POLI 359 Introduction to Comparative Politics Fall 2024 PDF

*University of Calgary Fall Semester 2024 Professor: Mark Machachek Email: POLI 359 Introduction to Comparative Politics Topic 1 The Logic of Comparison: ○ Comparison helps to establish understanding, explanation, order and meanings to our complex world...

*University of Calgary Fall Semester 2024 Professor: Mark Machachek Email: POLI 359 Introduction to Comparative Politics Topic 1 The Logic of Comparison: ○ Comparison helps to establish understanding, explanation, order and meanings to our complex world Root facts in isolation mean nothing We use concepts and theories to understand this political world You can reframe old questions anew (questions pre COVID can be refocused as questions post COVID) ○ Comparative Politics: the systematic comparison of cases, variables and/or meanings in relation to politics and power relations Employs systematic comparison and seeks generalizations beyond the specific Your idea can travel to other places (e.g: concepts of colonialism, idea, time etc can all travel) When things are said in relative terms is when we get meaning (e.g: describing someone without using relative terms is hard, height is a relative concept which has been imbued in meaning) We want to understand HOW a causal relationship happened (Statisticians miss this) Qualitative Understanding: you get into the nitty gritty but you are only focusing on a single case  We are interested in interpretivist type of work (e.g: what does BLM mean for civil rights in America) ○ This is where logic wins the game, can’t really measure The Study of Comparative Politics: ○ A Primary sub - field of political science ○ A relatively young discipline ○ A western centric field of study ○ Seeks to establish arguments around causation and/ or meaning about particular political phenomena Demonstrating causation is the ultimate goal in Political Science A comparative study involves: ○ I. Observation & question formation Research and analysis should be pursued around a question ○ II. Conceptual and theoretical formulation What are we looking at Don't just make a claim but engage in conceptualisation ○ Example: “What is this a case of” A Concept is something that you are trying to capture (an idea of something), Concepts are usually are not directly tangible Theory is more about how things relate to other things We are interested in finding the relation between things Example: What does BLM mean for democracy within the Western World Example: is this democratization, is this international law etc ○ we have to be very clear about our concepts (Jordan Peterson skips actual questions by opening up the conceptualisation) ○ III. Methodological development Methodology is how we go about learning what we want to know ○ IV. Testing of hypothesis using the specified comparative methods Using Theory and applying theory to the empirical world ○ V. Findings and thesis formulation Questions of Comparative Politics: Asking When, Where and How? ○ Asking questions beyond when, where and who? This is the easy stuff to find out  ○ Interested in what (identify explanatory variables or outcomes), why (try to establish some sort of causal relationships) and how (what is the meat of this relationship) questions Whats and Whys can be used via Quantitative Analysis but Small Single Case studies are best to answer the how questions You want to pursue open ended questions Example: what were the causes of the coup belt in Eastern or Central Africa Avoid assuming answers: Pose your question as “Electoral Impact of Marijuana for the Liberals” as opposed to, “Why did marijuana laws lead to electoral success for the liberals” and keep questions open ended Avoid leading questions All findings are tentative (we are in the business of analysis, not faith and are ideas have to be open to potential falsification) Comparativists focus on the bigger provocative questions ○ Pursue open ended questions and avoid leading questions We have to interpret facts, they do not speak for themselves Real comparativists focus on questions they truly are interested in Issues of Focus in Comparative Politics: ○ Regime types, Government Institutions and processes, Government Policies, State - market - society - relations, Economic outcomes, Identity Politics, Ideology, Human Rights, Contentious Politics, International Relations ○ Ideational factors are the fastest growing area of study ○ Identity Politics: any politics surrounding identity Key tools for Comparative Politics: ○ Concepts: Abstract Ideas use to make sense of, organize and think about our world We do nots see concepts, we create them (constructivist) or discover them (positivist) ○ Conceptualisation: The process of creating a concept ○ Indicators: empirical features that indicate and unobservable concept Voting every election is a indicator for democracy ○ Operationalisation: the process of making a concept observable through the assignment of indicators Concepts: ○ Concepts range from very general to very specific  ○ We use conceptual ladders to organize our concepts ○ Giovanni Satori’s ladder of abstraction This is how we organize our concepts, we start super broad and the more general, the higher order concept and the more distinctive terms given, the lower it goes (e.g: regime types, sub regimes and so and so) We want to find a balance when creating our concepts, we do not want to be too abstract ○ Don't want to be too high where its useless and too low where its top descriptive ○ We want our concepts to travel beyomd 1 situation: conceptual travel The specificity or generality of a concept determines the reach of the phenomena it is meant to represent We want our concepts to travel but want to avoid conceptual stretching Don't apply concepts that do not fit to the concepts (e.g: Left of Center people being called Communists v Right of Center people being called Fascists) Trudeau can't be called a Fascist or Communist for invoking the Emergency Act Variable: the causes/ outcomes we are trying to identify and/or measure ○ Synonymous with factor ○ Independent Variable (X): The cause ○ Dependent Variable (Y): The effect of outcome Y is the result of X ○ We are interested in variation and similarities between causes Variation: differences between cases Causality: A causal relationship of 2 or more factors Correlation: A non - causal relationshipl ○ If the quality of one thing goes up, the quality of another thing goes up and down ○ There is a correlation between ice cream sales and murder rates But you cannot say that ice cream sales cause murder Very rare to demonstrate causality compared to correlation For years we assumed that increased democratization brought about economic growth ○ That is not the case, there is no clear causal relationship here ○ Further democratization has resulted in negative economic growth in some places and some autocracies are well developed  ○ Finding causation is a holy grail but difficult We can confuse causation with a lot of stuff We should avoid conflating arguments (e.g: Country becomes stable with more order) Reverse Causality: Some argue that increased economic growth is conducive to democratisation (Y actually causes X) ○ This is correlation in a different way Endogeneity Problem: This is where variables cause each other (like the chicken and the egg problem) ○ There is a causal relationship between democratization and economic growth but we cannot