November CP Oral Exam Flashcards
According to Dahl, what are the two elements that define democracy?
Give an example of a country that is (or was) a democracy according to these elements,
and a country that is (or was) not a democracy according to these elements.
Two elements that define democracy
- Contestation (contesting government, democracy has a fair/open mandate)
- Inclusion (all citizens are included, not just elites or specific groups)
Canada is a democracy:
- Contestation (parliamentary debates, protests, freedom of press, etc.)
- Inclusion (voting rights for all)
China is not a democracy
- No Contestation (one political party, no opposition to challenge the government, no freedom of speech, no protests)
- Unfair Inclusion (no voting, no alternative parties, ruled by an elite group)
A proposition to improve democracy it to organize citizens’ assemblies selected through sortition.
What is sortition?
What are their advantages and disadvantages for democracy?
Sortition refers to randomly selecting a group of citizens - and requiring them to decide on a certain policy.
(similar to mandatory jury duty).
The point of sortition is to ensure all citizens are participating in policy decision making, without needing to poll the entire population constantly (referendums).
With sortition, citizens are randomly appointed and will spend weeks/months learning about the major components of a policy idea (learning from both sides). Citizens then vote on the decision.
Advantages:
Ensures citizens are making the policy decision, not politicians or representatives (direct democracy)
Ensures that citizens are INFORMED.
Disadvantages:
Citizens are not held accountably for intentionally doing a “bad job”
Citizens will refuse to participate. Those who do accept already have an active interest in politics (highly educated elites) do not represent the people.
(Following the Athenian direct democracy that followed a similar process - used in lieu of elections and policy decisions)
What is the difference between a continuous and a binary measure of democracy?
What is the difference between a minimalist and a maximalist measure of democracy?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of each of these types?
Continuous vs. Binary
- Binary measures according to the idea that there are only two options: democracy or dictatorship.
- Continuous measures look at countries on a spectrum, determining where they land on the continuum.
- Binary good because it simplifies measurement (less cost and time)
- Binary good does not allow countries to skew scores - all countries want to pretend to be democracies.
- Binary bad because Hybrid Regimes are hard to place (Pakistan and Bangladesh)
- Continuous good because its more detailed, more accurate
- Continuous bad because it is hard to do, how can we properly rank countries in relation to one another when they are so different
Minimalist vs. Maximalist
- Minimalist focuses only on the procedures of democracy (Dahl) while Maximalist focuses on procedures and civil rights
- Minimalist good because procedures are easier to measure than civil rights and it follows the primary definition of democracy (Dahl’s)
- Minimalist is bad because some people value civil rights a lot
- Maximalist is the opposite - it is good because people value it and shows how people are feeling day-to-day
- Maximalist is bad because it is hard to balance and weigh both procedures and civil rights
(talk about Indonesia and Esary and Chrillo paper)
How do we characterize the Democracy-Dictatorship, Polity, and Freedom House measures of democracy
(binary or continuous, minimalist or maximalist)?
Why do we categorize them this way?
These three concepts are all systematic measures of democracy that use different criteria (binary vs. continuous and minimalist vs. maximalist) to determine the democracy of a country - depending on what they conceptualize as democracy.
The Democracy-Dictatorship index is the minimalist and binary measurement of democracy. It is binary because it measures whether a country is a Democracy or a Dictatorship. As a result, is HAS to be minimalist - it only measures procedures. This index makes it determination based on whether or not THERE IS A TRANSFER OF POWER.
- start from a real observation
- can only know once there is a transfer of power (consider the case of Sweden from the 1930s-80s).
Polity IV is a continuous and minimalist measure of democracy - they rank countries on a spectrum of democracy to dictatorship using an analysis of their procedures (minimalist).
Procedures studied include:
* competitiveness and openness of executive recruitment
* regulation and competition of political participation
* executive constraints
(final score is an average of these procedures, experts can also be biased)
Freedom House is continuous and maximalist. The Freedom House measures procedures (democratic representation, elections, etc.) and civil rights (free speech, protection of minorities, application of the rule of law)
* not sure which is more important, experts can also be biased
We categorize them this way because everyone (as we have seen) has different definitions of democracy, and these different measures can abide by those different definitions to determine the democracy among countries.
Indonesia example - democracy in Polity not in Freedom House.
What is gerrymandering, and why does it undermine democracy in the United States?
Gerrymandering is basically the process by which government representatives intentionally divide the US electoral maps in a way that is clearly favourable to a political party.
Undemocratic, a way of stealing the election
Every few years, congressional district maps in the US are re-drawn to abide by new census data. The point of cutting the electoral maps is to divide a fair amount of power to different parts of a district that represent similar populations. However, in reality this process is used to intentionally redraw the maps so that minority parties can win elections.
AI technology is used to cut the maps in convoluted ways.
