Political science - COMMA Unicatt, Appunti di Politica Internazionale

Scarica Political science - COMMA Unicatt e più Appunti in PDF di Politica Internazionale solo su Docsity! POLITICAL SCIENCE INTRODUCTION Political science ≠ political philosophy or theory: modern political science is based on empirical analysis and does not deal primarily with value propositions (what is right or wrong). Political science is founded on the reality of things, not pre-established assumptions. Political science: “study of theory and practice of government and politics, focusing on the structure and dynamics of institutions, political processes, and political behavior.” (Hague et al. 2019, 2) Why science? It is an empirical science which is based on the use of the experimental method in order to develop knowledge and understanding of realities, behaviors and institutions. Hard sciences use the experimental method (hypothesis based) by looking at facts (rather than ideas) and proceed with testing to develop understanding. However, for what concerns political science, it is almost impossible to conduct precise testing as facts and ideas are intertwined. Popper (1959) : scientific laws are useful general predictive propositions, which have been extensively tested and not disproved. - Testing hypotheses without extensively resorting to the experimental method: • statistics • qualitative research • comparative method (among countries, regions, communities, institutions) In short: political science is not hard science (such as physics, maths, biology etc), yet a social science (considered reliable after being tested through the above listed methods, until the opposite is proven under different circumstances) Functions The knowledge which is produced within this science concerns what happens, how, why and what for. Knowing such elements may be useful to change the present circumstances as it enables us to know the causes behind them. A further distinction can be identified within the political science studies: BASIC POLITICAL CONCEPTS 1. POLITICS Elements, features of politics (Hague et al. 2019, 4): • it is a collective activity > by nature humans tend to live in communities, collective bodies (family, clubs, groups etc). • it involves making decisions on matters affecting more people > There is a basic need to reach collective decision for every aspect of life (managing resources, regulating relationship, planning for the future). Individuals in the community have limited resources and different attitudes and preferences, this is why collective decisions are necessary. • political decisions are authoritative, binding and committing members of the community > since political decisions must be carried out in order to be effective, they become binding, restricting. Definitions POLITICS: from the Greek politika, the matters related to the city Contemporary definitions of politics given by scholars (taking for granted the above listed basic features of politics): • “Process by which people negotiate and compete in the process of making and executing shared or collective decisions.” (Hague et al. 2019, 4) • “a way of ruling divided societies by a process of free discussion and without undue violence” (Crick 2005) > decisions are made by discussing, without violent prevarication of those in power over the community (theoretical more than practical, related to democratic realities only) • “who gets what, when, how” (Lasswell 1936) > political decision are not neutral: someone gives something (values) to somebody else. Politics is a sharp competition between groups (for money, ideas, power). • “the authoritative allocation of value” (Easton 1965) > value is given unequally VALUE: “relative worth, utility, or importance” (Merriam- Webster dictionary) The content of decisions is a very critical matter. Political decisions are controversial as people belonging to a collective give different values to the content of decisions according to their social position, preferences, income etc. Problems with definitions: • What are the boundaries of politics? Is every decision made in a community a political decision? Not necessarily, political relations are present in several types of relations (businesses, families, for example), but when speaking of political decision we usually refer to binding decision made by authorities. • What are the goals of politics? What should be the ultimate aim of these collective decisions? We could stay that political decisions should seek the well-being of the community. This is an idealistic way to define the coal of politics, however those who make decisions (as well as all people) have different beliefs, ideas, preferences and interests that they may decide to pursue instead of the common welfare. In a practical way, politics can be seen a competition. • Is politics a ‘zero-sum game’? A zero sum game is a game in which the win of one player equals, by definition, the loss of the other player. Is is the way political decision making takes place? Not always. Politics implies competition, but it also involves negotiations, exchanges, compromises and coalitions. 5. GOVERNMENT “Institutions and offices through which societies are governed. Also used to describe the group of people who govern (eg, the Japanese government), a specific administration (eg, the Putin government), the form of the system of rule (eg, centralized government), and the nature and direction of the administration of a community (eg, good government).” Meanings: • highest level of political posts (Draghi’s government > people exercising authority) • entire community of institutions endowed with public authority (people working in public administration, including police officers for example) Both definitions are in use and relevant. Institution: “Formal organization or practice with political purpose or effect, marked by durability and internal complexity.” Why is government necessary? • collective decision making (main function): Institutions are one of the tools through which governments can work, in order to make decision establish and enforce rules. That is what governments are everywhere; political decision making is carried out by governments because the rules to organize public life. • security and predictability of behaviors: people are in need of security and predictability in order to live peacefully and organize their actions; this is made possible by the rules and standards set out by government institutions. The way all of this is organized may be different from country to country, different in authoritarian regimes and democratic regimes. The opposite of such situation is anarchy. 6. GOVERNANCE “Process by which decisions, laws and policies are made, with or without the input of formal institutions.” Especially nowadays, political decision making is also concerned with the private sector, the third sector and social movements. Governance is a word often used to refer to political institutions which are not so hierarchically organized as the traditional ones, in which different kinds of acts are involved. Of course governments do have power over people and their behavior, yet the other actors have a role too. 7. REGIMES Set of institutions, rules, procedures, and understandings, that are either formalized or are informally acknowledged, which govern relations between the state and society in a particular country). • The way governmental authorities and people (society) relate to one another defines the type of regime active in a certain country/region. • There exist different kinds of regimes: democratic, authoritarian, totalitarian, hybrid etc. 8. POLICY Public policy: “The positions adopted and the actions taken (or avoided) by governments as they address the needs of society”. Policies are conceived as politics in action (what does government do for citizens?). Policies are one specific area of decisions made by governments, public policies are decisions/programs/schemes that aim to address the needs of society, policies refer to the concrete choices and actions put in place by governments. 