Comparative politics

Why two?

"Lower" chamber: - representation of smaller geographical localities (electoral districts) - ideological "snapshot" of society (especially under PR systems) - responsiveness to voters (e.g. more members, more frequent elections) "Upper" chamber: - federalism (i.e. representation of larger sub-national political units, such as U.S. states or German länder) - representation of the "establishment" (e.g. the British House of Lords, which once consisted of hereditary nobles and Church of England bishops; today most of its members are appointed) - "sober second thought" (i.e. part of system of checks and balances)

The "Copenhagen Criteria"

"Membership requires that candidate country has achieved stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and, protection of minorities, the existence of a functioning market economy as well as the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union. Membership presupposes the candidate's ability to take on the obligations of membership including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union."

Pattern 2c: "Minority" Governments (Sweden)

"Minority" means that the party or the coalition parties forming the government do not have the majority of seats. This means that the government can be easily brought down in a vote of no confidence So how do such governments stay in power? Because opposition parties refrain from bringing them down. Why? Because there are formal or informal mechanisms allowing parties to obtain some of the benefits of power while technically remaining outside of government (e.g. corporatist practices of behind-the-scenes negotiations among parties and various interest groups) Because society is not divided by deep economic, social or ideological cleavages and consequently there are no sharp conflicts over policy Because of incumbency costs (sometimes parties may prefer to stay out of government for a while, e.g. during bad economic times, so they are not punished by voters for unpopular policies) The Swedish example: Small, ethnically homogeneous society Consensus among parties about the desirability of maintaining the welfare state PR without threshold -> many small parties, no majority party No formal coalition-building rules

Pattern 2b: Oversized or "Grand" Coalitions (swiss)

"Oversized" means more coalition partners than are necessary to attain a majority in parliament. Why do such coalitions occur? Special rules (e.g. extending the principle of proportionality of representation in parliament to proportionality in public office) Special circumstances (e.g. ethnic divisions that call for a maximally consensual, power-sharing style of democratic politics) The Swiss example: PR without threshold -> many parties, no majority party Formal coalition-building rules 7 cabinet members are allocated among parties according to the principle of proportionality rotating PM (all 7 cabinet members take turns at being Prime Minister for a year) Ethnic divisions -> need for power-sharing mechanisms -> institutions designed to promote consensus

Cons of SMD

"rewards" large parties and "penalizes" small ones this reduces the number of parties, a phenomenon called "defractionalization" resulting in fewer choices for voters "magnifies" small shifts in vote shares (i.e. distort perception of popular will) produces large numbers of "wasted" votes (i.e. votes for candidates who did not win) produces divisive results (parties either "win big" or "lose big", risking the danger of arrogant winners and sore losers)

The Executive Functions:

- "Leadership": setting national goals and priorities, shaping of legislative agenda, symbolic representation (performed by the "head of state", which may or may not be the same as the "head of government"), representing the country internationally, including by directing foreign policy -"Management": the practical carrying out (i.e. "executing") of policies and programs, the enforcement of laws and regulations

"New Social Movements" Ideologies (note that NSM's are quite diverse in this regard):

- "green" issues (pollution, nuclear power, animal rights, GMO, climate change) - anti-war / disarmament/ diversity / tolerance / inclusiveness (gender, race, sexual orientation) - opposition to the global consumer culture ("McWorld") Very POST-MATERIALIST

presidentialism has benefits too:

- Accountability: it's clear that "the buck stops here" - with the president, that is - The people as a whole get to directly choose the head of the executive Presidentialism helps to keep the size and scope of government limited thanks to checks and balances - And it enhances predictability thanks to fixed terms (no removal except through impeachment) So what accounts for the poor survival rate of presidentialism? - The failures of democracy were overwhelmingly concentrated in Latin American countries (almost 40% of regime changes were in this part of the world), that also happened to have presidential regimes, and which also happened to have lower levels of economic development, more inequality, and a history of military rule - Therefore, some argue that it was not presidentialism but the specific Latin American circumstances that were to blame (in other words, that the correlation of presidentialism with democratic failure does not mean a causal connection) - Others point out, however, that presidential or semi-presidential democracies have failed in other parts of the world as well (e.g. in Russia), and that the poor survival rate of presidentialism persists even after controlling for economic performance

Method

- Franchise (i.e. who can vote, who can be elected) - Ballot type - categorical: the voter chooses one option: either one candidate or a group ("list") of candidates - ordinal: voter can rank options in order of preference - combination: several different ways of choosing - Districting - size: one-member vs. multi-member vs. country-wide - boundaries: fixed vs. subject to gerrymandering (i.e. drawing of boundaries for partisan advantage) - Formula (i.e. translation of votes into seats) - there are various formulas that countries may use; in the next lecture we will focus on the differences between single-member-district (SMD) and proportional representation (PR)

European Integration: Historical Background

- Let's start with the big picture: the past 100 years saw the rise of democracy (in place of authoritarian regimes), along with globalized market capitalism (in place of much more localized and regulated economies), and the nation-state (in place of colonial empires). - But the 20th century also tells us that the above ways of organizing political and economic activity can go badly wrong: unregulated (laissez-faire) capitalism can lead to economic crises; and mass political mobilization in combination with (extreme) nationalism can lead to interstate conflict. - So the lesson drawn by a generation of European leaders who had lived through the Great Depression, the rise of fascism and communism, and the two World Wars was that both capitalism and democracy had to be "saved from themselves" by creating institutions that would constrain them in certain ways, and which would also prevent the recurrence of exploitation (or even predation) by large states on smaller ones.