This is a form of election manipulations - done by both parties.
“Packing” refers to putting the majority of one voting group together, even if they are geographically in different districts - commons cases in Texas and Illinois of packing Black and Hispanic voters who are typically Democratic
Modernization Theory of Democracy & Cultural Theory of Democracy?
Difference between the two?
The Modernization and Cultural are two different theories that attempt to explain what encourages a democracy to flourish in a country.
Modernization: When a country modernizes (undergoes an industrial revolution):
* a strong middle class is born that fills the typically significant inequality gap and fosters a strong economy.
* less incentives for corruption
* development of mass education
Middle class then demands democracy
Cultural: When a country undergoes rapid economic growth, economic stability changes citizen values
* these values make people more supportive of democracy (secular thought and freedom of expression)
* the values that change depend on the country and culture
In both of these cases, economic growth is key in securing democracy. The difference is that the modernization focuses on the increase of bargaining power gained through economic growth. Cultural theories focus more on the values changes that occur when countries become more economically stable.
What are the two sets of values that are central to the cultural theory of democratization?
Give an example of a country that is high on the first one and low on the second one,
and another example of a country that is (or was) low on the first one and high on the second one.
Traditional - Secular
(move from values on religion and family, develops deference to authority)
Survival - Self Expression
(move away from economic/physical security, more emphasis on freedom and civil rights)
Russia (high on secularism and low on self expression)
- values secularism (to a certain degree), there is not a historically significant push for religious values in society. But, survivalist values on security.
Colombia (high on self expression low of secularism)
- Colombian citizens trend towards values of freedom and expression, but still highly value the religion and the family.
According to Treisman, what are the three types of paths leading to democracy? Give an example of a country that followed each of these three types.
- Democracy by Choice - most known pathway, “power by the people” such as democratizing due to protests or agreements with the poor/another group. South Africa - protests led to democratization in 1990s (Nelson Mandela)
- Democracy by Mistake: authoritarian regimes miscalculate their decisions and are forced into democracy, such as the splitting of elites which leads to victory from outsiders. - Argentina in 1955 when leader picked a fight with bishops which splintered his power.
- Unintended by Unavoidable: was not expected but it happened due to circumstance, such as making concessions that get out of control - General Erven in Turkey in 1980s (relaxed grip on power led to the uprise of opposition parties)
What are the key elements that autocratic governments need for their survival? Why are these elements important?
- Ruling Elites
(Need a group of elite members, not just one leader - to run the government and make decisions. Also important during successive periods). - No Contestation
(Stifling opposition from gaining popular support or general ability to hold government accountable) - Centralized Power
(power in the hands of a few, able to control wealth, influence, decisions. power is not always in the hands of the government, sometimes business, but autocratic regimes need this power) - Human Rights abuses
(keep people down, in check)
Autocratic regimes are always at risk of losing their power, especially during successive periods.
China is an example of an autocratic country that engages in all of these practices.
Why is succession the key challenge for autocratic governments? Which form of autocracy is best or worst equipped for that challenge?
Succession are when autocratic regimes are most vulnerable. They do not have a defined system of transferring power (unlike democratic elections).
This often leads to internal conflicts or power grabs from the outside.
Monarchies are the only autocratic form that appears stable, because succession is clearly defined from the family lineage.
Informal autocracies like military regimes are often the worse at handling succession.
Often depends on institutional dependance on the leader
* how equipped is the institution able to transfer power, through elections (democracy) familial lineage (monarchy), etc.
ex. Autocratic Thailand has had 13 successful and nine unsuccessful military coups in just over a century.
What are the objectives that an autocratic government seeks to achieve by organizing elections?
- Way to select the ruling elite from WITHIN autocrats
Elections may occur during successive periods to help determine who within the ruling elites should take over power. These elections would not include proper opposing parties but would help with internal conflicts. - Spoiling some opposition - sometimes giving power to opposition that still plays into their pockets
We saw this for example in the Congo election where the autocratic leader ran a rigged election to maintain his grip on power through attempting to elect a close “opponent”.
- Data gathering: “Who supports who”
Helps autocrats get ahold of information about how popular they really are, and who the citizens seem to support. - Please international community - often through rigged elections
What is democratic backsliding? And what are the economic and cultural explanations for this phenomenon?
Democratic backsliding is when a democracy begins to revert back to a more autocratic state, decreases in the overall quality of democracy - even in long-term established democratic countries
Both economic and cultural explanations are based on globalization.
Economic explanations say:
* globalization leads to greater inequality (especially for blue collar workers in the first world)
* unskilled immigrants “taking their jobs”
* perceive that democracies and regular parties are unable to stop globalization and immigration
* economic crises triggers a shift towards populism and anti-democratic ideals
Culturally:
* globalization constraints economic policy, especially in less significant countries
* economy is so international now
* people focus more in identity politics (race, gender, political culture, etc.)
