Comparative Politics Exam 1
What is comparative politics? What are the most important points of comparison between countries? Why?
Comparative politics is defined as the study and comparison of domestic politics across countries. By comparing politics, we gain a better understanding of various forms of government as opposed to the democratic regime we as Americans are familiar with. When comparing countries, we must account for variables such as culture, resources, political structures, economics and geography which can all influence how a country is run. The most effective way to compare countries would be to look at similar countries, such as the United States and Canada, as opposed to differing countries, that way these variables are relatively alike. Freedom and equality are two important concepts to compare between countries. Ultimately, when we compare other countries or try to influence a country to become democratic, our goal is to provide their citizens a reasonable balance between freedom and equality.
What are some of the key differences between ethnicity and national identity? Why does national identity form?
Ethnic identity is a set of institutions, such as language, religion, geographical location, customs, and history, which bind people together through a common culture. Ethnicity is ascribed and remains fixed throughout life. Ethnicity is considered a social construct. The idea of national identity, however, is much more consistent and political. Whereas ethnicity binds people through a common culture, national identity binds people through common political aspirations. National identity often develops from ethnic identity. An ethnic group may feel oppressed and result in self government.
Describe the difference between parliamentary, presidential, and semipresidential systems of government. Which system do you think works best? Why?
In a parliamentary, the public does not directly elect the prime minister. Additionally, they serve for an unfixed term; however they can easily be removed through a vote of no confidence or if the prime minister feels it is in the party's best interest to hold an election. Unlike the parliamentary, in a presidential system the president is directly elected by the public for a fixed term. A semipresidential system combines the two, allowing both a president and a prime minister to exercise power, an example of this being France. Often, a president will set forth policy and a prime minister will translate these policy ideas into legislation. Presidents also lead in foreign policy and serve as commander in chief. Although it is easier for a prime minister to pass legislature and be voted out of office, the public has less control over who is elected and what legislature is passed. Regarding presidentialism, the public does have a say in who is elected, however even if the president loses public approval, they cannot be replaced except through a new election. In a presidential system, there is also a separation of powers, which can make it difficult for a president to pass legislature. Based on these drawbacks, it seems as though the best alternative of the three would be a semiparliamentary, allowing for a directly elected president as well as an indirectly elected prime minister. By combining the two, the public has the ability to elect a president, the powers are shared between the president and prime minister, and the prime minister still has the ability to pass legislature as agreed on between the two powers.
What is legitimacy? According to Max Weber, what are the three forms of legitimacy? Of these three, which do you most agree with? Why?
Legitimacy is defined as recognizing someone or something as right and proper. According to Max Weber, there are three forms of legitimacy: traditional, charismatic, and rational-legal. Traditional legitimacy is built by habit and custom, resting on the idea that someone or something is valid because "it has always been that way". Conversely, charismatic legitimacy is built on the power of ideas and the presence of the leader. The last of the three is rational-legal legitimacy, which is based on a system of laws and procedures that are highly institutionalized. I believe that the rational-legal form of legitimacy is highly effective, as it reflects a public understanding of morals, unlike the charismatic which reflects one person's ideas, and allows for change when necessary, unlike the traditional legitimacy.
Please list and explain the three components of political economy?
One of the components of political economy is markets. Markets are the interactions between buyers and sellers. Sellers generally compete with others to sell a similar good at either a higher quality or a lower price, while consumers seek to buy the best or the most goods at the lowest price. A second component to the political economy is property. Property refers to the ownership of goods and services. The last of the three components of the political economy are public goods. Public goods can be defined as those goods that are available for society and indivisible, meaning no private person or organization can own them. Unlike private goods, or property, public goods can generate equality, allowing the public to share the benefits.
What is "the state"? According to the text, how do we compare state power?
The state is defined as a set of institutions that society deems necessary to achieve basic goals. Max Weber defines the state as the organization that maintains a monopoly of violence over a territory. In America we tend to think of the state as local, though elsewhere it is generally central. The state is responsible for laws and regulations, property rights, taxation, health and labor protection, and social welfare. The state can be a theocracy, ruled largely based on religion, a consensus, working as a contract between the rulers and the ruled, or coercion, meaning that the state and institutions arose, creating inequality. According to the text, we can compare states by measuring their quality or powers, which is defined through concepts such as legitimacy (recognizing something or someone as right and proper), distribution of power (federal or central), capacity (the ability of the state to wield power in order to carry out basic tasks), and autonomy (the ability of the state to wield power independently of public or international interference).
What are some of the advantages of authoritarian rule? In your opinion, does the good outweigh the bad? Why or why not?
The term authoritarian refers to the many different forms of non-democratic rule. In an authoritarian government, the public has little or no role in electing officials, and elections are often influenced by corruption. Authoritarian governments have the ability to pass legislation quickly and without opposition, which can be beneficial in a time of crisis, however it is not necessarily in the public's best interest. Additionally, the public is often obedient and even has a generally lower crime rate; however this is because of fear that the government can use violence if they feel it necessary. Although citizens are controlled and the leader has the ability to pass legislation without opposition, I do not believe this justifies the limited rights and freedoms to the citizens.