Core support groups for communists

- TRADITIONALLY: 1. radical intellectuals and parts of blue-collar industrial working class (Western Europe); 2. members of the communist party-state and their families (Eastern Europe) - TODAY: a mix of (younger) radical intellectuals and (older) traditional supporters (the latter especially in former communist countries)

Core support groups for socialists

- TRADITIONALLY: working-class, unionized workers in heavy industry, mining, transport, etc. - TODAY: - (older) middle-class salaried employees - public sector employees - well-educated, culturally liberal urbanites minorities

Why? - The "Mechanical effect" - Psychological effects:

- The "Mechanical effect": the mathematical process of calculating seat shares from vote shares (as shown in previous slides) is advantageous to larger parties and disadvantageous to smaller ones, which leads to... - Psychological effects: - voters do not want to "waste" their votes on small parties that are not likely to win anyway, so they will vote "strategically" for one of the large parties, typically one they regard as the "lesser evil" - elites abandon smaller parties (do not want to stand for election, or provide financing, or otherwise support them) because such parties are unlikely to win; over time the smaller parties decline and disappear - likewise, elites will not start new parties due to presumption that they will fail against the large, established ones

EU recap

- The EU is a hybrid organization with both supranational and intergovernmental aspects (i.e. it's more than an international organization but less than a federation) - Its membership is limited to countries which accept the "Copenhagen criteria" of liberal democracy, market economy and rule of law - It has grown (this included both "broadening" - more members, and "deepening" - more powers) through a series of international treaties voluntarily signed by democratically elected governments

Presidentialism

- Voters elect both the parliament and the head of government (this can be done on the same day, as in the U.S. or on completely different schedules) - The government remains in office for a fixed term and cannot be ousted by the parliament, except through impeachment* - The president selects cabinet ministers from among members of parliament and/or outsiders** - The president also performs the ceremonial role of head of state - There is formal separation of powers with checks and balances among the branches * - impeachment usually involves accusations of illegal activity on the part of the president, rather than mere political disagreement ** - and if the appointees are current members of parliament, in most countries they must resign their seats

Semi-Presidential Systems

- Voters elect members of parliament, and then a prime minister and a cabinet are created within the legislature just like in parliamentary systems - Voters also choose the president in a direct election - In some semi-presidential systems. the elected president performs only a ceremonial role, in others he/she is unquestionably the head of government, and in others still the president shares power with the prime minister What are the benefits of semi-presidentialism? - a "safety valve" aspect, i.e. the ability to remove unpopular prime ministers combined with the stability of fixed presidential terms - checks and balances, which are absent in pure parliamentarism And the disadvantages? - the problem of accountability (Who is in charge? Who is to blame when things go wrong?) - makes governing more complicated and possibly quite inefficient (we worry about gridlock in this country now, but imagine a situation where there would be two executives, one in the House of Representatives and one in the White House)

2007 The Lisbon Treaty

- a.k.a. the "Reform Treaty," a new constitution in all but name

SUBSTANTIVE criteria way of measuring democracy

- according to this view, procedural aspects are a necessary but not sufficient, and democratic status of a society depends on whether certain outcomes are achieved: not just universal franchise, but how many people actually participate or, indeed are capable of participating as informed citizens (i.e. have the necessary knowledge and awareness to hold the rulers accountable) not just that anyone can run for office, but how representative of the population (the balance of race, gender, social class, etc.) are the elected officials? not just the promise of equal voice ("one person, one vote"), but the extent to which this is realized in practice (e.g. by placing limits on campaign spending) not just the promise of rule "by and for" the people, but the extent to which no groups are favored over others in e.g. the policy-making process not just that elections are free, fair and regular, but do incumbents actually lose them? (e.g. post-WWII Japan had a constitution that met all the procedural requirements of democracy, but for 40+ years the same party always won)

New Radical Right (a better name might be the "New Populists") Ideology:

- contempt for mainstream parties and political/cultural elites for their betrayal of "ordinary people" (i.e. a strong populist aspect) - opposition to trans-national institutions (the European Union, IMF, World Bank, international finance, and globalization generally) - xenophobia: return to a world "as it once was", before mass immigration - "welfare chauvinism": a generous welfare state, but only for "people like us" VERY MATERIALIST

Functions within state institutions

- formation of a government - structuring of activity within the legislative branch (e.g. enforcing of party discipline in roll call votes) - formulation and implementation of public policy - filling of positions in the state bureaucracy and the public sector of the economy (which allows parties to engage in patronage, i.e. rewarding supporters with public sector jobs)

1999 Treaty of Amsterdam

- freedom of movement, removal of border controls in the Schengen zone allowing citizens of EU to live and work in any of the member countries

1987 The Single European Act

- goal of eliminating non-tariff barriers to trade (e.g. country-specific standards and regulations) - amended the Treaty of Rome to replace unanimity with "qualified majority voting" in most areas (except admission of new members and adoption of major new initiatives) Note: the main take-away here is that the EU has been created gradually, through a series of international treaties.

