Oral examination n°1 Flashcards
What is a polyarchy and how can it be used to explain variations across policies ?
Let’s use Robert Dahl’s original definition of a polyarchy. Dahl thought that no country was ever fully democratised, and therefore spoke of “polyarchies” instead of democracies, although they share many characteristics. The concept was used almost as an ideal type of regime, reuniting both full contestation and inclusion, the two characteristics that Dahl uses to define democracies.
Explain the main characteristics of the minimal definition of democracy.
Schumpeter’s elitist definition inspires the minimal conception of democracy: democracy is simply a method to select political representatives.
Here, the criteria for a regime to earn the title of “democracy” are the following: the chief must be selected by popular election, the legislature must be a result of political competition, the number of parties with a possible win must be greater than one, and a form of alternation in power must be observed. The focus is on election, and on the concept of winners and losers that alternate and do not rig elections, but nowhere does the concept of inclusion come into play.
Dahl and Przeworski both define democracy around procedures, however, what are the main similarities and differences in their definitions of democracy?
While both Dhal and Przeworski insisted on the concept of elections and shared the importance of procedural criteria, Dahl’s definition of democracy insists on both inclusion and contestation. This means that, to Dahl, for a regime to qualify as a democracy, it must see regular organization of citizens into competing blocks (contestation) and have universal suffrage as weel as freedoms of speech, ecpression, infomartion, protestation etc.
Przeworski never mentions the need for inclusion nd focuses on the output, which to him is an alternation in power of winners and losers who do not rig the elections.
Use the idea of democracy as an equilibrium to discuss why conflicts are more likely to be observed in dictatorships than in democracies.
Regardless of the type of definition of democracy that you choose, you will observe winners and losers, and the key to uphlding democacy is that both sides accept their position : losers know that they will have a fair chance to win next, and winners know that they will have to let go of power at some point. This is an equilibrium.
Of course, citizens are the most satisfied when their chosen representatives win, but the losers are also more peaceful knowing that they can win in the future than in dictatorships in which there is no hope for them to ever win. They are therefore way more prone to conflict in a dictatorship than in a democracy.
Using the properties of validity, reliability and replicability discuss the weaknesses and strengths of substantive and minimalist views of democracy.
In terms of validity, which is the extent to which the measures used represent the concepts measured, my opinion is that the substantive view of democracy is better because it is more nuanced. When trying to define a concept, it will often be more accurate to encapsulate details rather than to work with a more black and white view of democracy like the minimal one.
For reliability, both have their weaknesses: the substantive view does not give an exhaustive def of the criteria to take into account so difficult to hve the same result if a tiny detail changes. However, minimal relies on alternation a lot, and when parties are popular, it might happen that they stay in power for a long time. What do we do in these scenarios ?
For replicability, the substantive view is in my opinion weaker, because as previously stated the criteria are not as constant and clearly defined as we need.
What are the main characteristics of a monarchy, a military and a civilian dictatorship?
Monarchies: kin and family network, power is passed down by blood
Military dictatorships: head of the gov usually derives from an armed forces background, assisted by a collegial body called Junta (small when mil. dic. strong and vice-vers): since it happened once, particularly threatened by a coup
Civilian Dictatorships: when a dic. is neither of the above, it is a civilian dictatorship; they either rely on an omnipresent party, which dominates office and controls policy, or a strong personality cult in which one leader is in complete power.
Why is succession the key challenge for autocratic governments? Which form of autocracy is best or worst equipped for that challenge? And why?
- a moment of great instability, change of figure for personality authoritarian regimes
Przeworski and Gandhi, study of 2007 : - monarchies have the least frequent successions because it only comes with the monarch’s death, but that process often leads to other types of auth regimes (rarely democracy, still a win?)
