political science midterm 2
The conceptualization of national identity builds mostly off of primordialist and instrumental or rational visions of identity Primordialism: identity is the food of our first socialization - the day we are conceived, we are part of a larger social context - this context will help you make sense of the world; relies on language, rituals, beliefs, norms etc. - the primary lens through which we view the world; it's not a choice - you are born into it and will always be engaged in this; the strongest vision of identity Instrumentalism: strategic element doesn't so much come from the individual himself, but rather from a political entrepreneur; identities are created/reactivated by these entrepreneurs. Especially, in multi-ethnic contexts, entrepreneurs may choose to stress one identity at the expense of another. E.g. there's a candidate from the Italian community of New York that wants to appeal to the Irish community - to reach them, find a common factor between the two communities e.g. Catholicism, and then 'instrumentalize' on it Rational choice: identity may be used as a strategic resource by individuals - using your identity consciously (the Frenchman is not cunning, he is adapting to the awkward situation), the rational choice person, however, is more cynical - the Frenchman is now negotiating a contract with the Englishman and has done some research and knows the Englishman hates Paris, so says "I'm from Paris but I hate it there. I'm originally from Brittany where I have my farm house. You and your family are welcome at anytime."
Abstract reasons for the emergence of nation: identity
Recently-established young democracies have struggled to maintain their existence. This is because established democracies struggle with policy implementation and are competing with an image of a successful communist China, while they remain in financial crisis and have recently been gridlocked.
Are democracies efficient?
Democracy is designed to represent different voter interests in society. Groups of people have to be unified by underlying principles so that they can successfully work together to accomplish policy goals. The nation is founded in identity, and this shared identity will foster bonds that ensure the citizens want to implement policies for the common good.
Are nations a precondition for the emergence of democracy?
Social contracts are founded upon the idea that the common good is supreme and will direct the actions of the government. This basic ideology should lead to the creation of democracies, however constitutionalism is a more efficient expression of democracy, especially in contemporary society.
Are social contracts vectors of democracy?
Belgium: Belgium consists of three different ethnolinguistic groups. There's the Dutch-speaking Flemish community, German-speaking community, and there's the French-speaking community. There are three different regions to distinguish these groups of people: the Brussels-capital region, the Flemish region, and the Walloon region. Each region has its own executive and legislature. Executive has to include representatives of the large linguistic groups Major parties split along linguistic lines, but since its consensus democracy which ensures a multiparty system, this is ok because they're all allowed to engage in political life - they all have equal entitlements to politics Proportional elector system has led to societal cleavages to translate to the political sphere, which is a good thing because then everybody feels like they're equally represented
Belgium
traditional, charisma, legal-rational
Compliance; Weber's ideal types of legitimacy
Used to think democracies did better in terms of economy and growth - in principle, richer countries used to be more democratic and vice versa - take this to the notion of growth and things get more complex - since the 1970s, when we had two-digit growth rates, things have changed a bit; contemporary Western democracies have reached a threshold beyond which growth has become very slow; Piketty: for next century, sliding into low-growth regime while other countries are doing better e.g. China (regular two digit rates of growth); Singapore etc. Przeworski and colleagues (2000) show that there is no systematic evidence in favor of democracies or dictatorships when it comes to economic growth
Democracies do not do economically better as was previously thought
Economically, on average, nondemocratic regimes do not produce inferior economic performances from democratic regimes. Politically, when it comes to policy implementation, authoritarian regimes will obviously perform better than democratic regimes, but the constant fear and instability of the regime undermines the political performance of authoritarian regimes.
Do authoritarian regimes perform better than democracies?