* certain groups (especially older white men) will resist these changes and deep seeds of polarization will divide people and lead to democratic backsliding
India is an example of democratic backsliding
* Hindu Nationalism - cultural focuses on religious polarization
* India’s working class also struggled a lot during COVID which might contribute to economic causes
According to Svolik, what is polarization, and how can it undermine democracy?
Polarization refers to the acute cultural divide between opposing political groups.
The Cleavage Theory refers to the phenomena where people vote depending on a few social interests (state vs. religion, urban vs. rural) - in polarization, this cleavage theory becomes so deep that people are unable to relate to those on the other side.
Under extreme polarization, people are shown to vote in favor of their social interests over those of basic democratic principles. This is more common in young people or those less politically neutral.
Svolik found that when giving voters the choice between two candidates, people would often opt for the politician on their side even if they undermine democracy in some fundamental way. Importantly, this study focused on voters in Turkey, U.S. and Venezeula.
Ex. I see this in the U.S. constantly
What are the four mistakes that people often make when studying political culture?
PC is defined as the sum of values and beliefs that give form to the political process
- Believing that PC is perfectly constrained within country boundaries
(PC more often ties to ethnic groups that extend beyond borders - such as Scandinavian countries) - Using PC as a lazy explanation to explain political phenomena
(chalking up behaviour we don’t understand as PC. PC can be thoroughly studied to understand how and why it exists). - Believing that PC is created magically and cannot change.
(PC can change, it just takes generation sometimes, and there is always a logical reason why PC exists - look at history, the economy, human rights, etc.) - Believing PC is homogenous in a country
(many PCs can exist in a country at the same time)
Ex. I see PC often used as a lazy excuse in debate with people and even sometimes in the news
I often generalize PC cultures within a country (4)
What are the two types of political support?
What has been their evolution over these last 70 years across the world?
Specific Support (supporting a specific individual or actor) and Diffuse Support (supporting political institutions).
Specific support has decreased while Diffuse has increased: this is because young people participate significantly more in politics now through protesting and posting on social media (showing interest in the system) while still showing low levels of election turnout (specific support).
Diffuse support tends to be more durable, it may be particularly pronounced when people lack specific support but it tends to consistently exist. This is specifically because diffuse support is often a characteristic children develop early on.
(this is from David Easton’s paper)
Specific support has been decreasing across the world over the last 70 years, since the 1940s
* This aligns will the decline in voter turnout globally (from 1940s to now)
* People don’t trust politicians, they don’t trust politicians care about them
Diffuse support has not changed
* People believe in the idea of democracy as much in the 1990s than they do now
An example of Specific and Diffuse support changing would be during the Vietnam war in the 60s/70s U.S. - high levels of diffuse low levels of specific
What is the thermostatic model of democracy and democratic attitudes?
Thermostatic model is a way of illustrating the relationship between democracy and democratic attitudes:
- behaves like a thermostat - two things are inversely related and they attempt to balance each other out and reach an equilibrium
When democracy increases, over a long period of time people will tend to value democracy less. People tend to take these liberties for granted and shift their priorities towards things like the economy and personal values. Vice versa for when democracy decreases.
You can see this everywhere, with many countries that we would typically pin as being politically stable exhibiting clear elements of democratic backsliding (especially in the U.S. and India) showing that thriving democracies can struggle when people discount the value of democracy.
What is the postmaterialist revolution, and what has it changed?
The postmaterialist revolution was a change in political culture where citizen’s values shifted away from economic stability and physical wellbeing towards a greater emphasis on better quality of life, education, self-expression.
The materialist political culture was present up until the end of WWII. Following this point, people shifted towards postmaterialism since economic/physical security skyrocketed.
* people born in the post-materialist revolution have more interest in politics
Note - Survival - Self Expression value is also explained in shift towards democracy.
Note - Maslow’s hierarchy of needs: you start at the bottom of the period (physiological needs such as foods and water, then as you reach the top you tap into self-actualization needs such as pursuing the achievement of one’s full potential)
According to Pietsch, why is there a gap in South Asia between the quality of democracy and people’s support for democracy as reported on surveys?
People in SA tend to view democracy differently than we do in the West. As a result, survey respondents in SA were shown to believe the were living in a democracy, when most democratic indices would say otherwise. This is particularly the case in autocratic states like Singapore and Vietnam.
The reason for this is likely that these states still show high levels of governance and responsiveness - which are what people in SA associate more with democracy in comparison to a free press or civil rights. It might also be the case that propaganda and a lack of perspective have also influenced people, Singapore and Vietnam claim to be a democracy even when they are not. This may also explain why people’s support for democracy in a more transitioning state, like Indonesia, was also middling.