- military authoritarian regimes are weak because there is a higher chance of military overthrowing, but at least it often stays a military, sometimes a civilian, still a lot of democracies
- civilian are overwhelmingly well-equipped, for succession as a vast majority remain civilian (only civilian dic can be party oriented and their S is huge so everyone is happier)
Why are elections relevant in authoritarian regimes?
initially, we thought it was either because leaders wanted a certain imah-ge of their country into the world, especially for the international community, or because they found it was a way to prevent democratisation by anticipating it
now, elite co-optation, opposition co-opt and finding of information
What is the logic of electoral co-optation in authoritarian regimes?
co-opt elites
co-opt opposition groups
Discuss how selectorate theory can be a useful framework to examine political dynamics in
authoritarian regimes.
- a theory to explain political survival that works by explaining regime performance by looking at the sizes of the winning coalition and of the selectorate
- assumes that politicians only care about political survival and are replaced by a competitor
- DR, S, W
- W/S and loyalty norm (the smaller the W, the better the leader can benefit them directly and distribute the wealth)
Suppose an authoritarian regime with a small winning coalition and a large selectorate. Use
selectorate theory to explain the incentives of a member of the winning coalition to plot
against the autocrat.
The leader can pay off everyone with better care in a small winning coalition; a large selectorate means that the chances of the W to be a W in the next regime are low. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that it is unlikely they will start to plot against the leader. However, these goods being directly distrubuted have a possibility of erosion, which drives the W to want more money and to be susceptible to the competitor’s bribes. A big selectorate also means tht the W know they are replaceable in the present moment, and the loyalty norm becomes quite low.
Suppose an authoritarian regime with a large winning coalition and small selectorate, how
do you anticipate its government performance to be?
In a large winning coalition, the leader has to concentrate on the general public benefit instead of directly giving out high bribes. This is riskier since the W isn’t as valued financially and treated as the rest of the population. In addition to that, the small selectorate means that the W knows they aren’t easily replaceable, and that they have a high chance of being part of the competitor’s W too.
Discuss the processes by which modernisation leads to political change according to modernisation theory.
Modernisation theory is a theory trying to answer the question “why do some countries become democratic?”. It therefore defines alleged universal pathways towards economic growth.
First is a shift from the agricultural sector, which is associated with pre-capitalist ways of production, to the industrial and services sector. In the first instance, there was a clear dependency on the elites (serfdom) and no mobility since work was tied to the land. In the latter, eco alternatives arise but need educated people, so the government creates education opportunities: consciousness arises, opportunities flourish, and elites need consent from people to be in power.
Explain the main economic and political characteristics of modernisation theory.
Modernisation theory is a theory trying to answer the question “why do some countries become democratic?”. It therefore defines alleged universal pathways towards economic growth, that inherently bring democracy after themselves.
First is a shift from the agricultural sector, which is associated with pre-capitalist ways of production, to the industrial and services sector. Politically speaking, in the first instance and because of the economic context, there was a clear dependency on the elites (serfdom) and no mobility since work was tied to the land. In the latter, eco alternatives arise but need educated people, so the government creates education opportunities: political consciousness arises, opportunities flourish, and elites need consent from people to be in power.
What are the conditions by which economic development leads to democracy according to
modernisation theory?
omnipresent agricultural sector: serfdom and ties to fertile soil –> politically that translates as submission and dependency to the elites
industrial and services sector arise: alternative opportunities for work, educational background, more bargaining power and need for the consent of the people to stay in power
main outcome : trade eco security for political concessions
Discuss the main differences between the endogenous and the exogenous theory of democracy.
The endogenous theory of democracy relies on the fact that economic development happens in a non-democratic regime drives democratisation, as Lipset argues in his modernisation theory.
The exogenous theory of democracy states that democracies appear independently from economic growth but that they are more likely to survive where there is some.
It includes many other reasons as to why autocratic regimes may die, which allows for a more precise analysis.
Both agree that economic growth is a favourable context for democratic regimes.
What are the main empirical findings of Przeworski & Limongi 1997?
Przeworski & Limongi found empirical evidence for the exogenous theory of democratisation by linking the average per capita income and the type of regime under which the citizens were living.