Democracy's problems in its heartland help explain its setbacks elsewhere. Democracy did well in the 20th century in part because of American hegemony: other countries naturally wanted to emulate the world's leading power. But as China's influence has grown, America and Europe have lost their appeal as role models and their appetite for spreading democracy. In comparison to the financial collapse of the Western world: the Chinese Communist Party has broken the democratic world's monopoly on economic progress. Larry Summers, of Harvard University, observes that when America was growing fastest, it doubled living standards roughly every 30 years. China has been doubling living standards roughly every decade for the past 30 years. The Chinese elite argue that their model—tight control by the Communist Party, coupled with a relentless effort to recruit talented people into its upper ranks—is more efficient than democracy and less susceptible to gridlock In just two years China has extended pension coverage to an extra 240m rural dwellers, for example—far more than the total number of people covered by America's public-pension system
Economic success of China
A third serious setback was Egypt. The collapse of Hosni Mubarak's regime in 2011, amid giant protests, raised hopes that democracy would spread in the Middle East. But the euphoria soon turned to despair. Egypt's ensuing elections were won not by liberal activists (who were hopelessly divided into a myriad of Pythonesque parties) but by Muhammad Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood. Mr Morsi treated democracy as a winner-takes-all system, packing the state with Brothers, granting himself almost unlimited powers and creating an upper house with a permanent Islamic majority. In July 2013 the army stepped in, arresting Egypt's first democratically elected president, imprisoning leading members of the Brotherhood and killing hundreds of demonstrators. Along with war in Syria and anarchy in Libya, this has dashed the hope that the Arab spring would lead to a flowering of democracy across the Middle East.
Egypt
Concentration of executive power in one party and bare-majority cabinets: most powerful organ of British government is the cabinet. Normally composed of members of the party that has the majority of seats in the House of Commons. British one-party and bare-majority cabinet is perfect embodiment of principle of majority rule: wields vast amounts of political power to rule as the representative of and in the interest of a majority that is not of overwhelming proportions - large minority is excluded from power. Coalition governments somewhat rare - "hung parliament" - 2010 Liberal Democrats and Conservatives Cabinet dominance: cabinet is dependent on confidence of parliament - usually can count on staying in office since cabinet is made up of leaders from the majority party, and as the majority are in the House of Commons, can usually rely on support - need to have a cohesive majority and support from this majority to be a strong cabinet; it's the disciplined two-party system rather than the parliamentary system that gives rise to executive dominance - multiparty cabinets tend to be much less dominant; because of concentration of power in a dominant cabinet, former cabinet minister Lord Hailsham has called British governmental system as "elective dictatorship" Two-party system: Conservative Party and Labour Party dominate - other minor parties Majoritarian and disproportional system of elections: legislative body - members elected in single-member districts according to the plurality method ("first past the post system"): candidate with largest vote, or if no majority, the one with the largest minority vote wins. Leads to disproportional results. "Manufactured majorities": majorities that are artificially created by the electoral system out of mere pluralities of the vote - may be more accurate to call UK a "pluralitarian" democracy - some want to move towards proportional representation, like in Ireland, but the two big parties (Conservatives and Labour) have traditionally benefitted from the system already in place so aren't keen to change Interest group pluralism: competition and conflict characterize the majoritarian model's typical interest group system: free-for-all pluralism - a multiplicity of interest groups that exert pressure on the government in an uncoordinated and competitive manner e.g. Thatcher vs. labour unions
Excutives-unitary majoritarian
Executive power sharing in broad coalition cabinets: all or most of the important political parties share power in a broad coalition; also linguistic groups are represented in proportion to their size (French, Italian and German) Executive-legislative balance of power: neither parliamentary nor presidential - formal separation of the executive and the legislative, making them each more independent and therefore more balanced Multiparty system: no party comes close to majority status Proportional representation: proportional electoral systems have not inhibited the translation of societal cleavages into party-system cleavages - division of parliamentary seats among the parties in proportion to the votes they receive Interest group corporatism: there are two different brands of corporatism - social corporatism (the labor unions predominate) and labor corporatism (business associations predominate) - Switzerland exemplifies labor corporatism. Switzerland shows the three general elements of corporatism (tripartite concertation, relatively few and relatively large interest groups, and the predominance of peak associations.
Executive-unitary consensus
Multicultural subgroups are minorities within the larger context of society. These subgroups could represent ethnic-linguistic or religious regional groups. However, sometimes these subgroups cannot function together politically and require a spatial division that mirrors their non-spatial division. Many countries with multicultural subgroups develop strategies to deal with their differences, such as federalism, decentralization, consociationalism, multiculturalism, or even enforcement of inequality.
How do governments deal with the multicultural differences between its people and how do they make sure all of those people are equally represented?