9. IDEOLOGY To make political judgements, people must employ judgements about values, and not just resort to evidence and data. Ideology refers to the ideas and motivations that lead people to take daily life decisions, but also shape their political beliefs and judgments. Meanings: • all-encompassing and closed system of thought, a defined way of perceiving understanding reality. (Eg. Marxism) “the compass that directs political activity” > The set of motivations and beliefs that form an Ideology are those which provide the basic principles and values upon which people construct their political activity. • any set of cohesive political principles “A system of connected beliefs, a shared view of the world, or a blueprint for how politics, economics and society should be structured.” (Hague et al. 2019, 9) 19th-20th century: the age of ideologies. Ideology has become an actual thing in the last two centuries. Even today most political organizations and many people still share some tenets of basic ideologies, although much more flexible and fuzzy than in the past. 10. LEFT AND RIGHT Refers to political preferences existing in every political systems, beside ideological beliefs. Left and right may be understood as labels conventionally used by politicians and the media to describe values, principles, trends taking place in political environments. The distinction dates back to the time of the French Revolution, when in the French parliament, monarchists sat on the right and republicans sat on the left of the room. Broadly speaking right oriented political parties are more inclined towards conservatism and traditions, while left parties are usually associated with movements for change, wellbeing of the whole population, reforms etc. Both sides are interested in every field of politics, they just stress more on different ones and have different opinions about them, yet not even necessarily. The meaning of left and right have changed a lot throughout history. There is also a centrist orientation, which may usually be intended as a tendency concerned with some principles from the lefties and some from the rightists. Example of a series of topics is offered in the table: guideline and concise vision of what could be more left or right wing. It doesn’t want to state that any of the concept is exclusively of one’s or the other. It’s a matter of being emphasized or not. Traditionally there’s such a dichotomy which identify different set of opinions and values. Priorities are different, emphasis is different, these should be seen as concerns. Centrist political ideologies reject extremist visions. As instance, they might accept free enterprise, concerned with providing support to the weakest level of society with social security but they may not wish for public ownership at the same time. They may feel more as patriots rather than internationalist. They are labels, they change according to contexts. THE STATE State is an abstract concept; it hasn’t always existed, it started as an idea to then become the model to organize countries, successfully or not depending on the cases. It has to do with authority, as it is the organization of rules, institutions etc of a country where authority is exercised. The government is usually understood one of those decision- making institutions which constitute the state. Weber : “a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory” è In human history the idea that only one (monopoly) is entitled to use force and have the ultimate say over everything and everyone brought to the creation of defining features on the concept of state. Hague et al. (2019, 53): “The legal and political authority of a territory containing a population and marked by borders. The state defines the political authority of which government is the managing authority; that authority is regarded as both sovereign and legitimate by the citizens of the state and the government of other states.” Features • Sovereignty: “The ultimate source of authority in a society. The sovereign is the highest and final decision-maker within a community”. When the state is sovereign it means that it holds the ultimate authority. According to the single case sovereignty belongs to national or even international institutions (treaty of Westfalia > international - sovereignty was recognized as the principle ruling international relationships between states, with mutual agreement of non- interference in each other’s affairs). Sovereignty may belong to political bodies or, in more democratic regimes, to the people. This means that those who take decisions borrow the power from the people, meaning that sovereignty can be limited in order to be practically exercised or to manage agreements with other authorities. States aim and claim to be sovereign, yet small and resourceless states often fall under the influence of the so called super states. The invasion and takeover of a state by another one constitutes breach of international law, but it still happens. • Impersonality: in the modern world states are impersonal meaning that they do not coincide with a person (differently from the ancient order). This feature was developed also thanks to the acknowledgment of the need to give authority to somebody, yet this somebody does not own the state nor identify with it. • Centralization: the rules adopted by governments are standardized and apply either to everybody or specific sectors of the community to which they are addressed. Laws and decisions are impersonal, they do not apply to individuals but to categories or even to everyone within the community. This feature constitute the backbone of the state authority, as it implies the presence of a centralized structure of power to exercise authority in concrete. • Differentiation from all other social organizations: social, economic, religious actors are separated from the modern state. The monopoly of rule making is held only by the latter and is exercised over the former. politics: authoritative allocations of values, we have politics across states (global political affairs, international relations), not necessarily provided with authority. EG: environmental policies summit don’t impose on the states, which are still sovereign, decisions. There are political venues where political decisions are made and discussed. With the content of some value we set a way forward for global community without necessarily being state authority. “A political system can be designated as the interactions through which values are authoritatively allocated for a society; that is what distinguishes a political system from other systems lying in its environment.” The political system, hence, has several units (political parties, institutions, electoral rules, etc.) which may make up ‘subsystems’ (party system, parliamentary system, military system, etc.). The political system lies within a wider environment, made up by other systems (economic, cultural, international, etc.), with which politics interact. Conceptualized this way, it is not culturally/geographically bounded phenomena, it could be found everywhere, not contingent to specific circumstances. It is surrounded by an environment, which does not go in the details on how it is organized, how it works, regimes, specific actors etc POLITICAL PROCESS The concept of political process tells us what politics is and how it works. Any kind of political activity is related with a basic process, which explicitly develops politics, making decision for the community by distributing something which is worth for those receiving it or for those who decide. The political process (= how politics works): 1. input coming from the environment or (‘withinputs’) from the political system itself = demands or support. Inputs are concerned with demanding a need or with expression of disagreement of other people demands.. Inputs may be specific but also diffuse. We have DIFFERENT LEVEL OF INPUTS, they usually come from the environment, but they can also be originated from the political system itself. (EG: political parties ask to take or not take specific decisions.) 2. conversion: politics is concerned with the task of converting the inputs that anybody sends into outputs, into offering the values those who provide inputs ask for, the decision could be also not to change things. - Actors of conversion: Who has the power to do it? If inputs are concerned with something that only the state can provide, then you ask state authorities (government) this may involve a number of environmental and political actors, not necessarily formal institutions, it depends on the content of inputs and outputs. 