Between 1000$ and 6000$ is the unstable window for dictatorships.
In democracies, under 1000$ means 8 years of survival on average, between 100$ and 2000$ dollars means 18 years and more than 6000$ is indefinite survival.
Why studying the relationship between culture and democracy is theoretically and empirically challenging?
Theoretically speaking, it is firstly very hard to define the exact notion of culture; even if we do break it down into multiple elements, those too are blurry notions. Education, religion, history… Those are incredibly broad and vary from individual to individual. Therefore, the statements linking democracy to culture are oftentimes non-falsifiable, which is one of two huge empirical problems. The other one is that we do not know which drives which, a classic “egg or hen first” scenario. How do we choose a testing pathway of we cannot formulate the theory?
Explain the main claims of cultural modernisation theory.
Inglehart and Welzel work on the cultural modernisation theory in 2005. They add to the classical modernisation theory a strong cultural variable: instead of economic progress driving democratisation, it creates cultural changes (from traditional to modern) that, in turn drive democratisation. It does not negate the fact that some democracies are born without the cultural change, just that they are unlikely to survive and thrive in a traditional environment. That change needed is a switch from, in Phase I, traditional values to secular values and, in Phase 2, from survival values to self-expression values.
Discuss the main empirical criticism to studies identifying a relationship between culture
and democracy.
Theories rejecting the relationship between culture and democracy do so because of the unfalsifiable theories that necessarily arise from that claim. Since the notions are blurry, it is impossible to define clear observation of the factors. Secondly, there is no way to empirically test an unformulated theory: and there are still a lot of debates regarding which comes first, a change in culture or in politics. That is the reverse causability problem.
What is a regime transition and what are its main characteristics?
It is the period between the end of a regime and the beginning of a new one. This is delimited by a procedure dissolving the remaining institutions and the process of appointing new ones.
An important characteristic of regime transitions is uncertainty. No one can perfectly predict what political changes come next : all actors try to maximise their own interests and negotiate the rules.
What characterises a bottom-up transition and what types of bottom-up transitions have been
commonly identified?
Bottom-up transitions are transitions started by the population, hence the name, against their living conditions, the acts of the gov or the gov itself. There are two types of bottom-up transitions: transitions by revolution, which imply social revolts until the regime is finnally ousted, and transitions by reform, which push elites to negotiate a steady regime change.
What are the similarities and differences of transitions by pact and transition by imposition?
Both are top-down transitions but share both similarities and differences. Transitions by pact mean that ruling elites gathered around with counter-elites to open up the regime. That may be due to tension building up that might have endangered the regime. Transitions by imposition mean that the elites are particularly strong and head towards a change of regime themselves.
Explain how the handling of information and beliefs can be important to explain a transition to democracy in liberalising authoritarian regimes.
The handling of beliefs and information has always been a very powerful tool. In authoritarian regimes, it is used to control the population and for the elites to keep the power. That is done by restricting the flow of info (no freedom of expression, public punition of dissenters etc) and injecting them (propaganda by state-controlled media). The latter permits the state to falsify a sense of danger by creating enemies, which entices unity and aggression against the unknown.
You want to investigate if foreign aid leads to democratisation. What are your dependent and
independent variables? What would be a feasible hypothesis? How would you conduct your
study?
My independent variable is foreign aid, and I would measure both the type and the amount of it in in the cases at hand. The dependent variable is the level of democratisation, which is trickier to measure. That is why I would say it is a feasible hypothesis, but a lot of different types of democratisation indices exist and my choice would be V-Dem. It is considered the most detailed one and we’ve seen that it includes the broad concepts of egalitarianism and liberalism within its measure.
I would proceed by delimitating a period and choose a wide range of non-democratic nations that have received foreign aid. I would then measure their democracy index on the time of the aid, 6 months later, 2, 7 years and model it using an averaged graph.
I am still afraid, however, that the argument will be biased seeing that aid-giving countries tend to provide it for already on the path to democratisation countries.
