Study Guides (247,959)
Canada (121,188)
Prof (1)
Final

Introduction to Comparative Politics Final Exam

54 Pages
102 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Political Science
Course
Political Science 2245E
Professor
Prof
Semester
Fall

Description
08/12/2013 1. Discuss the nature and rationale of comparative politics. Why do we compare, and what is comparable? Comparative politics (CP): examines political realities in countries all over the world. It looks at the many ways governments operate and the ways people behave in political life. The numerous ways governments are constituted, and the wide variety of their procedures and operations, operate a prominent place in comparative politics. Political elites matter as well, what are their motivations? It matters WHO governs. CP also pays close attention to the ways ordinary people behave in their interactions with governments and in other aspects of political life. Political participation vs. apathy. Support constitution or rise up in revolution. What accounts for these behaviours? CP is interested in people politics. Governmental institutions, public policy (health, economic), elite & mass political behaviour (political ideologies & participation), political culture all important. CP is also a science when it engages in the following operations of analysis: definition, description, explanation, prediction and prescription. Definition: Need precise and consistent definitions of political terms as well as a subtle appreciation of their variations and shades of meaning in particular contexts (ex: democracy, socialism, liberalism are commonly used, but often have more than one meaning) Description: Political scientists must describe the phenomena they are examining as accurately as possible (ex: how is the British parliamentary system organized?) Explanation: Why do things happen the way they do? (ex: why does democracy succeed in some countries but not in others?). In an effort to explain, political scientists make generalizations about phenomena. These generalizations are expressed as theories or hypotheses that posit a cause-and-effect relationships between things. In order to find out whether these generalizations are true, PS’s test these hypotheses against the hard facts of reality to determine whether they are true or false. Think about politics in terms of hypothesis testing! Prediction: We can observe trends and patterns in various aspects of political life. Sometimes we can extrapolate from these observable trends and suggest (tentatively) what broad tendencies are possible or even probable, assuming that certain conditions hold. Prediction in political science is probabilistic (open to chance or change) in nature. Prescription: We can prescribe a set of actions that need to be taken in order to establish a democracy and enhance its prospects for success. We can urge the adoption of a body of laws ensuring fair elections, civil rights, an independent judiciary, etc. But, a political advisor cannot compel a country to adopt these prescriptions.And even if the country does, there is no way in telling that if they adhere to these prescriptions, that democracy will inevitably succeed. But, prescriptions for democracy can at least increase the chances that democracy will succeed. Why do we compare? 1. Comparison of nation states enables us to classify them, to create typologies and to rank them (GDP, corruption perception) 2. Comparison enables us a panoramic description of the universe of politics (comprehensive, bird’s eye view, especially if we can discover certain common traits or trends) 3. Comparison also enables us to identity the uniformities and characteristics that set some countries apart from the other contrasting regularities in processes and behaviour. 4. The search for uniformities or rules which underlies various social and political phenomena makes it possible to identify causes of these phenomena under observations . Simple induction (casual) ex: observe 4 or 5 stable democracies and find all of them share the following characteristics: constitutionalism, broad representation, free of opposition, etc… Can deduce that these are the prerequisites or determinants of a stable democracy Complex causality: rare single cause for phenomenon such as terrorism, social movements, political violence many factors (economic, cultural, political). These involve case studies, all factors can be explored. 5. Control a way to check, verify, or falsify claims or assertions about certain phenomena. What is comparable? Use concepts and analytical tools that are comparable Ex: it is possible to rank 190+ countries in terms of power and capabilities Broader terms: constitutions, political stability/instability, public policies, different forms of democracies, benefits and drawbacks of globalization, different forms of authoritarian countries (China & N. Korea) Narrower terms: political parties, pressure groups, legislative processes, elections, political attitudes, political participation 2. Write an essay on the methods of comparative politics Normative vs. Empirical Normative judgements (what ought to be) are value judgements, evaluations that we make on the basis of values, standards, or ideals. They are based on such things as ethical principles, aesthetic standards, or personal states Reflect moral personal preferences about what is moral or immoral, beautiful or ugly, good or bad. Empirical analysis is centered on facts. It seeks to discover, describe, and explain facts and factual relationships to the extent that the facts are knowable.Attempts to be objective, not use judgment what “is”, not what “ought” to be…brings in the scientific method. Concepts, ideas and thoughts Concrete (age, sex) observable within a real world situation Or, could be abstract power, influence, group, class Example of concrete can be the Gini co-efficient…with 5 meaning absolute inequality and 0 being absolute equality. US most unequal on graph Anything about .42 can be deemed unequal Economic inequality can be ranked, compared with a statistical figure Qualitative generality and imprecision Quantitative specificity and exactness Variables have changing characteristics, should not be ambiguous or imprecise Dependent variable dependent on 1 or more variables This is the phenomenon we wish to explain Independent variable more autonomous, factors influence (cause), explanatory variable. Ex Gun violence in US (dependent) on culture of fear, accessibility of weapons, poverty, gang violence, war on drugs (all independent variables) Classifications Always uniformities and similarities we can discover We can classify political systems one party, 2 party, multiparty Grouping together gov’ts with similar characteristics gives us some sense of order Distribution of power uni-polar, bi-polar (US & USSR in CW), multipolar Max Weber’s sources of legitimacy of gov’t authority 3 kinds Traditional polity continuation of ancient past Charismatic polity authority wielded by one person, also personal devotion Ration-legal polity legally valid, rationally created rules Generalizations and Hypotheses One has concepts, explore the relationship between them Hypothesis statement about uniformities & irregularities between 2 or more variables: Liberal democracies do not fight each other If all countries are liberal democracies, will there be world peace? In other words, trying to identify patterns of actions, behaviour, thought and attitude. Three forms of generalizations Universal generalization if withstand testing, then law…ex: no bourgeoisie, no democracy. Probabilistic generalization sense of probability ex: higher standard of living = less inequality Tendency generalization tentative and conjectural, therefore hypothesis may be true but not tested…ex: democracies are less war-prone All three of these are tentative, subject to testing, experimenting, etc. Descriptive hypothesis proposes certain facts, ex: Democracy enjoys broad popular support in Russia How do you test this? Research, interviews, etc. Explanatory hypothesis spells out cause & effects, relations between independent variable and dependent variable Theory Aset of coherent and systematically related generalizations or propositions Always tentative, can never be fully or irrevocably confirmed Grand theories comprehensive, largely discredited, high level of generality Ex:Adam Smith & free market capitalism more efficiency, more competition. OR you could say Marist planned economies are the best…both probabilistic and generalizations Parsimonious theories Simple, most frugal, simplest explanation Theory that explains vast range of phenomena in succinct terms Darwin’s theory of evolution rich countries more likely to become democracies than poor ones. Middle-range theory more limited aspirations, explain phenomena in limited number of cases/range. Explains specific categories of political reality Ex: rational-choice theory (people behave and react as a calculation of benefit to themselves) Impossible to confirm or prove a theory open ended and testable Comparative politics has not move beyond the generation of tendency statements and probabilistic statements Law or Law-like statements Ahypothesis of universal form that has withstood intense experimentation (successful application to new conditions), regular occurrence. Law of gravity, Boyles’law, supply and demand Michels’Iron Law of Oligarchy Oligarchy is inevitable in party life rule by the few…bureaucracy nowadays 3. Discuss any eight of the following theories or approaches to comparative politics: Institutional, Behavioural, System, Functional, Developmental, Elite, Marxist, Rationality, Structure, Culture Institutional: Focuses on the formal institutions of the government the constitutions, legislatures, executives, and judiciary The structure, rules, also paying little or no attention to more informal organizations such as political parties, the mass media, or the social context of politics. New institutionalism: Institutions as an independent variable to explain behaviour How political structures shape human behaviour Ex: US checks & balances (Independent variable) Result: deadlock, immobilism, logjam…power is decentralized. Democratization: Institutional arrangement most likely to produce effective and durable democracies Behavioral: Focus on individuals, processes and behaviour of individuals…how ordinary people see politics and how they behave Public opinion, electoral behaviour, leaders in politics But, value-free analysis complicated political phenomena cannot be broken down into morals Techniques of behavioural analysis are apolitical, usually full of political jargon System: Comparing governments in terms of a system receiving certain inputs from the society and converting them into outputs affecting that society (David Easton). Easton’s model: Demands = InputsApathy and support conversion process outputs feedback information back to inputs. All governments process inputs and transform them into outputs Therefore, comparison can be made, but are broad and cannot be directly applied. Functional: Focus on the functions of a political system must perform in order to survive and to operate effectively All political systems are multi-functional Almond’s 7 functions of a political system First three are necessary for the maintenance of the system 1. Political recruitment people are selected to fill political roles, to become leaders and voters 2. Political socialization the process by which the attitudes towards the political system is shaped 3. Political communication the transmission of politically relevant information 4. Interest articulation the expression of interests and demands expected from the political system 5. Interest aggregation these interests and demands are consolidated into a manageable number of alternative 6. Policy making demands are converted into authoritative decisions and policies 7. Implementation the decisions and policies are put into effect. If the system is surviving, then by definition, the functions are being performed, and the needs of the system are being satisfied. Developmental & Modernization: Development is the goal and subject of analysis Emergence of a new state in the Third World Economic backward states to develop Models with concepts and stages, occur sequentially Teleological concerned with an end or