3. Output: regulations, laws, rules, infrastructures, money but also symbols, ideas 4. feedback: information coming back to the authorities about the outcomes produced in the environment by the output This theoretical framework gives the idea of the basics of politics: a set of interactions which may related to everything which is not political and it has to do with deciding with authorities on matters which are valuable for somebody. Why does politics exist? Because somebody asks for decisions, there are inputs provided, within it there are negotiations, competitions, confrontations, alliances. Decisions may be taken or not, actions may be executed, outputs could be effective or not, may produce results or not, feedback goes back to the political system as well as to inputs. Outputs have solved a social issue to it was not sufficient, or implemented in an incorrect manner, feedback: the need is still there which generates new inputs. It may be seen as a LOOP, it goes back and forth, from environment to political actors concerned with deciding for community, it has to do with politics, it is theoretical but how actually inputs are demanded and dealt with differ from one case to another, from one country to another and so on. POLITICAL STRUCTURES AND FUNCTIONS • Easton scheme is very general, thus lacking precision. There are different types of political system, depending on how inputs and outputs are managed and produced. There are qualitative and quantitative differences among the variety of political systems. • Almond (founding thinker of structural functionalism): political systems may differ in their capability to: extract resources from the environment; respond to inputs; regulate the environment; distribute values; produce symbols (to keep the environment loyal). Political institutions manage resources and generate outputs in different ways, for efficiency and other measures’ discrepancies. Political systems need resources in order to offer outputs such as services (people working for the state, money, loyalty etc.). Sometimes ps are unable to properly manage inputs and generate suitable outputs, generating opposition; the survival of authorities may be at risk. The political process: who does what? G. Almond’s basic idea : • in every system there are the same functions • every system has its own structures which perform some actions (functions) This framework can be applied to different political systems in order to understand who carries out functions and what are those. So there are universal political activities: • Input functions: o political socialization and recruitment > getting awareness and understanding of the political reality (happens to most people). Recruitment is the political structures’ action aimed at generating political involvement in specific organization which express specific ideologies and ideas (parties, associations etc). These are basic fundamental functions which generate the political reality itself. o interest articulation > individuals and people aggregated in political structures put forward their interest in the form of articulated political demands, addressing them to authorities. Various demands are aggregated by political structures to propose authorities actions to be taken. o interest aggregation > these demands are converted into competitive political options. Proposals are formulated in the most acceptable way as possible in order to be collected and addressed by authorities. A typical form of interest aggregation is the plan proposed by politicians and parties during elections. o political communication > once interested have been aggregated the must be efficiently communicated in order to gather consensus and become reality through the action of authorities. • Output functions: o Rule-making > in any case there would not be any political system without authorities being able to produce rules, there would not be authority, rule making is not the only one, but the necessary one to identify a political system. Main task of authorities is to rule, issue commands, to regulate the community. o Rule application > rules must be enforced o Rule adjudication > authorities have the role to judge in controversial situations regarding rules and compliance There are political system in which goods or services are not provided because of a lack of resources of other reasons. Yet rule making is a fundamental output function in order for a political system to work and exist. Every political system has its own institutions (structures): specific political parties, interest groups, norms, etc. This is a scheme through which all political systems can be analyzed: • in any system a given structure (e.g. a political party) can exercise different functions, not necessarily one only • in different systems, the same structure can exercise different functions • hence, in different systems the same functions are not necessarily exercised by the same structures Critiques: valid and interesting theoretical model, but with few empirical impacts (little operationalization). o Indirect (or disguised) military rule: the armed forces control political institutions behind the scene, either on a continuous basis (ex. Egypt) or from time to time (ex. Turkey, Myanmar) One-party government Single party governments are those where a party is the only one at power, one-party governments take place when a political party conquers power with violence (revolution) or through democratic elections and then replaces the democratic system with: fake multi-party system, with non-competitive elections (with puppet parties) or half- competitive ones, where the incumbents cannot be defeated (ex. Azerbaijan, Belarus) Ex. Belarus president There is one one-party government that had made history: the fascist regime. This model has set the criteria to define totalitarians systems, and most, if not all, countries of the world reject this type of rule. Another important model was (and is) the communist one: the most numerous type of single-party government in history. It now exists in China (formally multi-party), Vietnam, Laos, North Korea, and Cuba. The latest two also show characters of personal (and absolute) dictatorships. Example: constitution of the republic of Cuba PREAMBLE WE, CUBAN CITIZENS, heirs and continuators of the creative work and the traditions of combatively, firmness, heroism and sacrifice fostered: by our ancestors; by the Indians who preferred extermination to submission; by the slaves who rebelled against their masters; by the patriots who in 1868 launched the wars of independence against Spanish colonialism and those who in the last drive of 1895 brought them to victory in 1898, a victory usurped by the military intervention and occupation of Yankee imperialism; by the workers, peasants, student and intellectuals who struggled for over fifty years against imperialist domination, political corruption, the absence of people’s rights and liberties, unemployment and exploitation by capitalists and landowners; by those who promoted, joined and developed the first organizations of workers and peasants, spread socialist ideas and founded the first Marxist and Marxist-Leninist movements; by the members of the vanguard of the generation of the centenary of the birth of Martí who, imbued with his teachings, led us to the people’s revolutionary victory of January; by those who defended the Revolution at the cost of their lives, thus contributing to its definitive consolidation; by those who en masse carried out heroic internationalist missions; (...) (... follows) GUIDED by the ideas of José Martí and the political and social ideas of Marx, Engels and Lenin; BASING OURSELVES on proletarian internationalism, on the fraternal friendship, aid, cooperation and solidarity of the peoples of the world, especially those of Latin America and the Caribbean; (...) CHAPTER I – POLITICAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC PRINCIPLES OF THE STATE ARTICLE 1. Cuba is an independent and sovereign socialist state of workers, organized with all and for the good of all as a united and democratic republic, for the enjoyment of political