ping what causes what Intervening variable: X causes Y but that is indirect (Poorer kids score less in school) ○ Intervening variable was the lack of food Omitted Variable Problem: There is a variable in the relationship but we do not know what it is (Omitted variable in the Ice cream sales and murder problem was the hotter weather; easier to kill and sell ice cream in this weather) Necessary and Sufficient conditions Key tools for comparative politics: ○ Case: a basic unit of analysis (case study analysis can be either cross case or within case) You can have 1 case and a 100 different Observations of the case Case is the phenomenon or directly related to the phenomenon we are dealing with Can be a situation (e.g: need not be a country, can be a group of people or territory or city) You can have multiple observation of a case (Can have the case of Canada in 1920 v 2024, two separate cases with multiple observation of the case) ○ Comparativists engage in case studies, small N studies (Single Case) and large N studies May not be comparative but part of a comparative enterprise ○ Level of analysis: The level (individual, institutional, societal, international) at which observations and comparisons are made Avoid comparing two different things/ two different levels of analysis  Example: Dont compare the Conservative Party to Trudeau Politics: the practices and processes of power relations Iron Law of Oligarchy: some form of hierarchy is to be formed in any system DO NOT BE DEFINITIVE The Diffusion Theory: happens in geographically specific regions, something spreads more quickly and effectively The Domino Theory: What happens in one place is more likely to happen in similar circumstances in other places We have to be very careful in how we are conceptualizing the issues we are looking at ○ Determining which factors are key is essential You can be involved in the comparative enterprise even though you are not comparing in one case only (can apply it to a similar case, deviant cases etc) ○ Can discover a lot of concepts through a study of the Coup Belt Coup Belt in West Africa: Started in 2020 Coup: Extrajudicial takeover of power (usually extra- democratic, illegal and unconstitutional) Takeover by military or some civilian or interest group Began in Mali, continued in other countries like Guinea, Burkina Faso etc Counter Factualist: Comparison of one situation with a comparison of the situation if something would have happened ○ Example: What if Trudeau did not invoke the Emergencies Act on the Convoy in 2022 ○ Used by a lot of Political Scientists ○ DO NOT DO COUNTERFACTUALS IN PAPERS SEEN BY MARK MACHACHEK We have seen a re - politicization of traditional authority in Africa ○ Use a single case study to see why this happened ○ Use the findings to compose a theory across wider concepts ○ Exploring a single case to find concepts Subfields of Political Science: ○ Comparative Politics, Political Philosophy and International Relations Comparative is just the study of methodology of political science Topic 2: Theory and Method  Concepts help us order the world, theory helps us understand how these things relate ○ Falsifiability: We have to be open to the fact that our theories are falsifiable because they are not directly observable ○ If a theory is not falsifiable, we enter the realm of faith (e.g: Conspiracy Theory) ○ Naomi Klein refers to this as Conspiracy Culture WE WILL NEVER FULLY GRASP THE HARD SCIENCES OR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES Theory: Concepts always come with Theory ○ A simplification of the world or a particular phenomena to help understand it Theories abstract from the specific Theories have to be applicable to other places ○ General set of assumptions and claims ○ Theories abstract from the specific to the general ○ Theories must be falsifiable ○ Theories must focus on how things work or relate to other things Example: Concept of violence vs the theory of violent crime being more present in democratic states ○ Theories change and/or end with empirical critiques or theoretical critiques Example: Empirical evidence has disproved the theory that the 2020 US Election was fraudulent Which theory is more realistic based on the series of events ○ Theories establish ‘scope conditions’ ○ Some Theory are bigger leaps than others Conceptualisation is fun but it is not easy ○ Notion of race (notion) and then how racism (concept) is related to other things (theory) Race in Brazil means different things compared to Canada or Southern USA NOTIONS AND IDEAS ARE NEVER STATIC At best, we have theories that come close to 100% in political science  There has been a lot of response to Samuel Huntington's clash of civilisation (differences in the post war era will be based on cultural difference) Liberal Democracy Theory: No two democracies have gone to war with one another Theoretical Issue: Structure and Agency ○ Reasons for why Russia went into Ukraine could be very different ○ One can have an agency based or a structurally based explanation New Institutionalist Theory: Focus on how institutions explain political outcomes ○ A ‘middle range’ group of theories prominent in comparative politics ○ These approaches differ in how they view institutions impacting outcomes and the different sets of institutions they focus on ○ Hall and Taylors 1996 Article: Political Science and the three new Institutionalisms Rational Choice Institutionalism: Informed by rational choice theory ○ Assumes Actors are rational, strategic actors geared towards their own self interest ○ Focuses on the ways that institutions guide rational behaviors through institutional rules and incentives ○ The focus is on institutional configurations and their incentive structures regarding rational actors and their choices Historical Institutionalism: Focuses on the historical evolution of institutions that lead towards path dependence ○ Emphasis on ‘Path Dependence’: early institutional configurations create lasting institutional structures that are difficult to change Institutions are understood as being static or sticky ○ Understand institutional change with reference to ‘critical junctures’: Critical junctures are critical historical moments with a lasting impact Sociological Institutionalism: Informed by Sociological Theory ○ Assumes actors are socialized and shaped by cultural norms ○ Focuses on the role of informal institutions like culture in shaping political outcomes  ○ Actors assumed to follow a logic of appropriateness as opposed to the logic of rationality followed by RCI theorists Methods: The Techniques employed to collect information Methodology: The means through which comparative analysis is employed ○ Quant, Qual and Interpretivism : distinction needed because qualitative analysis has recently been pulled into the logic of quantitative analysis Quantitative theories based on Foundationalist Qualitative theories based on Anti Foundationalist ○ Europes a leader in Interpretivism, Canada straddles between Quantitative and Qualitative and American Qualitative Science sits firmly on Quantitative ○ Behavioral Revolution: take Quant and apply it to Qual so they share the same ontological foundations and assumptions Stats was the main standard during the behavioral revolution Constructivists pushed back against these in the 1980s Your assumption of the foundation of the world tends to inform your epistemology Constructivism found the pretensions to