Study Guides (248,568)
Canada (121,628)
POLS 243 (26)
Final

POLS 243 Exam Prep.docx
Premium

6 Pages
173 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Political Studies
Course
POLS 243
Professor
John Mc Garry
Semester
Fall

Description
Review of Lecture Slides Session:  When part of a state’s territory breaks away to form a new independent state Examples of Secession: 1) 1900-45 – Norway from Sweden - 1921: Ireland from UK 2) Bangladash from Pakistan 1971 Yugoslavia consists of: Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia/ Herzegovina, Serbia, Macedonia What constitute Successful Secession? 1. Authority over a particular territory 2. Recognition by other states (most important) 2. A seat in the UN is the Gold standard 4. We should distinguish between de facto and de jure independence – only the latter constituting successful secession Indivisible States:  France shall be an indivisible, secular, democratic and social republic ‘Constitution of France’  ‘The Turkish State, with its territory and nation, is an indivisible entity’  Ukraine is unitary  All within constitution, don’t try changing it, but secessionist don’t care. Control  An arrangement whereby one ethnic community dominates the state and whatever other ethnic communities the state contains 1. Undemocratic control: Imperial and authoritarian varieties 2. Partly democratic control – Herrenvolk democracies ( ethnic race has a say in government proceedings) 3. Democratic control (Ethnic Democracies) Control Regimes collapse when: Domestic Factors & External factors UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1996) Article One: All people have the right of self determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development Territorial Autonomy Autonomy occurs within a state – does not mean independence Examples of Multi National Federations: Swiss, Canada, India, Russia, Bosnia Examples of National Federations: US, Australia, Germany, Brazil Examples of States that give territorial autonomy to minorities: - Devolution in a Unitary State (UK) - Federacy (Italy, Finland) - Multinational Federations (Canada/Quebec) Advantages of d’Hondt:  Automatic executive formation  Solves the problem of how to allocate % of ministries to each parties  Solves the problem of how to allocate which ministries to each party  Fair to small parties – doesn’t give largest party control over ministry allocation  Liberal: allocates ministries according to vote share, not ethnicity  Creates incentives for spoiler parties to stay on board Four Institutional Pillars of Consociational Democracy  Executive level power sharing  Proportionality throughout public sector  Minority Vetos  Authority – territorial and corporate Acronym: EPMA – EVERYOME PEELS MANGOS ALRIGHT 1. Different types of Executive Power Sharing:  Parliamentary style coalitions (Belgium, NI, South Tyrol)  Collective/Rotating Presidencies (EU, Bosnia)  Presidential/parliamentary hybrids (Lebanon, Zimbabwe)  President / Vice President (Cyprus)  Single Part Power Sharing within parliamentary system (Canada, S Africa) 2. Proportional Electoral Systems  Supporters of power sharing like PR because it giver every group a voice and a stake in the system  Degree of proportionality depends on number of seats available in each electoral district (district magnitiude)  Thus, an electoral district with 120 seats, such as Israel, is far more proportional than an electoral district with 6 seats such as Northern Ireland 3. Minority Vetoes  Vetoes may apply to constitutional change; legislation; or decisions of the cabinet  Vetoes may be over limited matters, or over wide ranging matters  Veteos may be easy for a minority to invoke or more difficult  Constitutional Veteo Canada 4. Two Different Types of Autonomy (1) Territorial Autonomy (2) Corporate Facilitative Conditions for Consociation  Multiple Balance of Power i.e No majority  Tradition of Accommodation  External Threat  External Pressures/incentives Necessary Conditions for Consociation  Elites that are willing to deal – Flexible leaders (ex: Cyprus in 2008)  Elites that are able to deal, without losing their followers Droop Quota: “Droop Quota” Total Seats/ (Number of seats+1) + 1 Democratic Varieties of Control – Ethnocracie
More Less

Related notes for POLS 243

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit