewards, influential positions, and access to state resources to ensure their loyalty. Single-party regimes, in particular, excel in this by distributing power among party members and creating vested interests in the continuation of the regime(Comparative_ POLITICS). By incorporating elements of opposition into the political system and maintaining a façade of competition (e.g., through controlled elections), these regimes prevent the rise of powerful challengers(Comparative_ POLITICS). 5. What are the roles (functions) of the legislature? How are these roles in a fused-power system different from that in a separation-of-power system? Briefly explain the reasons for their differences. Legislatures perform representation/linkage, oversight/control, and policy-making. Linkage: Intermediary between citizens/voters (the constituency) to the government. Representation: To represent their constituents, protecting and advocating for their interests. Oversight: Monitoring the executive: passage of policies & their implementation. Control: Reflects the primary tools to achieve representative democracy. In a fused-power system (e.g., the U.K.), where the executive is drawn from the legislature, these roles are less distinct because the government controls the legislative agenda. In contrast, a separation-of-power system (e.g., the U.S.) features a clearer division, with the legislature acting as a check on the executive. The fusion in parliamentary systems allows for more streamlined policy-making, while separation can lead to more robust checks and balances. 6. Generally, what are the main categories of electoral systems? What are the main features and country examples of each category? Evaluate comparative advantages of different electoral systems (in terms of their democratic values). Electoral systems fall into two main categories: majoritarian, proportional, and mixed. Majoritarian systems (e.g., The U.S., the UK, Canada, India) tend to produce stable, single-party governments but can be less representative. In this system, usually, the strongest party in each constituency wins the seat. Proportional representation (e.g., Netherlands, Brazil (legislative), Indonesia (legislative), Finland, and Spain) provides greater representativeness by allocating seats based on vote share, though it can lead to fragmented legislatures. The seats are shared among the parties in proportion to their vote shares. Proportional systems are often seen as more democratic due to their inclusivity, but majoritarian systems offer clearer accountability. 7. How are the concepts of federalism and decentralization defined, respectively? To which extent are these two concepts correlate to (or differentiate from) each other? What might be their effects on democracy and/or civil conflicts? Federalism is practiced where government functions within a country are shared between the central government and regional governments so that neither the centre nor the regions may unilaterally change the system, as in the U.S. Decentralization is the transfer of power from central to local governments, which can occur within both federal and unitary states (e.g., Spain’s autonomous communities). Measures of decentralization focus on the central state and consider all levels of subnational governance as ‘the other’, the non-central state. While federalism implies a permanent division of power, decentralization can be more fluid. Both can promote democracy by bringing government closer to the people, though decentralization without proper checks may exacerbate civil conflicts, as seen in some post-colonial African states.