freedom, social justice, individual and collective well- being and human solidarity. Another example of one-party governments are found in the Third World (former African and Middle-Eastern colonies, 1950-60s): “nationalist mobilization regimes” originating from the struggle for independence, often led by a charismatic leader who would then establish a strict political authority let by their own party only. Ex: Iraq and Syria baathist regimes; Algeria. Also present in Latin America (Mexico-PRI, Bolivia, Nicaragua, etc). The 20th century has been the period when the one party government system actually thrived and found its maximum success. Non-democratic regimes usually claim to have a legitimacy on the basis of some principles which justifies rulers to govern and the ruled to obey. Such claims can also occur in democratic regimes, yet they are specifically rooted at the core of two forms of authoritarian regimes: • Totalitarianism • Theocracies Totalitarianism Single-party regimes with a strong ideological basis are known as “totalitarian” regimes. This strong ideology is not just the basis upon which goals and rules are established, but also no kind of alternative way of thinking, expressing opinions, living in general is allowed and accepted within the regime. Totalitarianism: “The most absolute form of authoritarian rule, based either on a guiding ideology or the goal of major social change, with total control exercised by a leader, state, or party over all aspects of public and private life” Linz (1970) points out that while authoritarian regimes show: limited, non- responsible political pluralism; a distinctive mentality; no extensive political mobilization; a leader or, occasionally, a small group exercise power from within formally ill-defined, but actually quite predictable, limits. Totalitarian regimes show (Linz 1970): • absence of any political and social pluralism > religion, social and cultural life, relationships, property and even economic activities are constrained under the limits established by the single party • single party with a strong ideology having a ‘objective enemy’ (people being enemy solely because of being – Arendt 1965) and the goal to establish a new system of values in politics and society • extensive mobilization, ‘permanent revolution’, panpoliticism (every cultural, political, economic, social phenomenon is read through the lenses of the dominating ideology) • diffuse violence, concentration camps (especially against the objective enemy) • unpredictable limits to the leaders’ power > not only the ruler has no political limits, but also moral and ethical ones Examples: Nazi Germany, Lenin’s and Stalin’s USSR, Mao’s China, Communist Romania, Albania, North Korea, and Kampuchea (Lindstaedt 2020, 104-106). Theocracies Theocracies claim to have a legitimacy on the basis of religious principles. In these regimes, everything public and private must be shaped by the official religious order Ex: Iran’s Islamic republic This kind of constitutions frame all spheres of life within one religious ideology (not just the political sphere). Sovereignty in this case belongs to god. Preamble of the Constitution of Iran In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful We sent afore time Our apostles with clear signs, and sent down with them the Book and the Balance that men may uphold justice... (57:25) The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran sets forth the cultural, social, political, and economic institutions of Iranian society on the basis of Islamic principles and norms, which represent the earnest aspiration of the Islamic Ummah. This basic aspiration was made explicit by the very nature of the great Islamic Revolution of Iran, as well as the course of the Muslim people's struggle, from its beginning until victory, as reflected in the decisive and forceful slogans raised by all segments of the populations. Now, at the threshold of this great victory, our nation, with all its being, seeks its fulfillment. (...) CHAPTER I. General Principles Article 1 The form of government of Iran is that of an Islamic Republic, endorsed by the people of Iran on the basis of their longstanding belief in the sovereignty of truth and Qur'anic justice, in the referendum of Farwardîn 9 and 10 in the year 1358 of the solar Islamic calendar, corresponding to Jamadial-'Awwal 1 and 2 in the year 1399 of the lunar Islamic calendar [March 29 and 30, 1979], through the affirmative vote of a majority of 98.2% of eligible voters, held after the victorious Islamic Revolution led by the eminent marji' altaqlid, Ayatullah al- 'Uzma Imam Khumayni. Article 2 The Islamic Republic is a system based on belief in: 1. the One God (as stated in the phrase "There is no god except Allah"), His exclusive sovereignty and the right to legislate, and the necessity of submission to His commands; 2. Divine revelation and its fundamental role in setting forth the laws; 3. the return to God in the Hereafter, and the constructive role of this belief in the course of man's ascent towards God; 4. the justice of God in creation and legislation; 5. continuous leadership (imamah) and perpetual guidance, and its fundamental role in ensuring the uninterrupted process of the revolution of Islam; 6. the exalted dignity and value of man, and his freedom coupled with responsibility before God Article 3 In order to attain the objectives specified in Article 2, the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran has the duty of directing all its resources to the following goals: 1. the creation of a favorable environment for the growth of moral virtues based on faith and piety and the struggle against all forms of vice and corruption; 2. raising the level of public awareness in all areas, through the proper use of the press, mass media, and other means; 3. free education and physical training for everyone at all levels, and the facilitation and expansion of higher education; 4. strengthening the spirit of inquiry, investigation, and innovation in all areas of science, technology, and culture, as well as Islamic studies, by establishing research centers and encouraging researchers; 5. the complete elimination of imperialism and the prevention of foreign influence; 6. the elimination of all forms of despotism and autocracy and all attempts to monopolize power; 7. ensuring political and social freedoms within the framework of the law; 8. the participation of the entire people in determining their political, economic, social, and cultural destiny; 9. the abolition of all forms of undesirable discrimination and the provision of equitable opportunities for all, in both the material and intellectual spheres; (...) METHOD OF RULE There are various and complementary ways in which non-democratic rulers exercise control over politics, society, and economy: • engendering loyalty through policies and mobilization (symbols, propaganda) > used especially in totalitarian regimes for which top down mobilization helps spreading the dominant ideology. The tools used are usually propaganda and spreading of common symbols, or even official mass recruitment of the young generations in the the military or in the party. (The focus on the youth is usually motivated by the fact that their mind is free and easy to shape according to the needs and wants of the party) • using ‘democratic’ tools > eg. elections which are, however, orchestrated and manipulated by the regime • controlling the population > mental and especially physical (behaviors, communications, interactions) through secret police and other tools • repression > crushing any opposition (internment, concentration camps, termination, torture, enforced disappearances) ! > during the pandemic, totalitarian regimes have used the necessity to stay home and stop certain activities as a way to strengthen their power over the public and private sphere of the population FUTURE DEVELOPMENT hypotheses: • gradual extinction thanks to the spreading of the democratic paradigm • gradual evolution toward more hybrid forms of government, which seems to be confirmed by current events (2010-20s) Responsiveness has to do with the ability of producing outputs coherent with the inputs given by citizens. This is important especially because those elected have to rely