be natural scientists to be pretentious, we are part of the social world and we can't bring ourselves apart of the social world so we should approach it differently ○ They differ ○ Ontology: Study of the state of being and what something us How we understand the nature of the world We bastardize this in social science There are many different philosophies on what exists in the world We refer to the Foundationalists and the Anti - Foundationalist ○ Are we discovering pre existing laws that separate from our cognition (Foundationalist) or are we creating things to capture certain ideas and in that way, we manifest them in our social construct (Anti Foundationalist)  Is power pre - existing or have we interpreted the notion of power ○ Epistemology: Philosophy of knowledge Debate on knowledge production and how we come to know things Pistemologies can be divided into positivism and post - positivism We should base everything we do in empiricism and empiricism only Quantitative Methodology: Studies a lot of cases (Large - N studies) ○ Determine correlation or causal relationships through statistical analysis ○ Involves experiments using statistical methods and computer programs ○ Strengths: Higher generalisability of findings (with more cases), Mitigation of bias (not unique to this methodology though), Determine causality with the correlation coefficient (can say with a certain degree of certainty that there is a relation between 2 variables), can only experiment with quantitative analysis (How reflective are those experiments in reality?) ○ Weaknesses: Cannot establish nature of relationship (has wide breath but lacks depth), lack of appreciation for potential causal mechanism A lot of people use counterfactual ○ StatsCan is a great source, used by a lot of people Methods include: conducting surveys/polls, use of pre - existing statistics or data surveys, etc Qualitative Methodology: Studies single or few cases (Small - N studies) (Good Qualitative studies have a maximum of 10 cases, usually 2 - 3 cases) ○ Aims for in depth description and understanding Getting into the nitty gritty of various relationships ○ Involves contextual narratives (vs statistical presentation) and the development of new theories ○ Weaknesses: Hard to get interviews, not very generalisable ○ Strength: Good for looking at nature of relationships (concepts are discovered here), Identifying causal mechanisms, providing in depth analysis and detail ○ Marsh and Stoker: Extracting new ideas at close range, Prone to biases  Methods Include: Interviews (structured, semi structured, open interviews), field observations, participant observations (acting as though you are part of the group), analysis of text reports etc Complementary Methodologies: ○ The quant - qual debate continues ○ Some argue that methodological approaches are complementary: Akin to divisions of labor: Statisticians and Interpretivism will work together to conduct research Case studies will refer to wider quantitative studies or vice versa Way more common today amongst the positivist qualitative analysis There are still trade offs when doing this (e.g: ability to explore with ability to grow is a trade off) ○ Mixed Method approaches: combining quantitative and qualitative approaches Interpretevist Methodologies: ○ Focuses on meaning and Interpretation (vs causation) ○ Offers theoretically - informed interpretation of phenomena ○ Keiko Verbrecht : pulled quantitative to qualitative analysis Cornerstone reading of comparative methodology Constructivists pushed back and said that Empiricism is good but there is so much it can't explain (Can you quantify what BLM means in the United States) Ontology and Epistemology Interpretivism still is scientific ○ Still has to be systematic: Cannot pull out facts from the wazoo ○ Interpretivism believe we are part of the social world, creating concepts and interpreting stuff so we can be biased we do not need to claim to be unbiased Methodological challenges: ○ Bias: The question you are asked can be biased There is been a reemergence in terms of race realism (has a racist bias)  All questions we asked are internally biased (BIAS CAN NEVER BE FULLY ELIMINATED, QUANTITATIVES CAN TRY TO ELIMINATE BUT WONT WORK 100%) ○ Selection Bias: If we choose a certain group and then we wanna generalize a larger group (Example: Asking only White People to talk about minority issues) Landlines are a form of selection bias Random sampling is the best way to mitigate creative bias ○ Measurement Error (Episodic or systemic) and measurement validity Every Single elections have episodic errors Systemic errors can cause major problems though Measurement Validity: To what degree do your indicators try to capture what you are trying to measure Many democracy studies do the ordinal yes or no (whether elections are held or not), but that puts Canada in the same category as Russia ○ Reliability and replicability Only way to determine if ones findings are reliable, is if they can be replicated Interviews are typed out and traceable ○ Access to Information Example: cannot interview Israelis MK, Saudis or Chinese to study their misdeeds lol Universities can refuse to sponsor your work if they deem it a danger to you Most Similar Systems Design (MSSD) ○ Compares similar cases with distinct outcomes ○ Searches for variations/differences to explain the distinct outcomes ○ Similarities help to rule out shared factors and identify variations as potential sources of causes Most Different Systems Design (MDSD) ○ Compares distinct cases with similar outcomes  ○ Searches for similarities to explain similar outcomes ○ Differences help to rule out factors as potential sources of the similar outcomes Topic 3: The State: ○ A ‘political community’ Varying forms of ‘statehood’ or ‘stateness’ throughout Similarities and differences between states Even the notion of sovereignty cannot be fully pinned down Highest on Sartoris ladder of abstraction ○ The modern state: a particular – universal – mode of political organization ○ The highest authority and most important political organization We have particular forms of states, we have pre - modern forms of states and modern forms of states ○ Depicts conceptual study of the state ○ Many pre modern of states: Greek City States, African Kingdoms like Buganda etc. various forms of political organization Modern States will not last forever ○ Modern State System is a Universal form of political organizations There is no consensus on the constituting features of the modern state: ○ Textbook: “…characterized by centralized control of the use of force, bureaucratic organization and the provision of a number of public goods” ○ Max Weber: “…political organization with a centralized government that maintains the monopoly of the legitimate use of force within a certain geographic territory” Often the most cited definition of the State ○ The state is a product of history and politics and it will change, no answers about that Modern State Characteristics: ○ Territory, Population, Government, Monopoly on the use of force (challenges can come from within and without), Centralized, authority, Provision of public goods,  Bureaucracy (Weak States tend to have weaker bureaucracy)(Every State has bureaucracy)(You cannot apply state based standards to anything if you lack bureaucracy), Impersonality (Institutions and Administration should not change with a change in government), Rule of Law (Not a necessary component in a non democratic state, means that everyone is subject before the law), Recognition (e.g: If Russia does not recognise Ukraine, then Ukraine has a very big problem), Capacity to engage with other states (part of the international laws on the rights of the state in the 1933 Montevideo Convention, there are non state political units that have this capacity like Taiwan and Kosovo), Sovereignty (de jure and de facto) Underlined words are the most important indicators Public Goods are non excludable (you can't exclude somebody from it) and non rivalrous (Me using streetlight does not take away other people from using a streetlight) We do not want markets to provide public goods (they either won’t or wont be up to a certain standard) ○ E.g: We have neglected Calgary’s Public Transit and Uber is filling up that gap ○ Examples of Nation - State (not a lot exist in the modern world): Japan, Israel (quintessential nation state) State Function, Capacity and Strength ○ Functions Include: Defense, Policing and controlling violence, Resource mobilization (taxation), Rule of law (major issue in certain Canadian cities like Red Deer), Public goods, Administrative roles, Correcting for market failures (State is supposed to soften the blow with regards to market failures, we don't want to eliminate the market) Not an exhaustive list, but these are the major functions of a state Taxation began to fund the French Military during the French revolution Began to go into common practice during WW1 (how will we provide policing, fire services and defense without taxes)  State capacity: the ability of the state to achieve such objectives 4 Basic forms of State Capacity: Measured via the Fragile State Index It measures economic, political and social factors to measure and analyze state strength and state fragility Indicators are cohesion indicators, economic indicators, political indicators, social indicators, cross - cutting indicators ○ Security apparatus, levels of economic decline, emigration and brain drain, human rights compliance, demographic pressures, refugees, rule of law and state legitimacy are examples of actual indicators Ranking of the worlds most fragile state: Somalia, Yemen, South Sudan, Ethiopia, Myanmar [Look this up] Ranking the world's least fragile state: Norway, Iceland, Finland, New Zealand, Canada, Luxembourg, Sweden [Look this up] US is in 39th Place, we are doing better than the USA ○ Extractive Capacity: ability to mobilize resources (e.g: taxation) We need it to do all the others ○ Steering Capacity: To what extent can the State steer economic development ○ Legitimacy Capacity: To what extent can the state facilitate the notion of nationalism or unity (Canada faces legitimacy issues from Wexit and Quebec) ○ Coercive Capacity: To what extent can we facilitate the rule of law and defend itself (external and internal) Pre Modern States: ○ 9th – 15th/16th century European feudalism Peace of Westphalia and the two treaties of Westphalia saw the birth of the modern state system Feudalism lacked a centralisation of authority and a monopoly on the use of the force (forms of authority revolved between nobles and the church and shit) Mercantilism and Feudalism led to Europe being the dark continent of conflict  Modern State System did develop in tandem with Capitalism ○ Various pre-colonial systems across the Global South (Former Colonies) Patterns across the Americas, Middle East, Asia and Africa Various degrees of statehood with some level of centralisation in the olmust society, Mayan empire had some level of statehood in South America Most advanced societies in the middle east contained city states Ming Dynasty in China Asante Empire and Zulu Empire in Africa, continent had limited political organisation prior to colonisation A History of the Modern State ○ 1648 Peace of Westphalia In response to the 30 years war Did Not become territorial or citizen based overnight First major step towards territorial authority (legal sovereignty) Notion of full sovereignty developed over generations ○ The French Revolution Regular taxation came into place during a time (Canada adopted regular taxation during WW1) Started the notion of regular taxation to feed into the state capacity Establishment and maintenance of a modern civilian army was also a result of the French Revolution ○ 1933 Montevideo Convention on the rights and duties of the State Much more modern convention, can be read as a treaty (a convention, charter, covenant etc is a treaty) Signed only by 20 ish states but has become recognised by international customary law which means applicable to all states at all time Reiterates notion of sovereignty (e.g: non intervention) ○ Colonialism universalised the European State Came before French Revolution and Montevideo convention  Europes has gone through generations of conflicts to organically develop a modern state systems and notion of sovereignty (Napoleonic Wars and 30 years war was brutal) Each conflict further solidified the notion of sovereignty (Organic process that occurred in Europe in particular) Europe does not have many weak and fragile states, these are common in the global south ○ Almost all fragile states have a history of being colonized ○ Pattern can also be seen in many First Nations in Canada Current debate is to the degree of the impact of colonialism Colonialism has not brought State Strength and Economic Development Because some countries have broken the mold, we cannot say colonialism is determinative Patterns of the Colonial State ○ Extractive (Example: King Leopold of Belgium) Resources Europe lacked were needed to feed into the Industrial System Railroads go from Interior to the coast to extract resources in Canada India has an inverse relation between India’s underdevelopment and British enrichment (Britain also sabotaged the Indian textile industry pre - independence) ○ Coercive Backed by Force with the threat of Force King Leopold of Belgium was very willing to use force ○ Autocratic ○ Cheap In the name of cultural preservation, some places were developed and others were not (development was attempted to do as cheaply as possible) ○ Exploitative: development for the colonizer Only towards the later stage of colonization was economic concessions given to the colonies  ○ Entrenchment of European Institutions Not ONLY the European State which was imposed on pre existing units Introduction of the capitalist market system ○ Politicization of identities Happed often, not always During the age of later European Colonisation, they were into chronology and measuring the heads of people and determine cultural groups Create a state around a group, give them an identity and place one group above each other (Example: Rwanda with Hutus and Tutsis) Legal Status was placed on certain cultural groups Example: What it means to Black in Brazil differs from what it means to be Black in America ○ Forms of Colonialism Direct Rule: French did this a lot, French administrators were placed in a country to do administration for them Indirect Rule: English did this a lot, go into an area and recognise a dominant group, put them in charge and give them some benefits (Example: British efforts to divide and conquer Uganda saw them place the Buganda people in charge) Settler Rule: Settler Colonialism is where decolonisation never happened, happens when the coloniser intends to depopulate the original population