purpose Concern, the prospect for political democracy, preconditions to that What characteristics are likely to generate support for a democratic system? Traditional societies = static, emotion, superstition, particularism, condemn individualism Modern societies = dynamic, rationality, secular, universalism, modern achievement You cannot treat these two like dichotomies, societies have mixtures of both Rustow’s Stages of Growth (1960s) 1) Traditional society high proportions of resources devoted to agriculture 2) Preconditions for take-off utilization of scientific knowledge and technology, and by the intrusion of more advanced countries into non-western ones 3) Take-off increase in investment, industrial expansion and commercialization of agriculture… launching pad for further development and away from traditional stagnancy 4) Drive towards Maturity output regularly surpasses the growth of population 5) Age of High Mass Consumption sectors of the economy shifted to production of durable consumer goods and services 6) The Search for Quality the search for quality of life, enrichment, fulfilment in environment of abundance…post-materialist values (environment, population control) Elite theory: elites in society as the unit of analysis…Pareto, Mosca, and Michels provide a set of generalizations all society throughout history are divided into two strata = rulers and the ruled. 1. Political power is distributed unevenly 2. All political systems have 2 strata, those who have a great deal of power and those who have none 3. Elite is internally homogeneous, unified, is aware of his identities similar background, values, loyalties, and interests 4. Elite is self-perpetuating, drawn from a very exclusive segment of society 5. Elite is autonomous answerable to no one except to itself for all decisions Military Industrial Complex is an offshoot of Elite theory Politicians, unions, businesses, even universities Represent constituencies with defence industries, military bases, aerospace, automobiles CIA prodding large wars in South America to justify large military and defence expenditures. Marxist: Societies divided into classes, stratified and unequal. Different classes possess different values, wealth, prestige. Conflict and change Class struggle, capitalist (bourgeoisie) and labour State government is the executive committee for the management of the affairs of the bourgeoisie do the bidding of the capitalists Rationality: Strategic dimension of politics, includes individuals as the unit of analysis and the maximization of utility Rational choice theory calculations made rationally Driven by altruism Not all information, miscalculations can be made Structural: similar to institutional, the structure shapes political behaviour Structure is the independent variable shapes political behaviour Focus on social, political institutions Marxism structural capitalistic society with conflict between bourgeoisie and the proletariat Or the structure of single-member vs. multi-party constituencies, etc. Explore the relations among actors in an institutional context Checks and balances, separating powers immobilism, gridlock. OR the international structure Bi-polar US & USSR in CW Cultural Explain political phenomena based on culture Different ways of life Symbols, values, world views totally different Political culture, national character Beliefs, symbols, values and attitudes Psychological, subjective orientation Caveat culture is not static, changes all the time. Ambiguous all kinds of complications, can be contested. Three types of political culture, all 3 present in political systems Participant Informed citizens, make demands, ideal type. Subject people tend to be passive, obey government officials, simply subjects of government. Parochial No awareness of government or politics, people living in remote rural areas with no government presence. Discuss the nature and characteristics of political culture and political institutions in contemporary Iran. What are the challenges and prospects for political change in that country? Iran is an old state Ancient civilization Has never been colonized Religions link elite and masses, cities with villages, gov’t with citizens Relatively homogeneous religion 89% are Shi’a Muslims, 10% Sunni, Hindus Jews and Christians only 1% Rich social and cultural diversity Persians 51%,Azeris 24% Poor country GDP/capita is $3000 Unique Islamic republic country dominated by clergy Some democratic features, populist features, mass political participation Authoritarian, not totalitarian Active opposition, unofficial Political culture few foreign studies on Iran, difficult to engage Culture in flux, many changes, ethnically diverse Authority Orientation Authority is to be obeyed Hierarchical political culture Kings, royals, military officers, clerics, scholars and secretaries Western ideas in younger generation new democratic practices Religion Central place of Islam strong agreements over how government, society and cultural life should be impacted Religion confers strong sense of identity and nationalism Secular leaders and secularism still play big political role. Male dominated society Conservatism, segregation of the sexes Notion of women’s role confined to the home Some Shi’a clergy resisted modernization Encourage sex-changes for gays…government pays half the cost Death penalty for gay-acts. Yet, women an active part in revolution, street demonstrations, underground resistance in 1979 revolution assumed equal status WAY better educated than women in other Islamic states But, still marginalized in politics Pride and Culture Persia one of the oldest civilizations in the world Not anArab country Preservation of Farsi Sense of vulnerability Suspicious of other countries (especially US) Centuries of external threat Xenophobia Small modernized and secularized minority Those with western contacts Many students, some clerics In favour of democracy, rights of women Bloggers Prospects for political change in Iran Iran is run by Conservative clerics, whom: give the right of religious leaders to govern the state according to Sharia law and accept the Supreme Leader and oppose full democracy and a