There are concrete reasons and abstract reasons for why the nation emerges. Concretely, a confluence of factors results in the emergence of the nation, mainly centered around the notion of violence, but there are also other proposed reasons. These reasons are proposed because there is no recorded history of pristine state formation. Abstractly, the idea of the 'nation' is tied intimately to the idea of 'identity.' Nations emerge among individuals who share a common identity, however there are different visions of what the nation is itself.
How do nations emerge?
India/Pakistan: India had once included what is today known as Pakistan. In 1947, when the British left, the subcontinent had been divided into two independent nation states: Hindu-majority India and Muslim-majority Pakistan. The polarization of Hindus and Muslims occurred during just a couple of decades of the twentieth century, but by the middle of the century it was so complete that many on both sides believed that it was impossible for adherents of the two religions to live together peacefully. Clash between Jinnah and Gandhi From that point on, violence on the streets between Hindus and Muslims began to escalate. People moved away from, or were forced out of, mixed neighborhoods and took refuge in increasingly polarized ghettos. Tensions were often heightened by local and regional political leaders. As riots spread to other cities and the number of casualties escalated, the leaders of the Congress Party, who had initially opposed Partition, began to see it as the only way to rid themselves of the troublesome Jinnah and his Muslim League.
India
The next big setback was the Iraq war. When Saddam Hussein's fabled weapons of mass destruction failed to materialize after the American-led invasion of 2003, Mr Bush switched instead to justifying the war as a fight for freedom and democracy. "The concerted effort of free nations to promote democracy is a prelude to our enemies' defeat," he argued in his second inaugural address. This was more than mere opportunism: Mr Bush sincerely believed that the Middle East would remain a breeding ground for terrorism so long as it was dominated by dictators. But it did the democratic cause great harm. Left-wingers regarded it as proof that democracy was just a fig leaf for American imperialism. Foreign-policy realists took Iraq's growing chaos as proof that American-led promotion of democratization was a recipe for instability.
Iraq
Yet China's stunning advances conceal deeper problems. The elite is becoming a self-perpetuating and self-serving clique. The 50 richest members of the China's National People's Congress are collectively worth $94.7 billion—60 times as much as the 50 richest members of America's Congress. China's growth rate has slowed from 10% to below 8% and is expected to fall further—an enormous challenge for a regime whose legitimacy depends on its ability to deliver consistent growth. Media censorship
Limits to China's success
There is an important distinction between authoritarian and totalitarian governments, which centers on the extent of their control over citizens' lives. Authoritarian regimes usually only focus on controlling political life, whereas totalitarian regimes influence every aspect of society's functioning. However, despite this difference, both types of political regimes are dictatorships, and share similar strategies for holding on to power, such as legitimization and indoctrination, repression, and redistribution and clientelism.
Power and authority --> How do authoritarian and totalitarian governments exert power and authority?
Lowell's axiom of one-party majoritarian governments as most effective policy makers One-party majority governments are typically more effective Larger the democracy, the least effect the democracy is Limits to Lowell's axiom: Majoritarian single parties are decisive and fast, but that doesn't mean the decisions are wise argued by Federalist Papers e.g. 1980s UK poll tax (Patterns of Democracy p. 257); Alternation of the government (from left to right and vice versa) add an element of instability when it comes to efficient policy-making (Lijphart is biased by his preference for consensual democracy)
Not all democracies are inefficient at policy implementation
The first great setback was in Russia. After the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 the democratization of the old Soviet Union seemed inevitable. In the 1990s Russia took a few drunken steps in that direction under Boris Yeltsin. But at the end of 1999 he resigned and handed power to Vladimir Putin, a former KGB operative who has since been both prime minister and president twice. This postmodern tsar has destroyed the substance of democracy in Russia, muzzling the press and imprisoning his opponents, while preserving the show—everyone can vote, so long as Mr Putin wins. Autocratic leaders in Venezuela, Ukraine, Argentina and elsewhere have followed suit, perpetuating a perverted simulacrum of democracy rather than doing away with it altogether, and thus discrediting it further.