Why do we compare countries/regions in the field of comparative politics? What are the often-heard reasons, and what is the primary reason?
The often heard reasons are that
* helps us understand our own country
* it is interesting
While this may be true,
- Most political issues/phenomena happen at the country level.
So, observing things like economies, governance, culture, elections is easy to study when a country is the unit of analysis. - We need variation - comparing units against each other helps us systematically compare one (or multiple) dependant variables in various contexts.
For example, if we wanted to learn about the relationship between economy and democracy, the best way would be to look at this at the country level and make determinations between variations in different countries.
What is the most similar system design, and why does it allow researchers to estimate the effect of an independent variable on a dependent variable?
The goal of the MSS design is to isolate one independent variable to determine its effects (the dependent variable).
- countries are very similar with (ideally) one variable that is different
(share economic level, histories, culture) - this way we can isolate the effect of that one variable
- for example, all of the countries are the same, except they have different regime types or election systems
- we then use these countries with a variation in their independent variable to see how it affects a dependent variable (such as voter turnout)
In reality this is very hard, it is mostly successful in areas where borders do not really distinguish histories, cultures, etc. - like in Scandinavia or parts of Africa
Ex. studying how post-colonialism effects economic growth, by studying African countries that all became independent around the same time.
What is an example of a concrete design that allows researchers to estimate the effect of an independent variable on a dependent variable? Explain how it works.
I’ve interpreted this question as giving a concrete example of a research design where independent and dependent variables can be tested.
Research Question: how does economic development impact democracy
Independent & Dependent Variable: independent variable is economic development, democratic index is the dependent variable
Measures
* I would then study the relationship between the independent variable (GDP - the cause) and the dependent variable (Democracy Index - the effect).
* I might use Polity IV to measure the democracy in a country, and GDP levels to understand economic development
- I would then make comparisons about the relationships between these two variables across as many countries as possible to try to identify a pattern
What are the problems identified by Ananda/Bol and Panel in the measurement of support for democracy?
Panel finds that, unlike what most researchers think, people’s support for democracy is under-reported by most empirical data. Particularly in 32 countries in Africa:
- The phenomena Preference Falsification basically shows that people in transitioning or autocratic regimes are less likely to endorse democracy due to fear of repercussions from the government or the military
- Therefore measuerments of support for democracy are not always relevant
Ananda/Bol found a lack of uniformity in Indonesian people’s understanding of democracy, and they measured that support decreased when people were given a definition
- this finding grossly contradict most researchers general belief that support for democracy is necessary for democracy to thrive.
- this finding may have been because only higher income citizens were polled, and therefore they may feel threatened by democratic transitions
This shows that measuring support for democracy is highly influenced by other variables, such as people’s education, their income level, so on, which means these studies need to control for other variables.
What are the main regime types
Consequences of regime types of legislative performance
Presidentialism:
* head of government directly elected
* separation of powers between legislative and executive - not accountable to parliament
* fixed terms
* adversarial politics
Parliamentarianism:
* head of government nominated by majority party, no separation of powers
* less hierarchy in government (PM sets the direction of policy to be executed)
* flexible terms
* more consensual politics
Semi-presidential
* two heads of government - president and PM
* both fixed and flexible terms
* adversarial and consensual politics
* pres. handles international, PM handles day-to-day
Legislative performance refers to the efficiency / to what extent policy can be implemented.
Presidentialism has strong legislative performance:
* President is legitimate because they are elected - people willing to accept their policies (like covid lockdown)
* clarity of responsibility - people know who to blame
* stability from fixed terms
Parliamentarian (and semi-pres) regimes
* legitimacy issues
* instability from flexible terms
* less clarity of responsibility (executive and legislative are merged)
* coordination issues in coalition governments
What are the main regime types
Consequences of regime types on democratic stability
Presidentialism:
* head of government directly elected
* separation of powers between legislative and executive - not accountable to parliament
* fixed terms
* adversarial politics
Parliamentarianism:
* head of government nominated by majority party, no separation of powers
* less hierarchy in government (PM sets the direction of policy to be executed)
* flexible terms
* more consensual politics
Semi-presidential
* two heads of government - president and PM
* both fixed and flexible terms
* adversarial and consensual politics
* pres. handles international, PM handles day-to-day
Democratic stability refers to the chain of delegation and the ability to hold accountability.
Parliamentarian systems strongest
* clear chain of delegation (voters elect representatives who nominate the PM that leads to civil service)
* flexible terms make them flexible during crises
* one source of legitimacy (legislation) - unification between legislature and executive
Presidentialism (& semipresidentialism) do not have the same sense of accountability
* This is due to separation of powers - leads to adversarial politics when the legislative and executive branches have competing interests
* fear of crazy outsider (Argentina)
* concentration of power in the hands of the president
* zero-sum game where one winner runs the executive