on the citizens’ votes, meaning that they have to face periodical electoral processes that may throw them out of office if they fail to give the people what they demand. Accountability Government by the people = accountability. In a democracy (differently from totalitarian regimes), the government is compelled to be held accountable for what they do, and this occurs when free and fair elections are held. Political accountability is institutionalized in democratic regimes = democracy is a regime of “responsible government” Civil liberties In the basic rules which underlying democratic authority a number of guarantees must be present. Dahl’s guarantees of a polyarchy: 1. freedom of association and organization 2. freedom of thought and speech 3. right to vote 4. right of political leaders to compete to win electoral support 5. alternative sources of information 6. right to be elected to public office 7. free and fair elections 8. existence of institutions that make governmental policies depend on the popular vote and on other expressions of people’s preferences In fact, we often refer to contemporary democracy as ‘liberal’: Liberal democracy: “a form of indirect democracy in which the scope of democracy is limited by constitutional protection of individual rights, including freedom of assembly, property, religion, and speech” è Civil liberties and rule of law are best protected in democratic than other kinds of regimes THE “FIRST DEMOCRATIZATION” Democratization: “the process by which states build the institutions and processes needed to become stable democracies” (Hague et al. 2019, 71). Dahl (1971): fundamental processes being at play in modern history in determining how and when polyarchies emerged as a result of a long process including some fundamental steps: • liberalization = the expansion of civil liberties • inclusion of (ordinary) citizens in politics = expansion of political rights o incorporation: the mass of the citizenry is gradually admitted into political society and the right to organize political parties is acknowledged; o organized opposition: the right to oppose (and vote against, and possibly defeat) the government is accepted. Different countries followed different paths, but these patterns are almost always repeated in the process of citizens becoming involved in the democratic states. In the time corresponding to the end 19th century the first forms of democracies emerged in western countries (with a gradual integration towards the universal suffrage). In the 20s of the 20th century this tendency slowed down to disappear with the establishment of totalitarian regimes in Europe. After this first step (incorporation), those who did not share the same political affiliation of the established ruling party have to obtain voting rights to put in practice in a fair competition aimed at replacing the former authority. Context of democracy Democracy expanded, during the XX century, there has been a long debate on the role of other kind of factors in preparing the development of democratic regimes, in facilitating it, by observing what happened in those countries and could happen in others. Do economic and social factors have a role in preparing/influencing the development of democratic regimes? Different views: 1. Economic factors and democracy «the more well-to-do a nation, the greater the chances that it will sustain democracy» = economic development > democracy According to this view, democracy is an outcome of long term economic development and related aspects such as liberalization, increasing wealth, rising level of education and all those factors that may lead to an improvement of standards of living. This theory came up from the analysis of the first wave of democratization, when in fact the countries that went through such process were also the wealthiest. Looking at todays situation, it is noticeable that there are some wealthy countries that are not democracies (mainly traditional monarchies), which tells us there might be some sort of association between economic development and democracy but the link is not absolute and determined in all cases. 2. Cultural approaches From the 1950s onwards, several authors highlight how specific values and cultures (cultural capital) positively influence the persistence of democracy, while other kinds of culture well fit different types of regime: • Trust in others and participation in community life (‘civic culture’) -> democracy • Full obedience to traditions -//-> democracy • Religious fundamentalism -//-> democracy The basis of democracy are pluralism and debate, which are hardly adaptable to both obedience to traditions and religious fundamentalism, which are strictly based on the adherence to only one ideology deemed as truthful. • The highest levels of educations are in most cases associated with developed democracies HYBRID REGIMES In the 21st century there are many countries ruled by regimes that are not fully democratic, but which are not moving toward democracy. This kind of regimes are ‘hybrid’ insofar as they do not fully satisfy the conditions for being defined as democratic (e.g. Dahl’s guarantees) and keep their character in time, they do not transform into autocracies nor develop into real democracies. Hybrid regimes are “political systems that have some of the appearances of being democratic, but where institutions, processes, laws, and policies are manipulated to keep rulers or elite groups in power”. Hybrid regimes use democratic institutions to exercise political authority, but incumbents violate the rule and have access to a variety of state resources that can help them steer the election’s outcome in their favor. Elections, thus, are not fair. Also called “limited” or “partial democracies” showing (Brooker 2014): • limited civil liberties • media are limited in what they can say (self-censorship) • legislatures exist but are weak • the judiciary is formally independent but “coerced through bribery and extortion” = political interference Hence, the government’s power tending to be arbitrary (≠ Dahl’s polyarchy). Such regimes may emerge from: • one of the diverse types of authoritarian regimes • a traditional regime (reasons: attempt by ruling coalition to face internal/external pressures by continuing keeping order) • the crisis of a weak democratic regime, notably because of the intervention by non-elected actors (ex. armed forces) or the limitation of civil and political liberties by ruling élite through legal means (eg Russia, Turkey) • a process of decolonization not followed by a democratic stabilization REGIMES TODAY After decades of expansion of democracy, this trend has recently stopped. • Likely reasons for a transition from authoritarian to democratic regime: o part of the ruling elite recognizes that change cannot be blocked unless resorting to excessive repression o part of the ruling elite believes they can benefit from political change and tries to guide it. They may have different motivations such as immunity from persecution, time to build assets etc. 4. INSTALLATION Installation is one possible outcome of transitions, but some states have also undergone other types of change such as division of the territory in sectors dominated by separated authorities. A coalition of political actors eventually manages to prevail and creates and enforces new norms and structures, characterizing a new regime, while also occupying them as well as enjoying the monopoly of legitimate force. In the case of installation of a new democracy, civil and political rights are granted to everybody. Rules, political personnel, bureaucratic structures and staff may then change wholly or not. The main concern of the prevailing actors in the phase of installation is the creation of the new regime, which means fully changing the existing order fully or partially (compromising). 