liberal, civil society Economy is in shambles 55% of population live under absolute poverty line Unemployment and inflation 20-25% Drug addiction one of the highest rates in the world Lack of capital for economic development Oil is the government’s main source of revenue (9% of world’s oil reserves) But, subject to great price fluctuations 80-85% government revenue from oil The state continually obtains lucrative income by exporting raw materials or leasing our national resources to foreign companies Little to no tax-income base from population Conservative leadership & brutal economy give Iran a grim outlook for future political change, BUT… Reformers Want to restrict the powers of clerical institutions and the judiciary Down with social justice, wish to curb corruption Make security and police forces more accountable, improve IR Left wingers quicker pace of reform and challenge of authority of Supreme Leader Wish for less concentration of power Expand freedom and participation The Third Force most important source of change Baby boom of early 80’s breeds younger generation of people not swayed by reformers of Islamic democracy or jurist guardianship Highly politicized Resent religious restriction on daily lives Large section of Iranian society Disenchantment with the Revolution and cleric ability to govern BUT They are spontaneous, and lack leadership Aspire to independent press and a prosperous Iran Overall, the future of Iran depends on certain questions How much power to religious authorities? Secular officials? How much cultural freedom? Economic problems Especially economic development As long as Sharia law is in place, prospects for full democratization are grim. What is distinctive about politics in Japan? Discuss with reference to historical legacy, political culture, political institutions, political economy, and current challenges Historical legacy Meiji (emperor) Restoration in 1867 Introduces industrialization and modernization in Japan, from a previous agrarian economy 1889 Political system modernized, introduces political parties in Japan 1930s Rise of Japanese militarism From Meiji to the end of WW2, the zaibatsu expands Japanese influence to China Zaibatsu industrial and financial business conglomerates 1945-1952 Americans occupy Japan De-militarization and democratization of Japan New constitution no more zaibatsu, unions encouraged “Peace” Constitution of 1947 US-Japan Mutual Security Treaty basically, a Peace constitution Article 9 denounces war as a sovereign right. No more use of force for political gain General MacArthur has role in this, wants to permanently de-militarize Japan. Yoshida Doctrine Yield security issues to United States, while focusing on improving the Japanese economy. Japanese economy starts killing it in the 1980s Becomes largest creditor nation in the world (1985) Per capita income exceeds that of USA Great at manufacturing goods, swamp markets ofAsia, USA, Europe Affects Detroit as center of US car industry Nowadays, Toyota and Honda manufacture in Canada 1990s Bubble burst in 1997 (mostly real estate) Real estate most expensive in world Prolonged recessions, low growth period 2000s Japanese economy hasn’t improved Try to reinvent themselves 2011 Japan still 3 largest economy in the world Rise of China increases a sense of vulnerability Economy like “riding a bycicle” Political Culture Politics of dependency Deference deference to authority Superior/subordinate relationships Paternalistic pattern of authority Hierarchy Unequal social and political positions Patron-client ties Group identification Group loyalty, mutual obligations Emphasis on personal connections Paternalistic leadership Consensus decision making Conflict avoidance Nationalism/Pacifism National pride, militaristic spirit Anti-war, anti-nuclear weapons Political Institutions Emperor purely symbolic, meets PM from time to time Parliament Diet bi-cameral, legislators serve 6 year terms House of councillors Upper-House, performs functions as popularly elected 1994 512 seats (129 districts), 2-6 members each (4 year terms) In each district, the competition within the same party is important Now combined system…300 single-member districts and 180 proportional representation PM Powerful on paper, cautious in practice, more of a caretaker Limited tenure Weak to moderately effective (Koizumi 2001-2006 exception) LDP divided into factions, dominated by faction-heads (backroom politics) By cultural norms, Japanese PM must make decisions by consultation = leadership from behind Cabinet 20 department ministries, supposed to protect bureaucratic interests of their department MUCH POWER IN JAPANESE POLITICS LIES WITH THE BUREAUCRACY Party System Liberal Democratic Party has been dominant Opposition not particularly effective (token) Campaign practices are restricted (Campaigns for 30 days) Door to door, public polling, scheduled speeches not allowed. The LDP governed Japan for past 60-70 years, enjoys a broad base of support Really a conservative party natural ruling party Acoalition of factions holding power Flexibility, ability to change with the times Catch-all party appeals to left and right Leaders have vague ideologies Broker-party, rejects communism and socialism No more right-wing party exists than the LDP Many left and right wing members Factions Own offices, meetings, public relations, etc. Patron-client relationship Diet members’loyalties to factions, not people Huge fund-raising bodies Long incumbency Pork-barrelling dispensation of benefits 50s-70s subsidies to public contracts/workers Economic boom low-income differentiation 90% of Japanese regard themselves as middle-class Relative homogeneity of Japanese society Shintoism and Buddhism Unions not independent of corporations tightly controlled Not many social cleavages Close relation between the LDP, the bureaucracy and big businesses = the Iron Triangle These three work together to maintain conservative rule Overwhelming support of LDP from rural voters Gerrymandering too Some rural votes carry more weight Opposition Fragmented and weak Left, right, and center all have parties Often, these parties splinter from the LDP following