with its own people (Example: Canada, US, Australia, New Zealand, Parts of Argentina) Where there was some degree of semblance pre colonially with the notion of the European States, these places are doing better post colonially Colonial Legacies: The Post Colonial State ○ Weak States and Low Capacity ○ Failed States ○ Economic Underdevelopment ○ Conflict and Instability (Especially around particular ethnic groups)  ○ Corruption (Colonialism was also based on corrupt practices) Many Settler States Remain (Examples: Australia, Canada and New Zealand) Forms of State: Institutionalism has been a common method to determine the outcome of colonialism (Example: Historical Institutionalism used to study the impact of colonialism on economic development) ○ Conceptual categories based on state capacity and authority Weak states Failed states Strong states Resilient & fragile states ○ Conceptual categories based on state - market relations Capitalist/neoliberal state Welfare state: Still a market but the state plays a considerable role in the provision of public goods (Example: The Nordic States) Developmental state: Still Capitalist but they place a high level of protections over one particular industry Government might fund a particular industry and place heavy protectionist measures over it (Example: Tech Industry in South Korea) ○ This Insulates companies from foreign competition until they mature Communist state: We do not really have these in terms of state market relations (There are a few communists by name) Nepal or Vietnam are communist by name There is no independent market in a communist state, the state and market are indistinguishable ○ The Government controls the means of production State based involvement is based in market regulation and provision of public goods (Night Watchman States pull back on one of the two) ○ Conceptual categories based on regime type (State and Regime type are conceptually different)  Democratic state Autocratic state ○ A state can hold many different regime types States are static unlike regime types ○ Neo - Colonialism: Continuation of the Economic Relationship that was established during colonialism Extractive dynamics of the Global South can be traced to this ○ Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis have you thinking, where do you operationalise this State - Society Relations: Not a lot of definitive conclusions with regards to this ○ Society: The Set of Webs that connect people to each other; the space that is created by different overlapping social networks and institutions ○ Civil Society: voluntary associations, independent from the state and market, that actively seek to maintain or change the social, economic or political status quo Authoritarian regimes do not like civil society NGO’s, Church based Institutions etc ○ NGOs are your organizational manifestation of civil society Democratic States tend to have more civil society (they have to be strong) We tolerate civil society to a particular degree America and Canada have better civil society than North Korea ○ Both weak and strong states can be more or less responsive to civil society ○ Notion that there is a perfect separation between the state and private sector does not hold true in practice Example: NGO’s providing education in some state Civil Society provides some strong provisions in weak states (but not always the case) ○ We do not count stuff that does not play a political role in civil society (E.g: CFL not considered civil society) Theories of State Emergence: Different idea of the nature of state and what it does to society  ○ Political/conflict theories: The creation of the state was a reaction to war (based on conflict) European Coal and Steel Community of 1951 was a response to World War 2 (Steel and Coal was needed for conflict so its production was placed under one single supra - national authority) Look at the way conflict has played a role in driving states ○ Economic Theories: Many different economic theories Communism, Marxism and Socialism are examples of this The State Co - Emerged with capitalism in the post feudalism/ mercantilist system Part of the functioning of the state is response to correct market failure Look at the way economic forces have played a role in driving state creation ○ Cultural Theories: Some have argued that there are some culture that have been more conducive to the centralisation of powers than others (Similar Cultural theories of democratization exists) Culture is always changing Can be turned into a pretty racist arguments ○ Diffusion Theories: Idea that once a particular idea happens in one situation, the idea diffuses to others Applied to the coup belt in Eastern and Western Africa A lot of countries did not wilfully diffuse and adopt the state system (it was imposed on them unlike Turkey or Japan) Theories on the nature of state authority: These are more hypothetical and how we should understand how authority ought to be ○ Pluralism: Liberal preset, competing voices in society exist in an even playing field and compete in the marketplace of ideas for dominance there and the ones that have the most rationality are going to win out Criticism is that its not too much of an even playing field, money and structural development can play a role  Hard to facilitate an even playing field when Oil and Gas is competing with Student Debt ○ Socialism: Sub Category of Elitism, State System and Authority is based around some form of social, economic or political elite ○ Elitism: The State has been built around some economic or political elite (e.g: class based elites for the Marxists) ○ Corporatism: Even playing field between market, state based and lobby groups Institutionalized number of representatives and policy is developed from there (common in Europe) Exclusive in nature (Only some civil society or market actors) The International Labour Organisation is run in that way Representation is institutionalized but exclusive (TLDR) The Modern State Faces 6 existential developments ○ Political Integration ○ Globalization & economic integration ○ Secessionism and sub - state nationalism ○ Resurgence of traditional authority ○ Human centered ontology ○ The ‘hollowing out’ of the state (Jessop, 1990) Topic 4: Regimes ○ The type or form of governmental system in terms of its institutions and relations of power ○ Generally, there are two categories of regimes (democracies and non - democracies and numerous sub - categories) ‘Democracy’ and Democratic Regimes: ○ There is a lack of consensus regarding how to conceptualize and operationalise democracy  ○ A form of regime associated with ‘Rule of the People’ that signifies rights and liberties for citizens, including political rights to participate in elections and civil liberties such as freedom of speech ○ Procedural definitions: The minimal definition, we define democracy by the presence of regular elections and the degree of presence of civil and personal liberties ○ Substantive definitions: Includes basic stuff like freedom of the press, notions of real competition, ends focused, look at the more substantive elements Harder to measure and agree on Step down on Sartori’s ladder, more exclusive and distinctive Goods of Democracy ○ Peaceful transition of power ○ Constraints on authority (Liberty, Human Rights) ○ Political Representation and Participation ○ Accountability ○ Tolerance ○ Economic Growth???: We have no certainties between the relationship