1958 Treaty of Rome

- goal of freedom of movement for goods, services, people and capital (the so-called "four freedoms") - retained the ECSC's basic institutional structure, but expanded its areas of competence and renamed the organization the European Economic Community (EEC)

State-society linkages

- identification of demands from the public ("interest articulation") - "packaging" of demands into broad programmatic statements ("interest aggregation"), usually guided by an ideology - political education and mobilization of the electorate - recruitment and nomination of candidates for office - organizing and managing election campaigns

Core support groups for conservatives

- older - more religious - wealthier - native-born

Support Base: for NRR

- older, dependent on (shrinking) state pensions or younger, unemployed or underemployed working class, from economically depressed regions or middle-class, but concerned about the changing ethno-cultural composition of society - native-born, non-minority

Socialist ideology

- origins in the ideas of Karl Marx and other radical critics of 19th century capitalism support state intervention in and regulation of the economy (until about 20 years ago, socialist parties also supported "nationalization" of key economic sectors, such as energy, transport and many industries) - redistributive policies meant to lessen social inequalities: - expansion of social "safety net" programs (unemployment, welfare, old age pensions, medicare) - progressive taxation (i.e. the more you earn, the higher your tax rate) - workers' rights issues (wages, job security) - fence-sitting position on cultural issues due to the composition of the support base (socially conservative working class + socially liberal middle class), but generally in favor of expansion of individual rights

Where is each type of executive system used?

- parliamentarism predominates in Western Europe and in Commonwealth countries (i.e. those with historic ties to Britain) - presidentialism is most common in the Americas (i.e. in countries whose constitutions were inspired by the U.S. model) - semi-presidentialism is found in some African and post-communist East European countries (often in countries where it was part of a "deal" between outgoing regime and opposition) But presidential regimes don't last as long (i.e. are more likely to be overturned in a revolution or a coup): - The expected life of a parliamentary democracy in the post-World War II era was 58 years* - The expected life of a presidential democracy during the same period was 24 years* - The United States is the one exception, i.e. the only long-lived presidential democracy ("aside from the United States, only Chile has managed a century and a half of relatively undisturbed constitutional continuity under presidential government", Juan Linz (1990), "The Perils of Presidentialism").

But - nowadays this law seems to work only in the U.S. But in other large countries that use SMD (e.g. Britain, Canada, India) we see 3, 4 or multi-party systems Why?

- perhaps politics in countries like Britain have changed in important ways since Duverger's time (e.g. the number of dimensions of competition may have increased) - perhaps the U.S. "exception" has to do with SMD plus other features of its political system (e.g. presidentialism, federalism, checks and balances, private financing of parties and election campaigns) - perhaps victory or defeat in elections is not the only thing that voters care about; e.g. some people may vote "expressively" to make a statement about their values - perhaps Duverger mistook the direction of causality, i.e. it may be that party systems "cause" electoral systems, not the other way around (i.e. electoral rules are consciously designed to serve party interests) - perhaps Duverger focused on a less important variable, i.e. maybe it's social cleavages, not electoral systems, that shape the character of party systems

2004 Constitutional Convention

- proposed a new constitution, defeated in referendums in France and the Netherlands in 2005

Communist ideology

- split off from the Socialists a century ago over the issue of revolution (the Socialists reconciled themselves to a peaceful, democratic "road to socialism," the Communists did not) - similar to the Socialists on economic issues (i.e. favor lessening of social inequalities through state intervention), but: - more radical in rhetoric and policy positions - more critical of US foreign policy (esp. US military actions abroad) - more critical of global capitalism (globalization) - opposed to cultural traditionalism (e.g. religion), but authoritarian in other respects

Support Base: for NSM

- typically from middle-class, economically secure backgrounds - alienated from mainstream parties

Combination systems: FPTP+PR (e.g. Germany)

-2 votes on the ballot: one for a specific candidate under the FPTP system, the other for a party list under PR -50% seats to be won under FPTP, 50% under PR -FPTP seats are assigned first, then PR seats until proportional vote-seat relationship is achieved -5% vote minimum needed OR win at least three FPTP seats (to keep small parties out) the goal is to have the best of both worlds: promoting voter-representative links (the FPTP part), and ... ... producing proportional outcomes (the PR part), and ... ... keeping the number of parties fairly small, and thus ... ... making coalition-formation and governability easier

The Maastricht Treaty

-gave the EU authority to act in new areas by establishing "Three Pillars" of European integration: 1. Economic and Monetary Union 2. Common Foreign and Security Policy 3. Justice and Home Affairs -democratized EU institutions (gave more powers to European Parliament -- i.e. power of "co-decision") -set goal of a single currency (European Monetary Union) - set goal of European citizenship

1952 The European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC)

-goal of eliminating barriers to trade in coal and steel - established the basic framework of European institutions ("commission," "council," "parliament," "court")

Patterns of electoral responsibility: Patterns of institutional responsibility

1. Presidential systems 2. Parliamentary systems 3. Semi-presidential systems Lecture 22

In democratic regimes, the term "party system" is used to describe the set of political parties, including their:

1. number and relative strengths (what % of votes each party typically receives), e.g. we may talk about a two-party system, a multiparty system or a dominant party system 2. the ideological positions of parties and their supporters (e.g. if there are large ideological differences among party electorates, we may talk about polarization) 3. the parties' key policy positions 4. the parties' coalition habits (who tends to ally with whom to form governments) 5. voter alignments (which groups in society tend to support which parties and why) 6. patterns of stability vs. change (e.g. if parties receive significantly different vote % from one election to the next, we talk about volatility)

Proportional Representation (PR)

A party receives parliamentary seats in proportion to its share of the total vote (e.g. 10% of votes approximately 10% of seats) PR systems vary in terms of: 1. District magnitude (how many seats per district) Higher magnitude more proportional results 2. Thresholds (e.g. 5%, to keep out small parties) Lower threshold more proportional result 3. Ballot structure Closed list parties set the order of names (e.g. if a party wins 5 seats in a district, they go to the top 5 names on the list. Who decides the order in the first place? Party leaders) Open list voters have some influence on who is elected (i.e. if enough people mark your name on ballots, you get elected no matter where on the list your name is located); this takes some power away from party leaders 4. Electoral formula (the actual algorithm for translating votes into seats)

Where does the liberal party fall on the chart?

