Concept lecture + chapter Flashcards
What is comparative politics?
subdiscipline of polsci (more and more overlap with IR), method rather than substance
focus on domestic politics/processes
- the study of (foreign) countries
- research method
- combination of substance and method
*what happens nationally more and more influences what happens internationally
Lijphart
brought focus on general theories/laws that we can develop by comparing countries, rather than just individually studying them
- most similar cases design = similar cases, investigates what makes them different
- most different cases design = different cases that are similar in one thing (e.g. Duverger’s law)
Duverger’s law
majority electoral system -> most likely 2-party system
e.g. UK (Labour and Conservatives)
international-domestic interplay
= Putnam’s 2-level game
dev. at the domestic level influences development at the international level, but also vice versa
(so: IR<->domestic)
- e.g. who wins election UK influences the EU (think of Brexit)
why compare?
4
- to gather knowledge about other countries (also gives you knowledge about own country: how it is different/similar)
- create classifications and develop typologies (e.g. democracy/autocracy, presidential/parliamentary)
- to formulate and test hypotheses and theories
*hypothesis book: presidential systems are more stable than parliamentary systems - to make predictions about future
e.g. New Zealand changed to a more proportional system, Duverger’s predicts multi-party system
electoral engineering
deliberate design and modification of electoral systems and processes to achieve specific political outcomes, mainly to try and create a perfect society
we use information from other cases, looking what could make a system more stable, democratic
“with specific rules, you can create a perfect society”
- popular in 3d wave democratization
- create a system in which diff groups have guarantee that they can have power, that they won’ be outvoted and threatened
e.g. South Africa: each’s powers and rights remain = successful case of electoral engineering
pitfalls of comparing
5
- requires a lot of background information (history of countries)
- historical institutionalism and path dependency -> things can be different in practice than in theory (e.g. president France on paper not that much power, irl he does) - different meaning of concepts in diff cultural and linguistic contexts
- selection bias (western world overstudied)
- ethnocentrims and stereotypes
- pure objectivity is unobtainable -> subjectivity bias -> discrimination in research (e.g. seeing some countries as backward) - assumptions of causality, correlation IS NOT causality
- e.g. Nigeria has presidentialism, but no stability = correlation (further back in time Nigeria had a parliamentary system)
- e.g. Duverger law, electoral systems put in place in systems that already have two dominant parties (they put the system in place that will ensure their power)
stereotype
over-generalized belief about a certain group of people, used as a mental shortcut
can encourage prejudice and discrimination
e.g. old European joke:
- Heaven is where the police are British, the chefs are Italian, the mechanics are German, the lovers are French, and it is all organized by the Swiss
- Hell is where the police are German, the chefs are British, the mechanics are French, the lovers are Swiss, and it is all organized by the Italians
The state
= main unit of political organization in the world
= organizations that maintain a monopoly on violence over a territory (book)
- country = larger than the state, not just state structure, but also the people/culture etc.
- government is smaller than the state: ruling elite that is in place that sets the policies, that administers the state
Montevideo convention 1933 = features of the state:
- territory
- population
- sovereignty
- internal: monopoly on the use of force
- external: capacity to enter relations with other states
states - anomalies
- supranational organizations
- partially recognized states
- de facto states (Somaliland, TRNC)
- failed states (Somalia, South Sudan, Afghanistan)
- non-sov territories (Greenland, Puerto Rico)
nationalism and state formation
in European history: unifying force
- often not created out of thin air
- state makes nation (France) or nations make state (Germany)?
- national ethnicity side-by-side subnational ethnic identity (overlap) or identities (no overlap)
most countries are multiethnic
Nationalism and ethnicity = imagined communities (pure subjective feeling, not tangible)
- langauge, culture, religion etc.
- whether a group is a nation or ethnic group is contested, e.g. Serbian group within Yugoslavia seen as cultural group, but after breakup it started advocating to be seen as political group, a national group wanting a nation
- ethnic groups can always sway and claim national identity
Woodrow Wilson = national self-determination (WW1)
- freedom from occupation
- freedom from colonizers (not WW1, mostly after WW2)
benign vs exclusionary nationalism
benign nationalism = national identity is just one of the layers of identity that people can have + it is inclusive (driver of solidarity) + no exclusion of cosmopolitism (you can feel national and at the same time citizen of the world)
exclusionary nationalism = nativism, e.g. Nazi-Germany, Orban, Bodhi, Trump
irredentism
= goal to expand state territory to bring 1 ethnic group/nation in 1 nation-state
- Russia: Russian speaking communities in Ukraine and Georgia -> Putin claims they are part of Russia’s nation, that they “want” to be part of Russia again, Russia needs to spread to become a nation-state again
- Somalia: country flag has 5 starts, their nation is spread in 5 countries, want to be together in one nation-state
irredentism = aggressive, used by leaders to activate external aggression
political regimes - typologies
usually distinction democracy vs autocracy
Aristotle: 6 different stateforms, of which democracy is bad (not everyone has public interest at heart)
contemporary classifications:
- democratic regime
- authoritarian regime / dictatorship
- hybrid/illiberal regimes
- totalitarian regime
Democratic regime
= strong positive connotation
= rule by the people
strong elements of political equality
- direct (everyone votes) vs representative (pick politicians, gov.) democracy
- majoritarian democracy (majority decides) vs liberal democracy (majority decides, but not of it goes against the rights/protection of the minority)
liberal democracy = we need to check the majority with judiciary, executie etc.