5. CONSOLIDATION The dominant coalition of the new regime settles down and gets stronger through new structures. In new authoritarian regimes, coercive resources are refined and expanded, while internal and international legitimacy are widened and strengthened. In new democracies, the new ruling actors face the challenge of legitimization. i.e. to make the population accept and support the idea that the regime is the best possible form government (through propaganda, opinion leaders, influences etc). Consolidation is deeply dependent on consensus and acceptance in order to be fully legitimized both internationally and internally. The waves of democratization Huntington (1991): transition toward democracy has occurred in a series of distinct waves. Waves of democratization: “A group of transitions from non-democratic to democratic regimes that occurs within a specified period of time and that significantly outnumbers transitions in the opposite direction during that period.” (Hague et al. 2019, 79) 1. First wave: Europe, Oceania and North America 19th- 20th c. Nearly 30 countries established at least minimally democratic institutions (democracy want a well known and defined model yet). è From the 1920s through to the 1940s a ‘first reverse wave’ occurred (totalitarianism and authoritarianism in Europe). 2. Second wave: 1945-1970: post-authoritarian democracies emerge in Germany, Japan, Italy and in the new states after decolonization in Africa and Asia, but here few managed to consolidate. After the end of the 2nd WW democratic action was pushed by the USA which defeated the authoritarian regimes in Europe. Former colonies and some new states also adopted the democratic model, to be then overturned soon after by military forces. è new reverse wave in Latin America (Argentina 1966, Chile 1973, Uruguay 1972) and African countries in the context of the Cold war. 3. Third wave: transitions from authoritarian and totalitarian regimes to democracies in: • Europe > end of right-wing dictatorships in Portugal (1974), Greece (1974), and Spain (1975-77) + collapse of Soviet bloc in Eastern Europe (1989-91). These transitions happened because of the collapse of the previously in charge authoritarian regimes. • Latin America (1990s) • many African countries (1990s), although with full democratization only in few cases (South Africa, Namibia, Botswana, Ghana, Tunisia) Reasons for the third wave for former communist countries (Huntington 1991): • loss of legitimacy by authoritarian regimes because of their negative economic performances (the Soviet economic system collapsed) >< global economic growth • extensive changes in the doctrine and policies of the catholic church, no longer willing to support and co- operate with conservative illiberal regimes • changes in foreign policy of the two 1980s superpowers (USA and USSR), which became more peace-prone (stop of nuclear arming) • strong influence of globalization of information thanks to tv and radio which allowed eastern populations to see the western living standards and the benefits of consumerism. Reasons for the third wave in Africa (Carbone 2021, 189-198): • ending of Soviet financial, economic and political support to Communist regimes (e.g. Mozambique) • international economic support (by international organizations and democratic countries) now linked to rule of law and democratic governance > clientelist networks no longer benefit from resources formerly coming from the superpowers (delegitimization) • emulation among countries (see ‘Arab spring’) > the globalization of information was a powerful factor also for African countries, which would get inspired to change by looking at other countries. Supporting democracy From the late 20th century (2nd and 3rd waves), transition to democracy in various countries has been supported by different actors (social and political organization’s main foreign countries etc) and in multiple ways, directly (targeting some defining characteristics of democracy) or indirectly (addressing the conditions for democratization > use of media, literacy, education, economic status etc) Frequently, these kinds of support occur simultaneously. Examples: financial and technical assistance to pro-democracy initiatives in transition countries. • Actors: o USAID: 1,600,663,000 $ directed to ‘Government and civil society’ sector in 2020: https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/USAID_FY2020_AFR- 508.pdf o EU’s European Instrument for Democracy & Human Rights (EIDHR) : 15,72 billion € in 2007-2021. o United Nations Development Program: projects to attain the SDG ‘peace, justice and strong institutions’ (fields: access to information, access to justice, rule of law, fight against corruption, civic engagement, electoral process, human rights, local governance and development, public administration, equal opportunities). ..but also imposition (‘export’) of democracy (Iraq occupation) . Therefore, USA and EU are the main suppliers of democracy support worldwide, with both successes and failures (e.g. Iraq). Other actors: o International organizations (UN, World Bank: CPIA Africa |Home | The World Bank) o Foundations and think-tanks :Netherlands’s institute for Multiparty Democracy | Konrad Adenauer Stiftung • Different explanations for democracy support: o idealism: democracy as the best possible form of government. Sen (1999, 5): the idea of democracy is today, while not universally practiced, believed in world’s public opinion as broadly ‘just’. o critical view: US support to democracy = new form of imperialism. Western countries can no longer afford on moral and political grounds to colonize developing countries, yet they can expand their democratic model in countries that have an authoritarian rule. o ‘democratic peace’ thesis: democratic political systems do not wage war against each other (thesis that has generated controversy) > democratic rules are accountable and they also accepted the cultural requirement of democracy to either collaborate or search for a common ground with opponents. • Limits and problems o global powers and medium-size powers are not always interested in supporting democracy; they may even favor authoritarian regimes in allied countries (China, Russia) o there is no (yet?) ‘right to democracy’ in international law, nor a right/duty to intervene in non-democratic countries to introduce democracy and protect human rights o evaluation of support initiatives has been scarce and not always positive. Factors emerging inside transition regimes notably tend to be much more relevant than external support in achieving democratization o not all actors aspiring to democracy in authoritarian regimes actually would like to realize a Western-type of democracy. A directorial system is a system of government in which the executive power is split among a select number of individuals who are, or de facto are, equals. The sole country now using this form of government is Switzerland[3] (and to a lesser extent, San Marino), where directories rule all levels of administration, federal, cantonal and municipal. The Swiss Federal Councilis elected by the Parliament for four years (its members cannot be dismissed), and is composed of seven members, among whom one is president and one is vice-president on a rotating basis, although these positions are symbolic in normal circumstances. There is no relationship of confidence between Parliament and the Federal Council. It is a shared system of government that reflects and represents the heterogeneity and multiethnicity of the Swiss people. Direct popular elections are used at the local level. Case of Switzerland: • The executive (Federal Council) consists of seven individuals who are elected individually by parliament for the entire term of parliament • The federal president is head of government and head of state on a rotation basis • The government is not politically accountable to parliament Semi-presidential government Arrangement in which an elected president co-exists with a separately elected prime minister and legislature. Cases: Austria, Bulgaria, Finland, France, Ireland, Poland, South Korea, Taiwan, etc. A political regime is considered semi-presidential if the constitution which established it combines three elements: 1. the president of the republic is elected by universal suffrage; 2. he possesses quite considerable powers; 3. he has opposite him, however, a prime minister and ministers who possess executive and governmental power and can stay in office only if the parliament does not show its opposition to them. Confidence: juridical way to define the trust of parliament towards the executive being in office. Vote of confidence: Parliament (or one of its