scandals, etc. Elections Money-politics is structural factor in system Like USA Big business uses donations to certain parties Voters Politics is a spectator sport 90% of Japanese regard themselves as middle class Apathetic, fatalistic, passive 4-7% belong to political parties Not particularly honourable to run for political parties Rather than worry about issues, voters evaluate the personality and influence potential of their candidates carefully. Mostly pork-barrelling, voters only care about what resources a candidate can bring to them. Ideology doesn’t matter as much, or at all. Bureaucratic Dominance Bureaucracy that runs the state according to the Iron Triangle Social and political elite Japan is a strong state bureaucrats do not respect Japanese politicians High degree of stability in bureaucracy, rarely lose jobs and no turnover Size is relatively small 45 civil servants per 1000 Japanese Tremendous prestige proud to be in government, sense of solidarity 92% of officials in finance industry from Tokyo University Reputation for impartiality and power Power over politicians Self-confidence Regard themselves as well informed, more expertise Scorn media and public Bureaucrats retire at 55 Insider information, extensive contacts, interest groups Political Economy State-guided development State-led economy Dependent on exports Administrative guidance Industrial policy Keiretsu companies working together (cartel) competing together Industrial policy Identifies sunrise industries Protects industries Provides businesses favourable loans Helps search for foreign markets METI (Ministry of International Trade and Industry) Credited with Japan’s post-war economic recovery and economic miracle Iron Triangle plays a huge role Downside of developmental state and the Iron Triangle Too much bureaucratic planning of economy Collusion between big industries stifles competition Current Issues Japan style of democracy One-party dominance Big business elite practically choose elected politicians in Japan = buying votes Anew Japanese PM has taken office every 16 months, on average No continuity of leadership, although better in recent years Factional politics People’s will take a backseat to the priorities of the bureaucracy But, the bureaucracy’s reputation has been tarnished in recent years Economic decline since 90s Annual economic growth averages 1.4% in the 1990s Has not yet recovered Provide “administrative guidance” to select industries select certain industries for growth and then support them, at the expense of a truly free market. When these industries do not go well, Japan encourages banks to prop up the industries with large loans based on weak collateral. Violates free-market principle. Social and Minority issues Not many social issues, although unemployment has risen since the 90s Minorities Burakumin (3 million) ancestors are Japanese social outcasts in feudal times, are discriminated against for jobs and housing. Koreans subject to entrenched societal discrimination Not eligible for automatic Japanese citizenship Right of blood citizenship if one parent is ethnically Japanese Reluctant to admit immigrants Ethnic homogeneity Ageing population International role a “normal” state? With reference to the cases of Afghanistan and Iraq discuss the independent variables that account for the prospects (both the promises and obstacles) of democratization in these two states. DEPENDANT VARIABLE = DEMOCRATIZATION INDEPENDENT VARIABLE = 10 CONDITIONS Afghanistan Elites committed to democracy Afghanistan has never had ruling elites who advocate for democratic principles Political parties never allowed President Hamid Karzai and leaders of the country’s main ethnic groups now support democracy in principle But, tribal leaders and local officials are determined to uphold traditional laws and customs (Sharia) Militia leaders also wield their own local power, and do not accept authority from the national government State institutions Country’s government has consisted of weak central governments coexisting with a multiplicity of local authorities village chieftains, tribal councils, clan leaders, Islamic clerics, warlords, etc. Legitimacy after Soviet invasion worse than before, as succession of Moscow-imposed rulers and then the Taliban Afghan state has lacked coercive power of an institutionalized military force that is loyal to the central government Loya Jirga a Pashtun tribal or village council Exists since 1747, where they convene to choose a new Shah (king) 1920’s, it becomes institutionalized to become the country’s highest legislative body 1960’s, drafts new constitutional system implementingAfghanistan’s first bicameral legislature, representing various groups of Afghan society Democratic authenticity is limited Exclusively male Confined to Pashtun’s, the country’s largest ethnic group Handpicked by monarchal gov’t rather than being freely elected Purely advisory role Manipulated by the monarchy at times 2002 New Loya Jirga Karzai wins 82% approval of 1600 delegates in a secret ballot, assumes presidency of TransitionalAuthority January 2004 Loya Jirga approves amended constitution Constitution Defines Afghanistan as an Islamic Republic and Islam as the state religion, no laws may be passed contrary to Islamic beliefs Legal guarantees of equal rights for men and women, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, etc. Presidential system of gov’t…Prez is the head of state and head of government, bearing responsibility for government’s policies. Two vice presidents but no PM. President also appoints the cabinet ministers Bicameral NationalAssembly 2 houses, lower 249-member House of the People and less important upper 102-member House of Elders, chosen by provincial and local councils and Prez 2 women must be elected to the lower house from each province (68 total – 25% of membership) September 2005 Afghanistan holds first election for House of the People using single- transferable vote Karzai allies run, as well as warlords, militia fighters, Islamic conservatives, etc. Half of country’s people vote Women were allotted their 68 seats, but no more Central state institutions still a long way from asserting