class 2 Flashcards
modern state definition
= a polity (way of organizing government) characterized by:
- complex set of institutions
- territorially bound
- which enjoys authoritative rule-making authority = sovereignty (no higher authority than the state that rules over the territory and the people)
- backed up by a monopoly of the means of violence
(Max Webber, Theda Skocpol, Charles Tilly)
! almost all territories are states, historically this hasn’t been the case !
(non-state polities)
- city-state (e.g. city-state of Venice)
- empires (e.g. Aztec empire: lose allignment 3 city-states (now Mexico) and Komanchi empire (tribal society native americans))
modern state key features
3
- territory
- sovereignty (internal and external)
- monopoly of the means of violence
positions controversy of the dominance of states
is the state desirable?
- Hobbes: life before the modern-state was short and brutish (he associates the state with modernization, peace and prosperity)
- David Graeber and David Wengrow: many polities before the states arrived where sometimes even more democratic than the states we now know
controversy: is the state still meaningful?
contemporary states are hollowed out by:
- globalization: undermines domestic capacity
- market forces
- localism or regionalism
internal vs external sovereignty
+ quasi-states
internal = state should be independent of any kind of internal powers
external = state is recognized by other states
difference is useful: gives a handle of some empirical difference between established states
Quasi states = lack one (or two) of the types of sovereignty = e.g. Somalia (lacks internal sovereignty: challenged by Somaliland) + Somaliland (lacks external sovereignty)
why and how did states emerge?
- state formation processes
patterns of state emergence / state formation processes
- transformation = gradual change of an independent (usually monarchic) into a state (this is roughly what Tilly refers to)
e.g. Britain and France - unification = territory with independent units that unite (often through war) -> emergence state
e.g. Italy - secession = breakup of empires or federal states
e.g. Tsjecho-slowakije + Tsjechie en Slowakije - decolonisation (most states)
e.g. Libya, Ghana, Surinam
European state formation: first modern states emerge in the medieval time (+ starting point = Westphalia)
- theory of European state formation = Tilly: war made the state and the state made war (rulers waged war and this made states (dominant))
global South: ‘‘weak states’’ : some scholars argue that there were no wars, making these states weaker
Tilly - war and state
medieval = military efforts became expensive: gunpowder + armies
requires:
-> taxation + soldiers
requires
-> registration (way of organizing populion)
requires
-> organization = state
-> legitimization = state (nation-building)
Michael Mann 1984
how powerful are modern states?
!!not in the book, book basically talks about one of these dimensions!!
state power has two dimensions:
- despotic power: actions the state can take without consulting society (fluctuates a lot, but over a lot of time there is a decline (lecturer argues))
= constrained by institutions - infrastructural power: capacity of the state to impart/implement decisions on society (lecturer argues that this has been rising over long period of time)
= implementing policies, is impacted by (quality) bureaucracy
types of states
Michael Mann
Despotic power = D
Infrasturctural power = I
D low + I low = Feudal (not much control beyond castle walls)
D high + I low = Imperial
D low + I high = Democracy
D high + I high = single-party
representative democracy
definition (representative) democracy
- rulers are chosen in competitive, free and fair elections (Robert Dahl)
- people (demos) rule indirectly, by electing their representatives, and holding them accountable during next elections
nondemocratic regimes
have been the norm historically speaking
representative democracy is rather unique
different democr regimes types
democratic regimes
- liberal (full) democracy
- electoral (flawed) democracy
- representative democracy
- direct/deliberal democracy
two dimensions of democracy
Robert Dahl
- contestation = the extent to which citizens in a democracy have unconstrained opportunities to formulate and express their political preferences (individually (voting) or collectively (joining party e.g.))
- inclusiveness = proportion of population that is entitled formally and informally to participate in political processes
*hybrid regimes often try to attack contestation dimension
2 points Dahl tries to make (according to lecturer, Dahl didn’t say it himself):
- contestation: you don’t need to have only elections for democracy to exist: you also need extensive set of rights (eg. acces to information, freedom of speech) to make elections meaningful
inclusiveness: a certain amount of people should be able to participate - perfect democracies don’t exist
!!Dahl prefered to use the term polyarchy: he said democracy in practice doesn’t reallly exist
Dahl applied to Apartheid
- contestation: eligible as democracy
- inclusiveness: only small part of population could participate
South AFrica under apartheid a democracy?
most likely not
representative democracy qualifications
4
- they can be of varying quality
- they have democratic alternatives
- they come in waves
- they have non-democratic alternatives
varying quality of RD
- liberal/full (more towards ideal type) =
- electoral/flawed =
e.g. France? (textbook, he doesn’t get why)
e.g. US: garrymandering +
more or less perfect on principles of contestation and/or inclusiveness (Dahl)
RD have democratic alternatives
Direct = all members of the community directly take part in making all decisions that are related to the community
- ! Ancient Athens : according to him not direct: it was very exclusive + direct involvement/voting was only small part of the process of making decisions (most were taken by representatives that were selected by a lottery)
Deliberative democracy = selected group of citizens make consensus decisions about certain topics (not voted?)
*now: often we see deliberative + direct democracy features as improving democratic systems
RD come in waves
(!! also in the book)
Samuel Huntington (1991)
first wave 1828-1926
- e.g. NL
- mainly EU (+ new world colonies)
- graduate process (graduate expansion inclusiveness and contestation)
second wave 1943-1964
- e.g. Germany, Italy, Ghana, Japan
- post-war rebuilding + decolonization
third wave 1974 onward
- e.g. Spain, Portugal, Hungary, South-Africa
- global wave: affects almost all parts of the world (led to optimism)
- not a specific process
in these waves there are more countries transitioning towards democracy than transitioning in opposite waves
!! between the waves are reverse waves
(Freedom House + Fukuyama)
until 2017: free democracies increasing + not free democracies decreasing
after 2007: free decreasing + not free increasing + partly free decreasing
Fukuyama: democracy has won
EXAMPLES OPTIMISM ABOUT THE DEMOCRATIC WORLD
conclusions
- states differ significantly (e.g. in terms of their despotic and infrastructural power)
- representative democracy not self-evident