Russia
Federalism Decentralization Could create federalism or decentralization in response to demands for greater autonomy; includes subnational units in decision making/lawmaking Debate about federalism is highly ideological - people have the view that federalism could serve as a bulwark against tyranny and war Federalist countries tend to be large (e.g. US, Canada, Russia, India, Australia, Brazil); most countries of the Americas are federalist (Argentina, Mexico, Chile, Bolivia etc.); rarer in Europe (Austria, Belgium, Germany, Switzerland, Spain, Italy)
Spatial strategies
Political scientists trace the origins of democracy to Ancient Greece, and follow democracy's development until the end of the Cold War. Throughout history, the foundational principles of democracy and the characteristics that were necessary for the establishment of democracy as we know it today have remained the same.
The transformations of democracy
Machiavelli's lasting contribution on politics has been to bring the focus on the state to the forefront of politics. Furthermore, he has encouraged the establishment of meritocracy in the political sphere.
What is the contribution of Machiavelli to the understanding of politics?
The major differences between majoritarian and consensual democracies can be drawn along executive lines as well as federal lines. Executively, the major difference is the distribution of power. In a majoritarian democracy, power is concentrated in the hands of the majority, whereas in a consensual democracy, power is dispersed a bit more among different parties. Federally, the major difference comes down to constitutional review and the independence or dependence of the central bank. To illustrate these differences, I will use the examples of Britain's majoritarian Westminster model of democracy and Switzerland's consensus model of democracy.
Which are the key differences between majoritarian and consensual democracies?
Many countries that get rid of authoritarian regimes adopt democracies in their stead. Recent young democracies, however, seriously struggled and subsequently collapsed. These democracies have failed because of the delegitimization of democracy following the collapse of the USSR, and the communist success of China that challenges Western democracy's appeal.
Why do democracies fail? --> why have recently-established young democracies failed?
1970s, there's a crisis and overload of the state (Margaret Thatcher - overload of policy is slowing down democracy; need to roll back the state) Can only deal with 5-9 problems at one time; agenda-setting is a huge competition; we all have our own pad issues Policy sequence: agenda-setting to policy formulation to adoption to implementation to achievement/evaluation (in the real world never works like this)
agenda-setting
The key defining element of authoritarian regimes is limited pluralism. However, authoritarian regimes vary along several dimensions: extent of pluralism, sources of authority and legitimization, control of society, institutions, provision of public goods and welfare programs, civil rights, repression, corruption (rent extraction), enforcement of property rights (credible commitment)... Classification: Traditional autocracies, often based on personal rule and inherited power (chiefdom, monarchies...) e.g. Saudi Arabia Modern autocracies: personal or collective (organizational) rule without explicit and repeated consent of the people. Often a military group/group that is allied with the military. Authoritarian regimes according to Linz (1970) Limited political pluralism: little/no political competition; only certain parties are able to run/rule - exclusion of certain parties from running in national elections Absence of an ideology that is elaborate and/or used to guide the regime; sometime might be a religious reference or an undercurrent of anticommunism, but there's no inherent ideology Absence of intensive or extensive political mobilization Limited predictability rather than arbitrary or discretionary leadership; the regimes are inherently unstable - different parts of ruling clan committing coup d'états against other parts of the ruling clan
authoritarian definition
Context: In October 1962, the world was on the brink of World War III, following the discovery by US intelligence of Soviet missiles on Cuban territory in San Cristobal - conflict between Kennedy and Khrushchev President Kennedy held several meetings with secretaries (defense vs. state department), intelligence officers and the Pentagon. The ultimate decision was the result of very complex negotiations of different strategic actors that form alliances, have inimities, withhold information, etc. Kennedy ultimately had to choose what to do - ultimately chose to create a blockade with ships against Cuba Allison explains that Kennedy turned to the navy and to the air force to see who could help him solve the problem; different parts of the army were negotiating their share of the finance bill at this time - WWII had been positive for the air force - navy was looking more and more obsolete - when Kennedy turned to the air force and asked if they could bomb the site - they used this opportunity to renegotiate their share of the finance bill - need more resources, or else it's unsure whether they'll be able to do it - the navy, which had lost much of prestige, saw an opportunity to regain lost prestige, said that of course they could which was a lie - very difficult to organize maritime blockades - navy appeared to be a lot more available/convincing; Kennedy turned to the navy Allison draws the model of "bureaucratic politics" from this: Decision-making is fragmented, not hierarchical. We would like to think of policy-making as a top-down process but in actuality, administrations are in competition with each other over relative power, resources, personnel etc. and this tends to determine their positions on specific issues. Administrations rely on different resources (expertise, seniority, continuity and responsibility over certain issues), as well as constituencies. Minister of Agriculture will always defend agriculture - very difficult to have objective view As a consequence, bureaucratic politics leads to lack of control, responsibility and accountability.