All the way right, a little down

Theories of Democratization

At the present time, the self-definition of countries as democracies is almost universal: the only exceptions are the Vatican, Saudi Arabia, Brunei and a few small Pacific islands. This doesn't mean that all of these self-defined countries meet the various criteria, but it shows democracy's normative power.

I. SMD (single-member-district) Systems

Categorical ballot (each party submits one candidate per district; voters choose one candidate only) The winner in each district is decided by the plurality of votes (i.e. whoever wins the largest number of votes - not necessarily the majority - wins the single parliamentary seat for that district A party's national election result is a simple sum of its district victories (i.e. the number of districts won = the number of seats this party will have in parliament)

Pro EU

By integrating countries into common institutions and fostering norms of cooperation, the EU contributed to peace in Europe, despite some notable failures, such as the war in former Yugoslavia in the 1990s (Yugoslavia was not a member, but nonetheless this war is often described as a failure of EU's ability to secure regional peace) By eliminating many barriers to trade, it has created one of the world's largest economies By establishing standards for the rule of law and good governance, it has helped to combat provincialism, corruption and incompetence of national-level officials Likewise, by facilitating mobility of capital and labor, it enhanced economic competitiveness of European companies in global markets By providing funding to less developed countries and regions, it helped to reduce inequalities in living standards and social safety nets among member countries By providing a new layer of European-level judicial institutions, it has opened a new course of appeal to citizens seeking redress in legal cases The above package of benefits has made the EU appealing to countries in Southern and Eastern Europe emerging from dictatorship, and therefore it has been argued that the EU contributed to democratization in these countries

3. Culture

Cultural theories say that certain broadly shared attitudes, beliefs, values, or practices can increase or reduce the probability that a society will be democratic. Since religion has traditionally been the major source of values, one approach is to examine the different faiths' views on how society ought to be organized, hence the arguments about: how democratization in the West was a consequence of the Protestant Reformation (because of its individualistic values, which eventually spilled over into politics) how authoritarianism in Latin America was a consequence of Catholicism (because the Catholic Church, as an authoritarian, absolute monarchy, provided a model for political authoritarianism...) how authoritarianism in Russia is a consequence of Orthodoxy (because Orthodox Christianity never developed a distinction between religious and secular authority...) how authoritarianism in Asia was/is a consequence of Confucianism and its emphasis on respect and deference to authority, placing the good of the group above the good of the individual, etc. how authoritarianism in the Middle East is a consequence of Islam (because, like Orthodoxy, it too makes no distinction between church and state...) "Weak" culturalist arguments: a supportive cultural environment is necessary for democracy to emerge and endure, but cultural traditions are malleable and subject to change "Strong" culturalist arguments: some cultures are simply incompatible with democracy, and thus different cultural zones will tend to have different political arrangements

- The recent financial crisis called for a response comparable in many ways to America's New Deal: the creation of new institutions to coordinate macro-economic policies, both fiscal (i.e. taxing and spending) and monetary (i.e. money supply, interest rates, etc.): European Stability Mechanism Fiscal Compact Treaty Euro-Plus Pact Banking Union

European Stability Mechanism: the "bailout fund" for Eurozone states in financial difficulties recipient countries agree to have their finances scrutinized by the "Troika" of the EU Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund Fiscal Compact Treaty: commits signatories to balanced budgets, austerity measures, etc. as the price of eligibility for bailout funds signatories agree to send their national budgets for approval by the EU Commission Euro-Plus Pact: coordination among signatories in macro-economic policy, (de)regulation of labor markets, wages and pensions, etc. Banking Union: the European Central Bank to be a regulator of banks across the EU and a "lender of last resort"

Legislative Elections: Frequency:

Fixed (e.g. election every 4 yrs) vs. variable terms (government chooses election date)

Are political parties on the decline?

Historically, many parties were constructed on opposite sides of social divisions ("cleavages") such as social class or religion, but: today the "working class" is much smaller than in the past, and in many countries a large proportion of manual workers consists of non-citizens who can't vote many of the big issues of class politics (voting rights for all, workers' rights, welfare state and safety net programs) have long been settled in most democracies (but, on the flip side, inequality has been rising) secularization has weakened religious identities (but not everywhere)

Motivations for European Integration I. Idealistic II. Cold War / National security / Foreign policy III. Economic

I. Idealistic - to end the cycle of wars between France and Germany (1870, 1914, 1939) - to end old national rivalries and build an "ever-closer union" of European states - to redefine national identity and find new national purpose in the wake of World War II - to lay the groundwork for a European federation (a "United States of Europe") i.e. to take democracy to the supra-national level - to extend the post-Great Depression, post-World War II ideal of the market-restraining, redistributive "welfare state" to the supra-national level - to create a set of technocratic, "counter-majoritarian" political institutions to protect the public's long-term interests from the uncertainties of democratic politics II. Cold War / National security / Foreign policy - to coordinate post-WWII reconstruction efforts to stabilize fragile democracies, (in the early post-WWII years and in the post-1989 period) - to give Europe a stronger voice in world affairs III. Economic - to gain efficiency and security from a common market (i.e. from the dismantling of various barriers to trade, such as quotas or import duties) - to provide economic support to particular regions and economic sectors (e.g. agriculture) to enhance Europe's economic competitiveness to preserve the protections of the welfare state in an era of increasing economic globalization