chambers) officially votes to show its support for the executive. It is usually required (by constitutions) for the executive to enter and remain in office. In reality, there exist fairly different semi-presidential governments. Not only among countries, but also within them. This implies that under the same constitutional provisions, presidents, parliaments, governments may differ in what the previous experiences have shown as for the relations between the bodies. Across countries we have different ways through which semi presidential model is practiced and organized (eg. Ireland – Portugal) Parliamentary governments Arrangement in which the executive emerges from the legislature (most often in the form of a coalition) and remains accountable to it, and must maintain a working legislative majority in order to remain in office. Fused powers setting model, where the executive is formed WITHIN and BY parliament (or at least one house), government works as long as it has the confidence of parliament. This means it is accountable NOT to voters, BUT it is accountable to voters representatives, members of parliament voted by voters. This is the most common form of government in democratic systems. Cases: Australia, Canada, Germany, India, Italy, Malaysia, Spain, Sweden, UK, etc. • head of government ≠ head of state • head of state indirectly elected or hereditary monarch; she/he may dissolve parliament (usually after government’s request) • head of government either elected or appointed, usually by head of state. COMPARING EXECUTIVES LEGISLATURES Glossary Legislature: Multi-member representative (collective) body which considers public issues and accepts, amends or rejects proposals for new laws and policies (Hague et al. 2019, 142). Legislative bodies in contemporary democracies are (mostly) elective. They may be designated by a variety of terms, such as: ... Assembly: a group of people gathered for some purpose (very brad term). It also applies to any representative body, even without law- making powers (e.g. UN General Assembly). As for legislatures, it usually designates one chamber or a single- chamber legislature. Parliament: collective term designating the set of law-making bodies of a constitutional system. Typical term in parliamentary governments, where the executive is accountable to parliament (fused-powers settings). Usually made up pf two or more chambers. Congress: typical definition of a parliament in a federal and presidential setting (separation of powers: parliament and president are selected distinctly) Local law-making or representative bodies may be called ‘councils’, ‘assemblies’, or else. Functions Representation • legislatures represent (=make present) people/the nation. This is the most ancient of parliamentary functions. MPs, though, act as trustees and not as delegates, they perform functions in place of people. Direct procedures exist (referendums), yet in most cases representatives act on behalf of citizens. • legislatures act as conduits of information allowing local- level demands to be heard by the central government and policies and actions of central government to be explained to citizens (linkage). • the presence of political minorities in legislature is a guarantee of democratic legitimization of the political system (legitimation). • legislatures serve as public forums of debate, notably those with limited direct control over the policy-making process, which includes most non-democratic systems (deliberation) o Hearings: o Policy evaluation: Parliamentary Control of the Administration PCA Obviously, this is a function typically exercised by minorities, those who do not govern and represent the opposition as they must not be allies of the government members. STRUCTURE • Unicameral and bicameral parliament: there is one or there are two chambers in a legislature. • Unicameral are typical of unitary states (Sweden, Portugal, Greece), while bicameral of federal or regional states (Canada, Brazil, Spain, Italy...). In federal systems the primary task of legislatures is to represent territorial differences. • Chambers of a bicameral parliament usually have different constituencies (all citizens for the lower house, territories for he upper one – US and French Senate). Number of houses: comparing upper chambers • Weak or ‘asymmetric’ bicameralism arises when the lower chamber dominates the upper, providing the primary focus for government accountability. • Strong or ‘symmetric’ bicameralism occurs when the two chambers are more balanced, as in federations with presidential executives Size: great variety. (‘Full-time’ and ‘half-time’ parliaments) Hierarchical structures and internal decision-making There exist legislatures in which internal structures (chairman, deputy chairpersons, etc.) are distributed to all (relevant) political groups and others where there is the rule of the winner-takes-all (USA). Committee: A group of legislators assigned to look in detail at proposals for new laws • In committees bills and amendments are debated and voted, coalitions may be formed. • Great variety as for permanency, expertise, specialization. Committee-based legislature: one where most work takes place in committees, where members transform bills into laws, conducting hearings, and scrutinizing the executive. Plenary session: A meeting of the entire legislature, as distinct from committee meetings Assessing legislature’s power Autonomy of the parliamentary institution as a whole • Fused-powers settings: o a hierarchical relationship legislature- executive, yet this reduces the autonomy and independent policy influence of a legislature o Usually, party leaders and party faction leaders sit in the executive; their followers in parliament need to be loyal. ►► legislatures as arenas (Polsby 1975) more engaged in the linkage and oversight functions with little policy influence, controlled by government. • Separation-of-powers settings: o the selection of legislature and executive are separate, no need for a partisan link between the two o the executive cannot dismiss the legislature o the legislature “has the potential to play an influential role in the policy-making process”, it is a ‘transformative’ institution with a high degree of direct policy-making influence. Autonomy of the legislature’s members individually • Fundamental variables affecting the ability of MPs to be candidate to re-election with their party’s support [if the election and re- election is ‘controlled’ by her/his party, the autonomy of an MP is hindered] : o organization of parties (candidate selection) o electoral systems In other words: • the greater the party leadership’s control over a member’s re- election, the lower is the member’s autonomy (...) • the more centralized a political party, the fewer opportunities there are for independent decision-making by members • he more a party group in the legislature is controlled by the party leadership, the lower is the members’ autonomy. Conclusion The combination of individual and institutional autonomy defines the extent to which a legislature can effectively shape the policy process and help to determine legislative outcomes. The relation with the executive and political parties “create the broad structural constraints” of this. There is no ‘best’ form or type of legislature EXECUTIVES Glossary Executive: “all those organizations and procedures which coordinate central government policies, and act as the final arbiters of conflict between different parts of the government machine” (Rhodes 1995, 12). Cabinet: “A body consisting of the heads of the major government departments, sometimes known as a Council of Ministers. More important in parliamentary than in presidential systems “ Structure According to the internal working of the executive we may distinguish (Müller 2014): • presidential executive • prime ministerial government • ministerial government • coalition government PRESIDENTIAL EXECUTIVE ! Different presidents develop different styles of governing ! PRIME MINISTERIAL EXECUTIVE PM is the dominant figure, dealing directly with individual members: • decides policy across all issue areas in which he/she takes an interest • decides key issues • defines a governing ethos or ideology which generates predictable solutions to most policy problems