full control over country Provincial militias still operate in various parts ofAfghanistan, undermining a nationalAfghani army National army too weak to confront these militias NATO and US have many troops there, but rise in Taliban activity persists Judiciary Afghanistan still lacks an independent judiciary capable of adjudicating law according to new constitution Supreme court dominated by Islamic religious jurists unschooled in civil law Bribery and intimidation of local judges are rampant Women still subjected to discrimination rape, child marriage, violence. Official corruption still exists Abuses of governmental power include arbitrary arrest, torture, extrajudicial killings, abuse of detainees on part of government, police, military, and intelligence officials National Unity Extraordinary social diversity….Pashtuns, Tajiks, Hazara, Uzbeks. Pashtuns 42% of total population Most ofAfghan’s monarch were Pashtun, as well as communist leaders & most of the Taliban Tajiks 27% of populace Live in north-easternAfghanistan, and part of NorthernAlliance that helped defeat the Taliban in 2001. Hazara 9% of populace Speak variant of Persian and are Shiite Muslims, close ties with Iran Uzbeks 9% populace Live in northern Afghanistan, border with Uzbekistan Also part of NorthernAlliance Most ethnic groups contain a variety of subgroups Pashtuns = 60 tribes for example Social pecking order distinguishes prominent tribes and clans from less important ones. Clan very important, more than simply being “Pashtun” Rivalries between groups Pashtun’s political dominance resented by Tajiks and Uzbeks Afghanistan lacks unifying gel of a shared national identity No “Afghan” nationhood Groups not willing to forge a sense of internal nationalism based on a strong central state Some local leaders, with small armies, have openly asserted their own local authority, and defy the central government National Wealth, Private Enterprise, and a Middle Class One of the poorest countries in the world Economy is shattered Afghanistan supplies about ¾ of the world’s heroin Never developed an industrial sector, or modern system of private enterprise based on dynamic manufacturing and service sectors As a result, no large or prosperous middle class. Survived on foreign aid for most of its history Foreign aid plays favourites Russia funding mujahedeen Afghanistan’s rulers also play favourites when it comes time to distribute the aid they received from abroad Weak central governments promote disunity by distributing economic benefits to politically favoured groups and strongmen This deepen’s the country’s fragmentation into separate fiefdoms of local authority Poor majority have been marginalized until now, and continue to be in rural areas Gains women have made since the fall of the Taliban have occurred in Kabul. In the rest of the country, they are still traditionally confined to their homes, and subject to harsh Islamic law and local customs. Citizen Participation, Civil Society, and a Democratic Political Culture Never had democratic political participation or a civil society Afghanistan has not developed the basis of a democratic political culture 60 political parties Karzai has sought to limit the role of these parties Afghan & international NGO’s have been active But workers have been threatened by Taliban or local warlords, some have been killed. Trade unions are weak Development of democratic civil society will take decades Education and Freedom of Information More freedom and tolerance in Kabul than in the provinces University of Kabul churns out bureaucrats, doctors, etc. Educational opportunities only really benefit people in Kabul Large numbers of people never finish high school or primary school in rest of country Female illiteracy at 90% Taliban and Islamic fundamentalists seek to deny schooling for women Constitution guarantees public education Asserts the state will devise programs for women’s education Print publications and radio stations Islamic fundamentalists threaten and use violence against journalists and telejournalists who report unwelcome news or express unpalatable opinions media professionals censor themselves AFavourable International Environment Still heavily dependent on external powers: financial assistance and US and NATO troop presence is vital for its internal security Afghanistan occupies center stage in the global war on terrorism The inaccessible border region betweenAfghanistan and Pakistan provides shelter and support for al Qaeda and the Taliban “If the international community does not find a way to rebuildAfghanistan, a floodtide of weapons, cash, and contraband will escape that state’s porous borders and make the world less secure for all” – Barnett Rubin Iraq Elites Committed to Democracy After legal independence in 1932, Iraq was governed for the next 70 years by political elites who represented only a small fractions of the population. Opposition leaders ignored, harassed, imprisoned, exiled or killed Saddam most responsible Amajor problem today in Iraq’s transition to democracy is the lack of homegrown political leaders dedicated to democratic principles no galvanizing leaders such as Gandhi or Mandela exist After Gulf War (1991), the US recruits a group of political exiles from Saddam’s Iraq known as the Iraqi National Congress (INC) INC dedicated itself to human rights, the rule of law, and a “constitutional, democratic and pluralistic Iraq” But, personal rivalries, ethnic and religious dissention, and disputes over strategy splintered the organization over the 90s Gradually, the INC was wittled down to a small organization headed byAhmad Chalabi He was a secular Shiite from a wealthy Baghdad family that was educated in the US Befriended politicians and Defense Department officials…later turns out that Chalabi’s contacts in Iraq were a prime source of false info about Saddam’s WMD’s 2002 Bush administration sponsors a meeting in London for the INC Choose a Leadership Council of 7 individuals Factions represented in Iraqi Leadership Council: 2 rival secular Shiite groups, two rival religious Shiite groups, two rival Kurdish groups, and only one Sunni this prefigured the divisions