Pattern 2: Coalition Governments

If no single party wins a majority of seats, it is usually necessary to find a combination of parties that will be able to govern together by agreeing on: Jobs (how many ministers and other positions in public office for each party) Policy (which party's or parties' favored policies will be implemented) Customarily, the leader of the party that won the most seats has the first crack at forming a coalition government. The various possibilities include: "Minimal winning" coalition (just over 50% of seats) "Minority" government (under 50% of seats) "Oversized" or "grand" coalition (much more than 50% of seats)

PROCEDURAL criteria way of measuring democracy

If we assume that "a regime is democratic to the degree that political relations between the state and its citizens feature broad, equal, protected, and mutually binding consultation." (Source: Tilly, Democracy) then one way to achieve this is through elections that meet certain conditions: - held at known and regular intervals - based on universal franchise (most people can vote and run for office) - with meaningful choice (multiple parties advocating different ideological views and policies) - free and fair (no violence or intimidation, no fraud) Furthermore, the above conditions can be achieved only in the presence of legally-protected civil liberties (which, in turn, implies rule of law). So additional criteria can include: - freedom of speech and expression - freedom to access diverse sources of information (which implies free media, access to the Internet, etc.) - freedom of association (assembly, form/join interest groups, etc.) And some also add: - "ex ante uncertainty: the outcome of the election is not known before it takes place" - "ex post irreversibility: the winner of the electoral contest actually takes office" (i.e. the outcome cannot be "vetoed" by an extra-constitutional actor, such as the military, a religious authority or an outside power) Source: Przeworski, Democracy and the Market

Anti-EU

In the economic sphere, it created a common currency without a common set of fiscal policies. Taxing and spending is still decided and carried out at level of national governments, and tax rates, expenditures and the levels of government debt vary widely (e.g. the top tax rate in Finland is 20 points higher and the retirement age 15 years higher than in Greece) Furthermore, the Euro currency led to moral hazards in that it encouraged some governments to act recklessly (e.g. before the Euro, spendthrift governments had to pay more to borrow money; after the Euro was introduced, all countries could borrow at the same rate) The Euro also made it impossible for the weaker countries to make their labor more competitive by devaluating the currency. This effectively priced their workers out of the labor market, resulting in high levels of unemployment, especially among the youth. The unemployment problem cannot be easily fixed because labor mobility is hindered by national-level laws and programs, such as medical insurance and old age pensions, which are not easily "portable," and by cultural factors (esp. language). The "who's in charge?" problem: the EU has an awful lot of presidents (President of the Council, President of the Commission, President of the Parliament, President of the Eurozone; there is also a rotating Presidency of the Council (heads of national governments rotate in this post every 6 moths), but not one of them is elected by the people as a whole The Democracy problem: the EU's democratic legitimacy is indirect (a union voluntarily entered into by democratically elected governments), but its institutions have long been insulated from democratic politics. The cost of this has been the "democratic deficit", or a sense of the EU's elite-driven, technocratic character. The Identity problem: no "European nation" as of yet (people's identities remain tied to nation-states), so ultimately how legitimate are EU institutions and policies?

Textbook definition of interest groups

Interest groups are organizations, typically NARROW IN FOCUS, that seek to INFLUENCE POLICY on behalf of their CONSTITUTENTS.

3rd dimension axis

Materialism v. post-materialism The appearance of this 3rd dimension is said to be the consequence of the generational and cultural conflicts of the 1960s, when the "baby-boomers" rebelled against their parents' cultural conformity and preoccupation with material prosperity. Instead, the 1960s generation demanded opportunities for individual fulfillment ("self-actualization") and rights for hitherto marginalized groups (women, as well as racial, ethnic and sexual minorities).

Where does the conservative party fall on the chart?

On the right side, mostly top

Are political parties on the decline? Part 3

Parties once affected people's everyday lives in much more direct fashion, but: party patronage and clientelism, once regarded as perfectly normal and routine, are now deemed improper and have been restricted (though hardly eliminated) by new anti-corruption laws some of the social services (from community centers to unemployment and accident insurance), once provided by parties, are now provided by the welfare state

Are political parties on the decline? Part 2

Parties were once critical for socializing and mobilizing the citizenry, but: today's voters are better educated, more politically sophisticated and more independent party-owned news outlets are less common today (but not completely gone) issue advocacy groups have become increasingly important for educating and mobilizing voters some of the old ideological narratives that parties once used to attract followers have lost their power to inspire, and many people would be hard-pressed to explain what it means today to be e.g. a conservative in Britain or a socialist in France

Textbook definition of parties

Political parties are ORGANIZATIONS (i.e. groups that have an internal structure, a set of rules, functional division of labor, and are oriented toward a goal), usually grounded in a common IDEOLOGY, that seek to GOVERN by ELECTING CANDIDATES to PUBLIC OFFICE.