Cases and examples on slides MINISTERIAL EXECUTIVE • individual ministers operate with little direction from the PM. • cabinet ratifies decisions. • ministers largely responsible for their own competence and do not interfere in other ministers’ ones. COALITION EXECUTIVE Arrangement in which no single political party holds a majority, and the government is formed through an agreement involving two or more parties which divide government posts between them. The role of the head of government is to keep the coalition more than providing guidance or leadership. One dominant party + electoral alliance -> close to prime ministerial government Coalition with equal partners + leaders sitting in the cabinet -> more balanced executive Executives in Western Europe, 1945-99 (MINORITY CABINETS are a standard feature in European politics) o local development The structure of local government • Local government autonomy has various elements and factors (Ladner et al. 2016, 323-4): o legal and constitutional bases; top-down controls > hierarchical, constitutional limits imposed by the state o policymaking and organizational capacity: tax revenues, financial autonomy, interest mediation; o influence exerted over higher levels of government. Regions Regional states: There exists (legislative and/or executive) dispersion of power toward regions, set in the constitution. Regional authorities, however, do not take part in state legislative and policy decision-making. They are bot sovereign, there are autonomous in a defined area of competence Regional government: “middle-level government in unitary states that takes place below the national level and above the local and county levels”. (Hague et al. 2019, 183) • According to constitutional settings, regional authorities may : o enjoy law-making power o be consulted on matters falling within their domains of competence and propose state legislation o sign agreements with other regions o in their own matters of competence, exercise powers over local authorities. Federal states Federal system: “sovereignty is shared between two or more levels of government, each with independent powers and responsibilities.” Federation: “a political system that puts federalism into practice” • Common features in most federations (Watts 2013, 25): o existence of at least 2 layers of government, each acting directly on its citizens o formal, constitutional distribution of legislative and executive authority and allocation of revenue sources o distinct regional views are represented in federal policy-making institutions o a written constitution not unilaterally amendable o mechanisms for solving intergovernmental conflicts (courts, second chamber, etc.) and facilitating collaboration The difference between unitary and federal systems is defined by the allocation of sovereignty: in the former there is a single ultimate source of power and authority, while in federal states such ownership is not exclusive to one body alone. This principle is also observed in states that are not formally federal (so called quasi-federal) but allocate powers to territorial entities with do not own any sort of sovereignty. “neither the federal nor the constituent units are constitutionally subordinate to the other (i.e. each has sovereign powers derived from the constitution that is not unilaterally amendable)” (Watts 2013, 22). ‘Residual powers’ usually allocated to federal units. Ex: German Constitution, art. 30: «Except as otherwise provided or permitted by this Basic Law, the exercise of state powers and the discharge of state functions is a matter for the Länder». Residual powers are all those that might be taken up by institutions and governmental bodies even if not mentioned in the constitution. In federal states they are managed by federal units. • Every federal states adopts its own model, yet political scientists identify two main types of federalism: o Cooperative federalism: “The layers are intermingled and it is difficult always to see who has ultimate responsibility”. The federal units carry out decision taken by central governments and present autonomy in some areas. There is not clear cut distinction of competences. In this type of federalism the two levels of government have to agree on decisions, making negotiation a basic feature of the decision making process (interdependence). o Dual federalism: “National and local levels of government function independently from one another, with separate responsibilities”. Differently from cooperative federalism, here the two levels of government are independent according to the principle of non-interference. Example: the Communities of Belgium Art. 35: “The federal authority only has competences in the matters that are formally assigned to it by the Constitution and the laws passed by virtue of the Constitution itself. The Communities and the Regions, each in its own field of concern, have competences for the other matters, under the conditions and in the terms stipulated by the law.” Confederation: looser form of a federation, consisting of a union of states with more powers left in the hands of the constituent members. Few states actually identify themselves as confederation because of some discrepancies with the definition of federation. Such states are usually the result of a long process of merging of formerly independent states which agree to pass sovereignty to a central authority o some matters and keep their own sovereignty on others. Even those existing confederations (such as Switzerland) are becoming more and more similar to proper federal states, strengthening the authority of the central power. Art. 3 Swiss Constitution: «The Cantons are sovereign except to the extent that their sovereignty is limited by the Federal Constitution. They exercise all rights that are not vested in the Confederation.» Asymmetry Asymmetric sub-national government: the phenomenon of states (or regions) within a federation (or a regional state) having unequal levels of power and influence due to size, wealth, and other factors. The main motivation behind this has to do with cultural and geographical matters; where there are clear differentiations of language, history, traditions, ethnicity etc. usually have more independence than those close/similar to the mainland state. Examples: Isle of Man (UK), Farøe Islands (Denmark), Puerto Rico (USA), Açores Islands (Portugal), French overseas territories. Italian Constitution, Art. 116 (1): “Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Sardinia, Sicily, Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol and Valle d’Aosta/Vallée d’Aoste have special forms and conditions of autonomy pursuant to the special statutes adopted by constitutional law.” DISPERSION OF POWER Definitions Processes of dispersion of power (Hague et al. 2016, 184): Delegation and devolution also referred to as ‘decentralization’: transfer of powers, functions, resources to sub-state authorities. Principles and reasons of dispersion of power There are various historical, political, and economic reasons for the existence of local and regional authorities and for the transfer to them of competences and power from national governments. Moreover, there are different basic principles according to which powers and tasks are shared between governmental layers. Subsidiarity: The principle that no task should be performed by a larger and more complex organization if it can be executed as well by a smaller, simpler body. Treaty on European Union – Art. 5 no.3 : “Under the principle of subsidiarity, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Union shall act only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, either at central level or at regional and local level, but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level.” 20th-century democratic state-building New or re-built states were born as decentralized, regional, or federal systems whenever political elites or foreign powers aimed to strengthen pluralism and dismantle previously authoritarian centralized states (local freedoms were previously abolished in order to prevent opposition forces to gain power). Examples: Italy (1948); Germany (1949); Spain (1977-82); some former British colonies in Africa (1960s); former Communist European countries (after 1990).