that would plague the US-backed political forces who would seek to create democracy in Iraq Leadership Council had no women, Christians, or Turkmen July 2003 American and British authorities replace the Leadership Council with a 25-member Iraqi Governing Council Includes the 7 members of the Leadership Council, with others representing Iraq’s diverse society But, backroom deals occurred frequently, and agreements would often be negated by one faction or another a day or two later. Factions viewed the political process as a zero-sum game: one’s side gain meant another side’s loss this is not good for the whole of the state as it should be EVERYONE’S gain. Iraqi’s did not respect the Council, as they were once-exiled members of Iraq, and didn’t stay and face the hardships of Saddam’s rule 2002 92% of Iraqi’s viewed the US and other coalition authorities as “occupiers”, only 2% saw them as “liberators” Iraqi Governing Council lacked legitimacy in the eyes of a large number of Iraqi’s 2 of its members were assassinated by insurgents Grand AyatollahAli Husseini al-Sistani was the cleric most respected by the country’s large Shia majority Remained in Iraq and suffered ill treatment at the hands of Saddam’s regime gave him legitimacy He was a “quietist” a Shiite cleric who believed that religious authorities should not be directly engaged in politics, but should instead try to influence the state indirectly Willing to accept civilian leaders, did not wish to have Islamic Republic (like Iran) Main goal was to make sure that Shiite’s were able to translate their majority status into equivalent political power, as well as incorporate elements of Islamic law into country’s legal structure without going to extreme of an Islamic theocracy Unwilling to compromise, backed out of political bargains often Opposite of Sistani was Muqtada al-Sadr, a Shiite cleric in his late 20s or early 30s Heir of revered Shiite clergymen His father and two brothers were murdered by Saddam This gave him legitimacy But, unwilling to cooperate withAmerican and British authorities In 2003, he issue a fatwa (religious decree) calling on his followers to wage a jihad against the US-led coalition Organizes militia called the MahdiArmy Takes over mosques in Shiite areas Poses direct challenge to coalition authorities, but also Sistani Sistani is Persian, Sadr is Arab US reluctant to confront him, fearing an uncontrollable backlash 2006 Mahdi militia sending death squads to attack Sunni INALL, Iraq’s Shiite leadership was fragmented, and not united on the desirability of democracy Sunni’s were reluctant to enlist in democratization Millions of Sunni’s owed their livelihood to Saddam, and he handpicked Sunni elite. US orders disbandment of the Baath party, and the security organs with it Aim was to prevent Saddam’s most powerful loyalists from returning to positions of authority in the new Iraq But, this was not good 10s of thousands of people who joined the party because it opened career opportunities in education and bureaucracy were barred from future employment for a year or more Disbands the Iraqi army Kurdish and Shiite leaders warn that their communities would never accept the continuation of the existing Iraqi military and its officer corps Coalition decides to create a new Iraqi army But, large numbers of displaced Iraqi troops, Republican Guards, and other security personnel join the resistance movement, and bring their weapons with them. US has difficult time training a new army to stand up to these fighters In all, the effort to build a democratically oriented political elite in post-Saddam Iraq has proved arduous Difficulty making compromises and surmounting divisions for the capable leaders that are out there Without a spirit of compromise among political elites, there can be so successful democracy No timely decisions = no effective government. State Institutions After the US & coalition’s unwillingness to hand over power to Iraqis, it was deemed that the Governing Council would prepare an interim constitution known as the Transitional Administrative Law Completed in March 2004 Coalition ProvisionalAuthority transferred legal authority to Iraq’s interim gov’t on June 1 Election of a Transnational NationalAssembly Takes place on January 30, 2005 8.5 million Iraqis troop to the polls for the country’s first post-Saddam election Voters could choose from 111 parties and multiparty coalitions in filling 275Assembly seats Electoral system a variant of party-list proportional representation At least 25% of Assembly had to be women, they end up with 32% of seats. But, low voter turnout in Sunni areas Only 6% of Sunni’s bothered to vote Many boycott the election Election results force Sunnis to confront the reality that in a new democratic Iraq, they would always be in the minority Most important duty of TransitionalAssembly was to draft Iraq’s permanent constitution Disputes break out over the role of Islam and rights of minorities Shiite delegates want the constitution to affirm that Islam was the main source of Iraq’s laws and that no laws contrary to Islamic law could be passes Kurd delegates opposite excessive religious power Women feared that Islamic law would give them fewer rights than Saddam’s regime, and harsh treatment at the hands of conservative clerics, judges and husbands Ultimately, the constitution guarantees freedom of religion, and it allowed individual households to decide whether to use Islamic law in family matters such as divorce, inheritance, and the right of husbands to beat their wives (LOL FUCK THE MIDDLE EAST) Final draft of constitution allows Kurds to write a constitution of their own that would supersede Iraqi law Constitution passes Establishes a parliamentary system of government Bicameral legislature consisting of Council of Representatives and the Council of the Union Council of Reps elects the president, but he is symbolic He can choose the leader of the majority party in the Council of Reps to be prime minister PM has executive responsibility for national policy, commander in chief of armed forces, appoints the cabinet (to the approval of the Council or Reps) December 2005 elections 12.4 million