Weaknesses of PR

Promotes multi-partyism (but is this necessarily a bad thing?) - Requires coalition governments (voters don't pick governments directly) - Complicates policy-making (coalition partners may have different priorities) - May allow extremism to flourish (but maybe better in parliament than in the streets?) - Weak voter-representative links (especially in closed-list systems, where party leaders decide who gets in)

Purpose

Representative democracy and majority rule (hence the goal of winning >50% of seats, because most decisions inside legislatures are made by majority vote)

Duverger's Law

SMD elections will, over time, result in two-party systems

Multiple Rounds of Voting (e.g. France) Setup: Formula: Outcomes:

Setup: single-member districts categorical ballot two rounds of elections, one week apart Formula: -need 50%+1 to win in 1st round (very few candidates can manage this, so a 2nd round is usually needed) -at least 12.5% is needed in 1st round to appear on ballot in 2nd round (some names are dropped, others withdraw and ask their supporters to vote for someone else) -need only simple plurality to win in 2nd round (whoever gets the most votes, wins) Outcomes: -non-proportional (large parties are rewarded, small parties penalized) -promotes strategic alliances among parties -rewards party and voter discipline (a party whose voters can be counted on to do what they told (e.g. shift their votes to an ally) will do well under this system

What Causes Democratization? 1. Agency-based theories: specific individuals or groups as drivers of change

The 19th century was a time of great social tension that periodically manifested itself in outbreaks of revolutionary violence (in France alone there was not just 1789, but also 1830, 1848 and 1871). There was a feeling that, in the words of Thomas Carlyle, "if something be not done [about the condition of the working classes], something will do itself one day, and in a fashion that will please nobody." In the case of Britain, the succession of Reform Acts that gradually expanded the franchise during the course of the 1800s was in a very real sense a consequence of fear of revolution on the part of the ruling classes. A more general version of this argument: the more economic inequality there is in society, the more elites will fear that democracy will result in the masses voting in favor of redistributive policies; however, elites must weigh the costs of democracy against the costs of repression (and possible revolution) What else was going at the time that perhaps increased the risk of revolution? -> the industrial revolution concentrated the poor in cities and factories -> this increased their capacity to organize and resist.

2. Supra-national The Commission The European Parliament The European Court of Justice

The Commission - the Brussels-based bureaucracy of the EU - makes policy proposals and, if adopted, oversees their implementation - headed by a president appointed by national government leaders with the Parliament's approval - 28 Commissioners appointed by national governments act as EU "ministers" and oversee over two dozen departments (the "Directorates-General") The European Parliament - members are elected directly by citizens from 28 member states for 5-year terms - grouped into European rather than national party organizations - has power of "co-decision" (along with Council) over the Commission's proposals The European Court of Justice Europe's "constitutional court"; reviews EU and national legislative acts for compliance with EU core treaties adjudicates disputes among EU institutions, the EU and national governments, etc. Increasingly acts as a court of appeal for individuals who cannot find redress in national legal systems composed of 28 justices appointed by national governments

The Structure of EU Institutions 1. Inter-governmental The European Council The Council of Ministers

The European Council 28 heads of national governments (i.e. presidents or prime ministers) + president of the European Council (Tusk) + president of the EU Commission (Juncker) meet to discuss and decide on goals and priorities (At this time both presidents are appointed, not elected? The Council of Ministers 28 national government ministers meet in different configurations (e.g. only justice ministers, or only finance ministers, etc.) to discuss and decide on specific issues the presidency of this body rotates among member countries every 6 months on most issues (see box) it operates by "qualified majority voting" principle, although unanimity is still required in some areas (e.g. foreign policy, taxation and immigration issues)

Example: Semi-Presidentialism in France - Relationship between the President and the Prime Minister:

The President in the French 5th Republic (1958-present): - serves as the ceremonial head of state - is elected for a 5 year term, renewable once - appoints the prime minister and the cabinet (taking into account which party or coalition has the majority of seats in parliament) - signs bills into law and can ask parliament to "reconsider" legislation once - can dissolve the parliament and call new elections - can declare a state of emergency and rule by decree for a limited period of time - if both are from SAME party: - president: head of government - prime minister: subordinate to the president, with the primary task of securing parliamentary backing for the president's political agenda - if the president and the prime minister are from DIFFERENT parties (that is, during "cohabitation"): - president: foreign policy focus and ceremonial functions - prime minister: domestic policy focus

4. The International System

These theories emphasize that polities are not isolated, but exist in an international system. Democratization often comes in "waves" (i.e. many transitions concentrated in both space and time), which suggests that the causal story about democratization is as much about what is happening at the international level (especially in a country's immediate neighborhood) as it is about what is happening inside countries. In other words: democratization in one country can lead to spill-over ("contagion") to its neighbors . The "Waves" of Democratization 1st Forward 1915-1920: Expansion of franchise rights and the establishment of democratic constitutions after WW I in Europe 1st Reverse 1922-1939: Rise of far-right authoritarian regimes in Europe 2nd Forward 1945-1965: Post WW II and post-colonial democratization 2nd Reverse 1960-1975: Emergence of authoritarian regimes in post-colonial states 3rd Forward 1975-?: Democratization in S. and E. Europe and in Latin America

5. Domestic institutions

These theories emphasize the impact of institutions within countries on whether they will become and/or remain democratic: recall Linz's argument about the "perils of presidentialism" (Fukuyama, with his "vetocracy" argument, fits in here as well) recall arguments about how some electoral systems (e.g. SMD) may increase tensions in divided societies and perhaps undermine democracy, while others (e.g. PR) may make governing so difficult as to cause systemic failure