cuban missile crisis
Mussolini: "everything in the State, nothing outside of the State, nothing against the State"; everything is political - waking up is political; being nice to your sister is political etc. A new ambition: changing humans; create the "new man" Totalitarian organization of all aspects of life; control over all Ideological indoctrination through organizations to all parts of society; society will be broken down into atomic parts that are alone responsible and accountable; thought control Leadership and personality cult e.g. North Korea - whole regime relies on image of particular leader Definitions of totalitarian regimes Brzezinski: The features which distinguish this regime from older autocracies as well as heterocracies are six in number. They are to recall what by now is a fairly accepted set of facts: A totalitarian ideology A single party committed to this ideology and usually led by one man A full developed secret police and three kinds of monopolies or, more precisely, types of monopolistic control: Mass communications e.g. TV - from the 1960s to 1980, everyone watched exactly the same thing at the same time; if you wanted to create a totalitarian regime, this would have been an excellent opportunity to use a form of media communication Operational weapons And all organizations including economic ones, thus involving a centrally planned economy
definition totalitarian
Two visions of the nation: The ethnic-cultural nation: reminiscent of ancient traditional communities - you are French/Lithuanian because you were born in France/Lithuania - can't join it voluntarily, you are born into it. This is "Weberian" in that people are not free neither to join nor leave that community. The state will act as a "roof" for all members of this community, even if those live outside the state's border. Based on language, religion or culture. Contractarian vision of the nation: rational choice - join this community because brings benefits (joining is better than not joining) - history, shared suffering etc. will give the community a feeling of mystical connection, but at the beginning you just want to belong to a community. De facto, most authors agree that beyond the origin of the nation the continuing existence has to be ensured through a permanent renewal of allegiance. Other authors have different beliefs Ernest Renan - "daily plebiscite" - every Frenchman wakes up in the morning and wants to be French every morning; it's a choice; and Renan insisted in a less often quoted part of his text that it was paramount for the nation to be built on a common history, common "suffering" - this is how links are cemented Heinrich von Treischke: you can't choose - you are born into it
different version of what the nation is itself
Agenda-setting and public/policy stream. The implementation of these debated policies is not entirely compatible with democracy as the implementation of policy is path-dependent and is shaped by various factors, notably demonstrated by Graham Allison's analysis of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
does policy implementation reflect democratic principles?
Gridlock of the Obama administration; the government shutdown in 2013 Obamacare continues to be very controversial for a range of reasons. After failing to block passage of the original act in 2010, failing to pass countless repeals from 2010 - 2013, losing a Supreme Court case in 2012, and failing to win the 2012 U.S. Presidential Election that might have lead to repeal of that act, right wing elements of the Republican Party — often referred to as the Tea Party - within the U.S. House of Representatives attached a provision to a spending bill that required eliminating funding for the implementation of the PPACA in order to fund the rest of the U.S. Federal Government. That bill was sent to the U.S. Senate. The Senate then stripped out the provisions relating to defunding Obamacare, and sent it back to the House. The House then sent back a version of the bill that delayed implementation of the Act for one year, and the Senate tabled the measure and didn't even take it up for consideration. Since the U.S. Congress has not passed law to appropriate any funds past September 30, 2013, the Federal Government has "shut down."