Iraqis (80% turnout) vote Shiite religious bloc wins most seats, 10 short of voting majority Kurdish coalition is the second largest group in legislature, 53 seats Sunni’s IraqiAccordance Front places third, but only wins 16% of the seats Three largest party blocs each represented one of the main contending groups in Iraqi society: Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds Most important factor weighing in on Iraq’s new state was its inability to secure its monopoly of the means of violence, a fundamental requirement of every states In 2005, there were 3500 terrorist attacks HR organizations estimated that there was more torture taking place in 2006 than in Saddam’s reign Evident that the fledging Iraqi state could not protect its citizens threatens its legitimacy Police force riddled with corruption Cases of corruption were multiplying in the civilian government In spite of widening elite and public support for the electoral process and parliamentary government, Iraq in 2006 still had a long way to go before it could claim to have functioning democratic state institutions National Unity Seriously divided country Ethnic split betweenArabs and Kurds Conflicts between religious Sunnis and Shiites show few signs of abating after 1400 years Sectarian violence in mixed Shiite and Sunni neighbourhoods occur Also deep divisions within each religious camp Kurds historically divided between rival factions Christian a persecuted minority, so are Jews Anti-Israeli sentiment high amongst Iraqis Iraqs Arabs are fragmented along tribal lines 150 tribes in the country 30 are especially influential Half of all Iraqis identify more closely with their tribe than with the national government Some have called for breakup into separate Sunni, Kurdish and Shiite entities as the only way out of the spiral of violence In 2006, the lower house passed into law a measure that would allow Iraq’s provinces to form autonomous regions starting in 2008 Kurdish and Shiite deputies voted for the law, wishing to separate their provinces that both had rich oil fields But, many walk out of vote Internal disunity is obstructing its path to democracy Danger of slipping from the tyranny of the Sunni minority over the Shiites and Kurds to the tyranny of the majority over the Sunni’s National Wealth After SaudiArabia, Iraq has the 2 largest known oil reserves Also, tons of natural gas deposits After the Gulf War of 1991 the UN imposed economic sanctions on Saddam’s regime, further damaging the country’s economy By the US-British invasion of 2003, the economy had been in decline for many years Turbulence from invasion has rock the country, and damaged economy further Sabotage-terrorist-operations have hampered oil production Technical infrastructure power grids, transport networks is in severe disrepair Unemployment is up Inflation is skyrocketing Shopping fraught with danger But, international efforts to build schools and modernize infrastructure has been somewhat effective Unstable security situation has slowed down these efforts Private Enterprise In the first year after 2003 invasion, US envoy Bremer issued an order calling for the privatization of most of the Iraqi economy Oil industry would remain in state hands Bremer decrees that foreigners could purchase all of Iraq’s assets Iraqi’s fear this as a US-led takeover of the country’s best assets Post-Saddam period tumult has slowed down privatization efforts and foreign investment Privatization and foreign investment may end up breeding resentments that may prove harmful to democracy’s development The Middle Class Iraq’s oil revenues in the 70s promoted the emergence of a big middle class, especially in Baghdad and urban areas But, the Iran-Iraq war, UN sanctions regime, and the corrupt oil-for-food program had a devastating impact on Iraq’s middle class Since 2003, violence and economic hardships have aggravated conditions for Iraq’s shrinking middle class, including business owners, scientists, doctors, lawyers, educators and civil servants Iraqis were leaving their country at the rate of 100k a month by 2006. These conditions do not bode well for the middle class, a bulwark of democracy was disappearing. Support of the Disadvantaged for Democracy So many disadvantaged people in Saddam and post-Saddam era Economically disadvantaged the urban and rural poor No support for democracy They flock to the cause of Muqtada al-Sadr and other authority figures who offer handouts from their own coffers and psychic rewards of combating the US and British occupiers Some have joined Baathist insurgents, religious militias, or gangs of career criminals Citizen Participation, Civil Society, and Political Culture Millions of Iraqis, even when faced with mortal danger, went out to vote in two parliamentary elections and a referendum in 2005 Post-Saddam elections have spawned a multiplicity of parties But, these parties represent narrow segments of the electorate, they are particularistic parties Particularistic parties tend to perpetuate conflict Growing number of Iraqi’s are taking part in NGOs, interest groups, and other organs of civil society Centres for democracy, HR, and women’s rights have spring up in various parts of the country. Trade unions have also re-emerged from under the tight lid of Saddam’s repression Old leaders have taught the Iraqi people to expect little more than deceit, corruption, manipulation and brutality in politics. It will take a while to create a durable democratic political culture Education and Freedom of Information New freedom of thought and expression can be found in Iraq’s public institutions after decades of oppressive Baathist control. Evidence that political parties in Kurdish and Shiite areas are controlling educational life within their regions More than 100 print publications due to freedom of the press Negatively, journalists have been targeted for assassination, causing media outlets to engage in self-censorship Conflicting signs of unprecedented freedom and ominous opposition to freedom mixed effects on the future of democracy. Favoura
More Less

Related notes for Political Science 2245E

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