Parties are not in decline because:

They still control nominations for public office, as well as access to many jobs in the civil service and the public sector. They also help people to "network" in influential circles of business and government, and thus provide a pathway to lucrative careers in lobbying, etc. By choosing to emphasize some issues over others in election campaigns, parties are still able to shape the political agenda to a considerable extent. Once in power - in the legislature or in the executive - parties are still in charge of shaping public policy (i.e. drafting and passing legislation, carrying out policies and programs) and are thus very much responsible for "who gets what, when and how." In many countries, a combination of public financing laws and various new technologies (narrowcasting via cable TV, the Internet, automated call centers, direct mail) has allowed parties to remain influential even though their membership has declined

The EU is a hybrid: it is more than a trade pact (like NAFTA) or an international organization (like the UN), but less than a federation

This hybrid character is reflected in the fact that some of its institutions are intergovernmental (marked in red), and bring together officials from national governments) Others are supranational (in green), and form a layer of governance "above" that of the nation-state (similar in some ways to how a federal government stands above state governments in a federal system)

Where does the communist party fall on the chart?

Top left

Strengths of PR

Turns parliament into a "mirror" or microcosm of society, reflecting its composition and not shutting out any significant segments of the population - Allows smaller parties to have a presence and a voice in the country's affairs - Allows voters to express their first choice (i.e. no need to vote for a "lesser evil") - May promote power-sharing in divided societies (Why? Since PR does not "magnify" victories, usually no single party wins a majority need for coalition government) - All votes matter (no "wasted" votes) - Promotes continuity and stability of policy (some parties stay in power election after election, so there is no dramatic lurching between e.g. leftist and rightist economic policies)

Parliamentarism

Voters elect only the parliament (i.e. there is no separate election to choose the executive) - The government (the prime minister and the cabinet) is then formed from among members of parliament*, typically by the party or coalition that has the majority of seats** - The government remains in office for the customary term as long as it retains the confidence of parliament (that is, it can be ousted at any time in a vote of no confidence) - The prime minister is not the head of state*** - There is no separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches * - the (rare) exceptions would be the so-called "technocratic" or "caretaker" governments staffed by one or more outsiders ** - the exceptions would be "minority governments" that we discussed last time *** - this ceremonial role falls to either a monarch (as e.g. in Britain), or to a non-executive president (as e.g. in Germany)

Pattern 2a: Minimal Winning Coalitions (germany) Why are "minimal winning" coalitions the most common type? Why are "minimal winning" coalitions a common outcome in Germany?

Why are "minimal winning" coalitions the most common type? the fewer/smaller coalition partners there are, the more jobs each one gets to keep the fewer/smaller coalition partners there are, the fewer conflicting policy priorities need to be accommodated it follows from the above that coalitions between two smaller parties (or one large and one small) are easier than coalitions between two larger ones Why are "minimal winning" coalitions a common outcome in Germany? Proportional electoral system -> no majority winner But it's PR with a 5% threshold -> not many small, extremist parties Rather, there are two large, but not majority parties (CDU/CSU and SPD) and... Several smaller parties (FDP, Greens, Linke) large enough to make up a majority with one of the larger parties (CDU/CSU and SPD) -> so the usual pattern has been of "1 large + 1 small" party in coalition together, although "2 large" party coalition have also occurred Also, constitutional requirement that no-confidence votes be "constructive" (i.e. they simultaneously express lack of confidence in current prime minister (called the Chancellor) AND must propose the successor) -> this makes them less likely to succeed, hence governments don't feel need for "cushion" of additional coalition partners -> minimal coalitions

Government formation in Parliamentary andSemi-Presidential Systems Pattern 1: Single Party Governments  Why How

Why? SMD-type electoral system "magnifies" the largest party's victory this party wins >50% of seats this party forms a "majority" government How? The leader of the winning party becomes the prime minister (PM) The government (the PM + the cabinet of ministers) is formed from members of parliament of the PM's choosing. The government remains in office for the customary period of time or until it loses a vote of no confidence called by the opposition. But this is not likely as long as the governing party: 1. has the majority of seats 2. its members of parliament will support it in such a vote

the "expanded party"

all of the above the plus the various affiliated interest groups (e.g. labor unions, business associations), media organizations, opinion leaders (e.g. journalists, clergy) and major donors (esp. in countries with limited public financing of parties)

"Schengen Zone"

allowing travel free from border controls

why it is happening

availability of public funding less need for members' dues closer integration with the state more opportunities for rent-seeking behavior (patronage, clientelism, corruption)

So Is There Something "Wrong" with Presidentialism?

Yes, according to these* arguments: - Competing claims to democratic mandate and, by extension, to legitimacy. In other words, who represents the "will of the people": the president or the parliament? - Rigidity: the president's fixed term in office means that an unpopular or ineffective leader cannot be easily replaced - Danger of zero-sum politics: presidential elections are, literally, "winner-take-all" - Potential for slippery slope toward dictatorship (or at least a "dictatorial style") by presidents pushing the bounds of their authority (e.g. using emergency powers or issuing decrees) and claiming a mandate from the people to act in this way - Potential for outsiders to seek and perhaps even win the presidency, and then govern in a populist manner that destabilizes political institutions - Potential for a paralyzing gridlock as a consequence of a.) presidentialism's checks and balances, especially when combined with b.) ideological polarization. (Why? Because in a parliamentary system a government that cannot secure parliamentary backing for its policies is dissolved, and either a new government is formed or new elections are called; but under presidentialism there is no way out of gridlock until the next elections, which may be 4-5 years away. (Note that, writing in the late 1980s, Linz attributed the "American exception" - i.e. the U.S. as the only presidential system that "worked" - to the "ideologically undisciplined" character of American political parties, but that was before the current era of intense polarization).