failure of the US compared to China
Federal and decentralized government: federal state in which power is divided between the central government and the government of twenty cantons and six so-called half cantons (splits in three formerly united cantons) - one of the most decentralized states in the world Strong bicameralism: principal justification for instituting a bicameral instead of a unicameral legislature is to give special representation to minorities in a second chamber e.g. Swiss system where National Council is the lower house and represents the Swiss people and the Council of States is the upper/federal house representing the cantons - each canton has two representatives, except for the half-cantons which only have one representative - Swiss bicameralism is symmetrical Constitutional rigidity: written constitution containing basic rules of governance that can be changed only by special majorities - amendments of Swiss constitution require the approval in a referendum of not only a nationwide majority of the voters but also majorities in a majority of cantons Judicial review: Swiss deviation from pure consensus model is in judicial review: its supreme court does not have the right of judicial review Central bank independence: one of strongest and most independent banks in the world
federal consensus
Unitary and centralized government: local governments' powers not constitutionally guaranteed by central government; devolution Concentration of legislative power in a unicameral legislature: in majoritarian government, legislative power should be centralized in one house - in this respect UK deviates as Parliament consists of two chambers: House of Commons and House of Lords - asymmetrical; only power Lords have is power of delay (up to one year) - so deviation but not really since Commons has much more power Constitutional flexibility: "unwritten" constitution Absence of judicial review: no written constitutional document with the status of "higher law" against which the courts can test the constitutionality of regular legislation A central bank controlled by the executive: banks are able to control interest rates more efficiently if they work independently from a central government - Bank of England still under control of government; not much independence (although became more so with 1997 Labour government)
federal majoritarian
1826 - 1926: the building of Western democracies; This wave had its roots in the American and French revolutions. Two criteria marked this first development: 50% of males were eligible to vote and a responsible executive who had to maintain the support of a majority of voters or of an elected parliament.
first wave
sortition, no repetition, all citizens are eligible for office
general principles of Greek direct democracy
Process by which governments increase their policymaking capacities and develop a new set of instruments e.g. planning and statistics that in turn require a new set of people to run them Foucault on governmentalization: Foucault developed the idea of governmentality which centers on the way governments try to produce the citizen best suited to fulfill government policies and the organized practices through which subjects are governed - it's all about "how" the government functions
governmentalization
In constitutionalism, there's a distinction between limited government and unlimited sovereignty - sovereignty is delegated but not surrendered. Because of the size of populations, it will be difficult to effectively pull of the kind of direct democracy Rousseau, for instance, envisioned (exception: Switzerland), simply because populations are too big, so constitutional systems have representatives Fill the lack of trust by creating social/political institutions to replace interpersonal trust (e.g. Sciences Po lecturers - we don't know them personally so can't trust them, but we trust the institution of Sciences Po to have employed legitimate lecturers); the social/political institutions also give us a feeling of belonging and community - even the newspaper can establish this. Everyone is doing the same thing/learning the same things at the same time; sharing the moment/information; you have an imagined community
how constitutionalism is a more efficient expression of democracy
There are different types of power and there are different models of power. When discussing power outside the context of democracy, there is a the straightforward definition of 'making decisions' yourself. Within democracy, this takes the form of either agenda-setting or thought control. Understanding how these different types of power come to exist, it is important to understand the different models that bring about these types of power. These models include the sovereignty model, the commodity model, and the repressive model.
how is power defined in contemporary democracies?
state formation and parliamentarization
ingredients necessary for modern democracy
Strong in-built diversity - regional identities are strong; there may be different cultural or linguistic groups living within the same country Consequences of globalization: new subgroups may emerge due to migration; existing subgroups may become more self-conscious - become conscious of their difference and as a consequence demand recognition
intro for multiculturalism
Power is effective and durable if it is legitimate. Dictators have to rely on one of the three (Weberian) ways of legitimizing power: Tradition Charisma Bureaucracy and reason Some have developed complementary strategies: Imitation and apparent conformation: e.g. through elections (and electoral fraud e.g. redistricting to put all of your opponents in one constituency and making sure you supporters are the majority in constituencies to keep yourself in power) Indoctrination to align preferences of people on the interests of the rulers. Indoctrination is often based on propaganda (role of parties and mass media) and mobilization
legitimization and indoctrination (how authoritarian governments exert power)
Limitation of power (checks and balances, separation of powers) Invention of political responsibility Invention of modern understanding of government as an institution
major steps of parliamentarization
Bureaucracy (state capacity) Territory (sovereignty) Fosters the emergence of a public sphere (language; identity etc.)