EU membership also requires adoption by candidate countries of the "Acquis Communautaire"

a 35 chapter body of EU treaties, regulations, rulings, standards, etc.

Modernization

a theory that societies change over time in a specific, non-random manner

Elite Parties

before the era of mass democracy, parties were small groups of office-seeking elites

Liberal ideology

economic freedom for individuals and companies through a minimalist ("night watchman") state: (low taxes, deregulation, free trade, etc.) neutrality of the state on moral and religious issues

2. Modernization "To summarize 2.5 million years of economic history in brief: for a very, very, very long time not much happened; then all of a sudden, all hell broke loose."

economic stagnation gave way to economic growth. And simultaneously, authoritarian norms (selection of rulers by heredity or other special status) gave way to democratic ones (selection by the people). The chart below confirms a strong correlation between wealth and democracy, but what about the causal linkage? Option 1: wealth -> democracy Economic growth results in profound social change, which leads to value change, which leads to pressure for democracy (see modernization theory, next slide) Option 2: democracy -> wealth Democracy is more economically efficient: better at finding optimal courses of action, better at avoiding and correcting mistakes, etc., so it is in everyone's self-interest Option 3: democracy <-> wealth The relationship is reciprocal One way to get at the issue of causality is through modernization theory, which argues that societies change over time in a specific, non-random manner As Inglehart and Welzel explain in their article, economic development increases people's capabilities to act according to their choices, while cultural change affects the level of importance people attach to being able to do so. This, in turn, drives democratization: Socioeconomic change -> Cultural change -> Political change as literacy increased, democracy followed.

Mass Parties

emergence of parties that grouped large numbers of ordinary citizens, often on the basis of common social class, ethnicity or religion (i.e. this was the era of workers' parties, farmers' parties, Catholic parties, etc.)

- EU membership is limited to liberal democracies What does this mean?

i.e. countries whose commitment to both democratic institutions and civil and political rights is questionable will not be admitted

Where does the socialist party fall on the chart?

on the left side towards the center

Legislatures in Democratic Political Regimes Unicameral:

one chamber

"cartelization" of politics by mainstream parties

parties lose members, and ... begin to look less like civic associations and more like state agencies, and ... they begin to collude with each other in rent-seeking behavior (i.e. divvying up the perks of power such as gov't jobs and contracts)

2008 - Incremental but significant changes to both the structure and the role of EU institutions

prompted a sequence of crises (economic troubles in the Eurozone, the migration crisis, the Russia-Ukraine war, democratic backsliding in Eastern Europe)

in reaction to the above

rise of populist, anti-establishment parties

Conservative Party ideology

support for traditional moral, religious and social values (hierarchy, discipline, deference to authority) and institutions (church, nation, state, family) that embody them - support for "law and order"- type policies, including harsher sentences for criminals emphasis on the virtues of patriotism; celebration of national heroes and symbols ethic of self-reliance (people should provide for their own needs); however, some conservative parties (e.g. Europe's Christian Democrats) believe in "social solidarity" grounded in national or religious values, so they are definitely not libertarian - support for market economics, but willing to curtail some economic freedoms in the interest of the nation as a whole

the "party in the government"

the elected or appointed office-holders in the legislature, the executive branch, the civil service and in public corporations

the "party organization"

the full-time officers (chairperson, treasurer, steering committee, etc.) and support staff who develop strategies and coordinate party activities

the "party in the electorate"

the membership base, and especially the local activists who provide much of the volunteer labor

"Catch-All" parties

the weakening of class and religious divisions made it necessary for parties to seek support from a broad cross-section of the general public

Political Regimes: Types, Causes and Consequences recall from lecture 5: the term "political regime" can be defined as the "prevailing system or pattern of governing"

this concept has been around for a very long time: in Book VIII of the Republic (written around 380 BC), Plato describes five types of political regimes (aristocracy, timocracy, oligarchy, democracy and tyranny), and develops a theory of regime transitions (i.e. how these types follow from one another) today many comparative scholars still refer to discrete regime types (democracy, oligarchy, dictatorship, etc.), but oftentimes countries are not easy to fit into such rigid categories. for example, consider the question of when the U.S. became a democracy: *at independence? *after the Constitution was adopted? *after the abolition of slavery? *after women's suffrage? * after the Voting Rights Act? (see p. 141 in D&E) in other words, there have been many changes over time in the quality, inclusiveness and depth of American democracy some scholars argue, therefore, that political regimes are best measured using scales (say, from 0 to 1, where 0 is least democratic and 1 most democratic)

Bicameral:

two chambers of equal or unequal powers

Pros of SMD

usually (not always) produces decisive outcomes (i.e. a clear winner, able to govern on its own) biased in favor of large, centrist parties and against small, extremist ones (assuming a unimodal distribution of popular preferences) appropriate for "trusteeship" style of representation (i.e. provides a strong link between voters and their representatives)

Core support group for liberals

well-educated, well-off urban residents in business and the professions (i.e. the modern "bourgeoisie")

In the United States: rise of the "expanded party" (i.e. networks of office-seekers, interest groups, donors and affiliated media) driven by fundraising needs

worries about influence of money in politics