major steps of state formation
incorporation, representation, organized opposition
milestones of democratization
Consociationalism Consociationalism: originally emerged during WWI in the Netherlands as a response to high tensions between religious and political groups - these groups were not spatially separated and were subject to cross-cutting cleavages, so federalism was not an option. The "Polder" (pillar) system adopted in 1917 ensured elite representation for each community through a complex system of quotas in addition to classical democratic institutions. Many other countries still practice forms of consociationalism. In Lebanon, the constitution (since 1989) stipulates that the President has to be a Maronite Christian, while the Prime minister has to be a Sunni Muslim and the President of the National Assembly must be a Shia Muslim. The National Assembly is made up of one half of Christians and one half of Muslims. Multiculturalism Another potential solution is multiculturalism: multiculturalist theorist/philosophers think of multiculturalism as something that should be dealt with day-to-day; it's about recognizing differences and minority rights. This is in reaction to discrimination. The enforcement of inequality, whether consciously or unconsciously Culture is primordialist - so denying you your cultural differences this would create psychological suffering; overlooking cultural differences is the same thing as discriminating against them; one way is to emphasize commonalities, but again robbing minorities - e.g. we all speak English in this community so we will speak English, but there are some that speak it better than others - enforcing inequality This is strategy for dealing with multiculturalism is incredibly dangerous: contemporary cleavages are strongly influenced by this type of cleavage - populist and radical movements on the far right openly appeal to those who feel left out and marginalized - marginalization increases vulnerability to radical discourse (radical Islam) Cultures should be legally ruled by culture-specific law
non-spatial strategies
Karl Wittfogel put forth his "hydraulic" theory of the state - "He argued that the rise of the state in Mesopotamia, Egypt, China, and Mexico was driven by the need for large-scale irrigation, which could be managed only by a central bureaucratic state." Population density theory: "Population density promotes state formation by permitting specialization and division of labor between elites and non-elite groups." - more likely an intervening variable on the way to state formation, but not the final cause Robert Carneiro's theory of circumscription: "He argues that it is only when increases in productivity take place within a geographically circumscribed area like a river valley, or when other hostile tribes effectively circumscribe another tribe's territory, that it is possible to explain the emergence of hierarchical states." State as a product of charismatic authority: "To a much larger extent than economic benefit, religious authority can explain why a free tribal people would be willing to make a permanent delegation of authority to a single individual and that individual's kin group. The leader can then use that authority to create a centralized military machine that can conquer recalcitrant tribes as well as ensure domestic peace and security." e.g. Muhammad and Arab world
other reasons behind nation formation
Pierson (2000) (based on the work of Brian Arthur) Political choices are taken in a context of strong uncertainty about their consequences; we try to nudge it in the right direction but we make mistakes - even if they make sense, everything else equal, it doesn't work Therefore choices are highly accidental in the early stages of a given path (or any new policy, for that matter) Once a given path is chosen, however, it is very difficult to achieve radical changes: policies become path-dependent or are locked in. More significant change will become likely only at critical junctures, i.e. in a context of major crisis.
path-dependency
1945 - 1950: the aftermath of WWII and decolonization; Allied occupation post-WWII encouraged democratization in former Axis powers, with exception of Soviet influence in Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Meanwhile, the beginning of the end of Western colonial rule produced a number of new states with democratic tendencies.
second wave
Formulate the issue as a collective and public problem; determine and impute the responsibility for a problem; voice a demand/claim towards public authority (obviously public authorities not equally accessible to all problems/actors - there may be more problems that are more pressing) Problem Stream: those problems that already have obtained and maintain attention by public authorities Policy Stream: potential policy solutions that are available and will be championed by one or more relevant actors Political stream: public opinion, parties and other organized political actors Policy change will only happen if these three streams coincide
public/policy stream
Machiavelli's revolution was based on redefining virtú, as he endorses the belief that virtú encompasses the qualities that allow a prince to stay within Fortune's graces. However, he does not believe that virtú necessarily means the cardinal and princely virtues, allowing for a certain moral flexibility. Yet this moral flexibility does not allow a ruler do do anything that he wants, as he should still do everything to avoid being hated and being called wicked. A prince should exhibit those qualities that are considered good whenever possible, though if they are ruinous they cannot be called virtues. Some examples that Skinner takes from Machiavelli's text include generosity, as a prince who spends lavishly would need to tax people and therefore cause unrest, and mercy, as being too merciful can cause disorder. One of the principle concepts in The Prince that many people remember is that it is better to be feared than to be loved. New rulers should not be worried about being known for their vices, as a wise prince will not worry about a reputation for cruelty. Thus, a prince should not care about moral susceptibilities.
redefinition of virtú
Classical idea behind redistribution: we have a progressive tax system, where the highest earners pay higher taxes - different in a dictatorship Dictators may rule because they desire power but also often because of direct material benefits (rent extraction). Yet, they often have to share their rents to "buy" support. Authoritarian systems are viewed in this perspective as a system of rent allocation and rent-sharing. Private (foreign) investors (who often generate the stream of rents) are part of this rent-sharing process. One key element to create economic rents is to reduce competition (import permits, preferential tax treatment, concessions,...). Clientelism and redistribution are also a way to increase the cost of mobilization and of legitimization of the regime. Richer countries are more egalitarian
redistribution and clientelism (how authoritarian governments exert power)
Monitoring and enforcement of obedience: potential and actual disloyalty Terror as a strategy to foment distrust (denounce to survive). Since dictator cannot know whether denunciations reflect accurate information, he has incentives to purge indiscriminately, which, in turn, increases uncertainty. Usually purge among students Terror needs to be implemented by specialized groups, which need in turn to be terrorized. Need repressors to do the repression. Efficiency of terror is low. even if you follow all the guidelines, may have still mistaken hostility for support etc.
repression and terror (how authoritarian governments exert power)
appointment to all offices, except those requiring experience and skill, by lot; important that everyone has an equal chance to reach all offices
sortition
Criticism by Joseph Schumpeter who replaced Rousseau's concept of democracy with elite competition for government, rather than for the common good of the people: "The democratic method is that institutional arrangement for arriving at political decision in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of competitive struggle for the people's vote." - becomes more of a power-grabbing scheme; this definition is very important in political science - became minimal definition of democracy and a necessary condition for it In a direct democracy, we can't be 100% sure of Rousseau's hyper individualism (the claim that they will always vote for the common good) so in reality there's this lack of trust
the limits of social contract theory
1974 - present: collapse of the USSR; Democratic regimes start to replace authoritarian and considerable liberalization occurs in authoritarian regimes. This takes place in every region of the world and is intensified by the fall of Communism.
third wave
When people think they're doing what they want, but they're really doing what you want Noam Chomsky: political power using propaganda to distort and distract from major issues to maintain confusion and complicity, preventing real democracy from becoming effective e.g. using the media effectively Necessary illusions/noble lies that the state uses as means to consolidate their power; e.g. belief that the state's land belongs to it even though it was likely acquired illegitimately and that citizenship is rooted in something more than the accidents of birth (Plato's Republic)
thought control in contemporary democracies
Social contract theory: Tilly: state formation as protection racket - we start off in the state of nature (in war/insecurity) this leads to need for protection - people want to live a peaceful life - they want to have houses etc. so they have to create some sort of structure so that there is a permanent need for protection - they start paying taxes, which funds a better army, which leads to more war and greater insecurity and all over again = the creation of the modern state Fukuyma: "It seems highly unlikely that the first state arose out of an explicit social contract if the chief issue motivating it were simply economic, like the protection of property rights or the provision of public goods. Tribal societies are egalitarian and within the context of close-knit kinship groups, very free." Product of violence and compulsion: "The weaknesses and gaps in all of the explanations that are primarily economic in focus point to violence as an obvious source of state formation. That is, the transition from tribe to state involves huge losses in freedom and equality. It is hard to imagine societies giving all this up even for the potentially large gains of irrigation. The stakes have to be much higher and can be much more readily explained by the threat to life itself posed by organized violence."
violence as the driving force behind nation formation
There is a distinction between obedience and compliance. People are forced to obey, whereas people choose to comply. Therefore, there are different reasons behind people's choices to obey or to comply. The reasons for obedience are imposed upon a people, whereas feelings of compliance are inspired by the state.
what drives obedience?