of democracy and economic growth There is no consensus on how to define a democracy Does Democracy Matter? (Gerring et al, 2022) ○ Gerring et al conducts a meta - analysis of democratic outcomes ○ Find positive outcomes related to human rights, quality of government, transparency, health, human development and trade ○ Find weak and null outcomes related to inequality, public spending and inflation ○ Concludes that findings for democratic outcomes are generally optimistic compared to autocratic regimes Inconclusive but says that democracy may have more beneficial of an economic outcome than we previously thought Generally optimistic or rather negligible about the outcomes of democracy Democracy & Economic Growth ○ The relationship has been long debated in Comparative Politics ○ Studies go back to the 1950s (Lipset, 1959) Analysts used to be convinced there was a positive relationship between democracy and economic growth We know surprisingly little about the relationship ○ Some argue there is an inverse relationship  ○ Some argue there is a negative relationship Samuel Huntington makes this argument, we should focus on economic growth under an Iron Fist and then democratize ○ Some argue that there are shared factors at play Other factors such as human capital which causes economic growth Others have argued that State Capacity is what matters; there is an important relationship between democracy and State Capacity (Hard to maintain political competition, civil and political rights etc with low state capacity) ○ Democracies have somewhat of a relationship with economic growth (Business Investment case for Democracy) One major issue in how studies differ is how we go about in conceptualizing democracy (Reverse causation argument) A History of Democracy ○ Democratic practices are found throughout history and the world Term literally translates to rule of the people ○ Term originally described governance of Greek City States ○ The American and French revolutions turned the historical tide for democracy Was that truly democratic as well (Example: Slaves and women could not vote and that would be considered undemocratic today) Considered the beginning of liberal democracy, part of the first major wave of democracy and institutionalisation of democracy ○ There have been certain forms of democratic ish accountability for a long time Clan members could overthrow certain Chieftains if they did not represent the will of the people Practices go way beyond Western centrism and the idea that they were born in Greece and Rome ○ Calling Democracy a Western Idea We stole a bunch of indigenous practices, put them together and called it democratic The Three Waves of Democratisation (Huntington, 1991) ○ First Wave: 1828 - 1936 Reverse Wave: 1922 - 1942 (Mass - Based totalitarian systems) Mussolini in Italy and Hitler in Germany Democratic backsliding or authoritarianistic can be called reverse wave  Slow wave of democratisation with limited criteria: judged just by procedural definitions (few civil liberties and presence of elections) Examples of Democracies at this time: France, Italy, Switzerland ○ Second Wave: 1943 - 1962 (decolonisation) Reverse Wave (1958 - 1975): Shifts to authoritarianism in Latin America Major democratic backsliding in Latin America USSR and USA start playing chess w Latin American politics which leads to more coups ○ They didn't care about democracy as much as ensuring their sphere of influence was in power ○ Examples are Augusto Pinochet in Chile and Jorge Vidella in Argentina ○ Countries like Turkey, Pakistan, Brazil, Peru and Nigeria also saw authorisation ○ Samuel Huntington claims one will want to establish order first after decolonisation (justification of consolidating stability first and then open up to democratisation) Problem was that rulers saw ruling with an iron fist benefited them and then they did not want to open them up ○ Democracy measures remain very low in Sub Saharan Africa Brought about democracy in countries like India, Burma and Israel ○ Third Wave: 1974 - Early 2000s (A Global Turn to democracy) Final Wave of Decolonisation Began with the Carnation Revolution in Portugal Saw Democratic reforms in Spain, Greece, Algeria, Lebanon, “Palestine” etc We have seen democratic backsliding and decline over the past 20 years According to Global Freedom House Index Scores Democracy is not a one way street Even the USA is not immune to democratic backsliding Autocracy always starts w a economic or stability justification ○ Ex Soviet States didnt democratise first because they wanted to promote unity first ○ Fourth Wave?: Arab Spring  Did not fully Democratise Maybe Tunisia had forward progress but did not lead to democratisation ○ A Causal Mechanism of diffusion theory is technological evolution Types of Democratic Regimes: Democracy with Adjectives: Adding too many adjectives can lead to conceptual stretching (China and Russia are not democracies) ○ Representative Democracy: Most Democracies are representative democracies ○ Constitutional Democracy: Most democracies fall under the umbrella of constitutional democracy Power limits are constitutionalised Constitutional Republic v Costitutional Monarchy (Canada v USA) ○ Multi Party Democracy v Single Party Democracy ○ Parliamentary Democracy ○ Presidential Democracy ○ Direct Democracy: Citizens play a maximum role as possible in making policy decisions Switzerland comes close to this as compared to other democracies, have a significant of referendum on policy issues ○ Participatory Democracy ○ Deliberative Democracy ○ Liberal Democracy Promotion of Individual and Civil Liberties ○ Social Democracy Massive Inequality is considered a problem to democracy ○ Consociational Democracy Democracy where competition is largely done based on cultural, regional and ethnic divides Can help to mitigate potential conflicts between different ethnics Can institutionalize differences and make them worse ○ Illiberal Democracy Measuring Democracy ○ Freedom House’s Global Freedom Scores: Out of 100 points, 40 points for political rights, 60 points for civil rights 100 ish indicators ○ Freedom of the Press, Political Parties etc ○ Canada’s Global Freedom Score in 2013 was 98 US Scored 83  All lowest scores are seen in the global south Sweden, Norway and Finland scored 100 Syria, South Sudan, Eritrea and Turkmenistan scored the lowest ○ We fell during COVID but so did every other country Produce freedom of the world report once a year ○ Varieties of Democracy: Freedom House has a bias towards Liberal Democracy Allows for 4 different types of democracy: Liberal Democracy based on civil and political rights Participatory Democracy based on citizen participation ○ Denmark, Norway and Switzerland Deliberative Democracy based off of broad based decision making Egalitarian Democracy based on access to resources and distribution of resources ○ Denmark, Norway and Sweden Electoral Democracy based off of procedural definition based on present elections ○ Switzerland, New Zealand and Denmark Highest Trying to veer away from the liberal bias of a lot of democratic measure No measure is perfect Few Countries dominate in all 5 measures: ○ The Economist Intelligence Unit: The Democracy Index Center Right Publication: Very Good for information on international politics Break countries into full (Example: Norway), flaw (Example: United States of America), hybrid (Example: Russia) and non democracies (Example: Saudi Arabia) using 60 indicators Measures civil rights, political participation, political pluralism Uses a Qualitiative Questionnaire with Questions scoring from o to 1 Condenses measurements out of 10 2022 Report: Norway, New Zealand, Iceland and Finland dominated ○ Vanhanen Index of Democracy Vanhanen takes measures of electoral competitiveness How would you operationalise electoral competitiveness for next election  Vanhanen measures competitiveness: the amount of votes for the non winning parties Vanhanen measures political inclusion: Voter turnout is used to measure political inclusion Example: NRM wins 86% of the vote in Uganda but people no like them Named after political analyst Tatto Vanhanen and been producing data since 1810 ○ Measures should be held with a grain of salt because measures of data collections Measures take different approach ○ Proxy Measure: A non direct measure that could imply a different concept Example: World Freedom Press Index by Reporters without Borders Used quite a bit as a proxy measure of civil liberties State Fragility Index and Corruption Perception Index can be used with other indexes Freedom in the World (Freedom House, 2022, 2023) ○ 80% of the world’s population live in partly/ not free countries Despite half of the world being considered democratic ○ 17 consecutive years of worldwide democratic decline ○ Last year, 35 countries experienced democratic decline while 34 countries experienced democratic improvement US Ranking has fallen further in democracy in key democratic indicators Attempted coup on January 6th tanked its score Fell from 5th Place to 62nd Place 10th year in a row that the US experienced a decline ○ Freedom of the Press has fallen massively across the world ○ The Pew Research Center: Non partisan think tank that provides information about public perception of democracy Found troubling findings about the decline of public confidence in democracy Alberta, Canada is included in this Regime Change: Democratization ○ Regime Change: any major change in regime type Example: Pierre Poilievre replacing Trudeau is not regime change You must see a significant change in institutions ○ Democratization: the process through which regimes become democratic  Includes democratic transition & Democratic Consolidation (Double turnover test) Democratic Consolidation: Democracy becomes much more institutionalized, the only game in town How do we operationalise consolidation: Double Turnover Test is used for this (have we seen the turnover of 2 different government peacefully) Have to be from 2 different parties Example: Brian Mulroney defeated Pierre Trudeau and replaced him, then died and his successor, Kim Campbell, was replaced by Jean Chretien. ○ Regime Change is not a one way street (Example: Military Coups in Africa) Often - times, a slight democratization is followed by further authorisation Theories of Democratisation: ○ Modernisation Theory ○ Political Culture Theory Political Opportunity Structure: Idea that there is always this sort of pressure for changes but timings and culture matters Example: Why was it in 2011 that Tunisia was able to change during democratization ○ Institutional Theory ○ Agency - based Theories: What types of strategies, mobilization and tactics were used towards democratization Individuals can be a agent too (Example: Nelson Mandela and the ANC in South Africa) The United Nations has been hugely influential in pushing for democratisation Authoritarianism & Authoritarian Regimes: Residual Concept (An Authoritarian regime is a non democratic regime) ○ A non - democratic regime ○ Strong hierarchy with closed process of decision making We want to understand both patterns and variations of authoritarian regimes, as well as the outcomes of authoritarian regimes Outcomes of Authoritarian regime:  ○ Vary According to Centralisation (degree to which they have a centralized or decentralised ideology and whether they are a benign dictator or not), Ideology and Human Rights (significant differences here) Dictators don't just kill everyone, most dictatorial regimes need to suffice a constituency Populism is a political discourse where you have a conception of elite counterposed to the conception of people ○ Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are populist Types of Authoritarian Regimes ○ Autocracies and Oligarchies: Power lies with one person vs power lies with a bunch of people Totalitarian Regimes: Don't see many of them Indicator: Aimed for a unified singular ideology (key indicating factor) Indicator: Leader seeks to control the totality of society, usually through a unified, state promoted ideology Example: Benito Mussolini in Italy, Joseph Stalin in the USSR, Mao Zedong in People’s Republic of China, Kim Jong Un in North Korea Difficult to pull off and involve a lot of sacrifice Monarchy Run by a royal family where the Monarch is the head of state and head of government Overlap between Monarchies and Theocracies Obviously not Constitutional Monarchy All of Europe emanates of Monarchy Theocracies: Use religion to stay in power Personalistic Dictatorships Your simple dictators, sometimes Monarchies and Theocracies stick together with this Not all about killing everyone, have to suffice a particular section of the population Example: Idi Amin, who had paranoia of people overthrowing so he cleared out entire villages and his entire cabinet, lmao.  ○ Omar Al Bashir of Sudan, who was then replaced by a Bureaucratic regime Bureaucratic Authoritarian Regimes (Military Regimes and Single Party Regimes) Tend to rely on Bureaucrats and technocrats to run the country ○ Hybrid or Semi Authoritarian Regimes Illiberal democracy or electoral autocracies: Election is a predetermined (Example: Russia) Competitive Authoritarianism allows for some degree of competition but now all degrees of competition Electoral System but authority revolve around Vladmir Putin, we saw a 2022 Constitutional Change that allows him to run Russia as PM instead of President Iran has periodic elections with a range of parties competing overseen by a religious council with strict control over the press and speech. President and Legislature subservient to Guardian Council and Supreme Leader. Very internal cyclic system of choosing appointments ○ Government has cracked down hard on civil liberties, including civil rights protests ○ Iran is often categorized as an islamic theocracy ○ Cuba under Fidel Castro overthrew the ruthless Fulgencio Batista regime (Personalistic Regime was replaced by Bureaucratic Regime) Regime Change: Authoritarianization ○ Substitution of Authoritarian regimes (Authoritarian Persistence) Example: Omar Al Bashir’s personalistic dictatorship replaced by militarist bureaucratic dictatorship Example: Cuba; transfer of power between Fildel Castro and Fulgencio Batista (Personalistic to Communist) Note: Chavez to Maduro was similar regime, not a substitution of Authoritarian regime ○ Democratic Backsliding: Voters may elect Authoritarians, often a result of organized actors and sometimes due to revolution If we do not see any changes to institutions, its not democratic backsliding Example: Germany when the NSDAP came into power  Example: Argentina under the Junta Example: Some of the coups in Africa Voters Elect Authoritarians, who need an iron fist, to cement order People prefer Economic well being over democratic wellbeing (dumb people lmao) Authoritarian Persistence: ○ Includes regime maintenance practices (coercive and co option) Economic Benefits Have to do this to a particular group to survive as an Authoritarianism Patronage/ Clientalism If you get your constituency behind me, I will make sure you benefit Repression of Opposition The French invented the term terrorism with the reign of terror German Nazis employed the Gestapo, a Secret Police NRM Manufactured a LRA Resistance in Northern Uganda to move military officers there ○ They have no support in Northern Uganda Theories of Authoritariaization & Persistence ○ Historical institutionalism: Looking at the colonial and precolonial roots Colonialism was not democratic and that is how the modern state was formed Path dependence is hard to break off ○ Poverty & inequality ○ State weakness & failure ○ Political culture: Singaporean Leader LKY once said Singaporean Culture was not conducive to democracy Theory can be very racist Some Canadian Provinces are less interested in Democracy than others (Alberta v say, New Brunswick which flips governments regularly) ○ agency-driven theories Topic 5: Government Institutions: ○ Law & Constitutions  ○ Legislatures ○ Executives ○ Judiciaries ○ Political parties ○ Bureaucracy: Weak Bureaucracy leads to a strong culture of corruption Law: Has Significant Variance ○ Limits the arbitrary use of power and provides greater stability to state functioning ○ Mechanism for dispute resolution ○ Politics and Laws are inextricably related Power relations go into the formation of law (Example: Systemic Racism) State Defender v Good Lawyers ○ Judicial Variance is organizational Constitution: ○ Constitution: the foundational charter and supreme laws that establish the basis of the political system and political community Depending on the system, sets the base law which no other laws can contradict British System of Parliamentary Supremacy vs American System of Judicial Overview Section 91 and 92 of the 1867 BNA Act sets up essence of jurisdiction between federal and provincial authority Differences between States Jurisdiction in the USA v Canada Some Constitutions guarantee basic rights and some do not Factors that determine what factors lead up to democratic/ non democratic/federal/unitary constitutions ○ Express founding principles/ shared values/ ideology Can consist future aspirations (Example: Quebec wanted to be characterized as a distinct society in the constitution) Set of legislation we can agree on or can't constitutes who we are as a political community ○ Establish governmental institutional feature ○ Confer Power to particular institutions and particular people Canadian constitution says nothing about the Prime Minister ○ Limit exercise of government power Parliamentary Supremacy is not subject to judicial review  Not the case in Canada, laws cannot violate the Charter of Rights and Freedom Judicial Review: Supreme Court can ensure legislation is consistent with the constitution (Are v Drybones, case of discrimination, properly charged under the Indian Act, fought against that based on Diefenbaker's Bill of Rights, stated that the Indian Acts part that banned Indigenous people from being drunk off reserves to be an act of discrimination) Two ways to override the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom: Invoking the Emergencies Act Article 33: Notwithstanding Clause ○ Highlight a particular history ○ Contain aspiration Constitutions tend to express the stuff above; some do, some don't (Based on reviews of differences in constitutions) Variance in Constitutional Design: ○ Their form (Short/long/written/unwritten) ○ Content (amendments, judicial review etc) ○ Representation Constitutional Design: Consists of particular features of a constitution ○ Most Constitutions are subject to change by amendment, made difficult to change We still have not done a Senate Reform We need 100% Consensus to get rid of the Monarchy ○ Many constitutions omit important political institutions Constitutions, Power & Representation: ○ Constitutions are constituted by and constitute power relations Example: All Drafted by Old White Dudes ○ Who has been involved in the creation of the constitution and who was excluded Supreme Court turns out the Persons Case They went to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council who ruled in favor of the 5 women Now we had to change legislation recognising women as fully persons ○ How was political power divided and constrained Many constitutions diffuse authority vertically or horizontally (Just say Federal/ Provincial on the exam) ○ Section 91 and 92 (Federal and Provincial Jurisdiction) in the Canadian Constitution)  ○ US has a very clear separation of power, we do not have a very clear separation of powers; there is a fusion between executive and legislature through our Westminster Parliamentary System Our Judiciary is still supposed to operate separately, whether they do or not is different Federalism: A political system with multiple levels of authority where government is divided amongst geographic based political units ○ 20 - 25 of these exist in the world (Fully Federal Countries) ○ Examples: India, UAE, Canada, USA, Australia ○ Examples: Provinces in Canada or States in USA and Australia Federalism can vary: US States have more power than Canadian Provinces US has nothing like the notwithstanding clause unlike Canada Debates on Federal v State power exist in every Federal nation Federalism is common in large, populous and heterogenous nations (Example: India fulfills all of these) 1867 BNA or Constitution Act established Canadian Federalism Unitarianism: A political system with centralized political authority ○ Most countries in the world are Unitary ○ Example: UK (Unitary but with quasi federal feature), Quasi - Federalism: A decentralized Unitary State ○ Spain: Has a lot of asymmetrical decentralisation, some region have higher degrees of limited autonomy as per the 1978 constitution which recognise 4 autonomous regions but Federal Government has the final say ○ Can be described as Federalist and Unitarist, but we call it quasi federalist Yugoslavia: ○ Created at the end of WW1 as a state for South Slavic People; previously ruled by the Ottomans ○ Hostalities began under the Serbs and Croats, the two largest ethnicities ○ 1941: Axis Powers dismember Yugoslavia ○ 1945: Yugoslavia is restored as a Federal Communist State under the dictatorship of Josip Broz Tito (widely known as a benign dictator who maintain equality between these groups and played a considerable role in maintaining stability) ○ All 6 States had equal representation in the Federal Government, and 2 Autonomous regions, Kosovo and Vojvodina had asymmetrical decentralization, lower power compared to the Federal Republics  ○ His death in 1980, all nationalities began feeling like they were losers in this situation ○ 1986: Serbian Slobodan Milosevic commanded the Serbs to fight for their rights, causing Croatia and Slovenia to push for independence, Bosnia and Herzogovina made a referendum and Milosevic began the biggest European conflict since WW2 ○ 1992: Yugoslavia is no more and ethnic conflicts break out in the region, triggering NATO intervention (once under UN Authorisation and once without) ○ Canada cannot break up the same way, while we have had 2 Quebec Refrendums, its unlikely for a third one to happen Separation of Powers: The equal division of powers between branches or levels of government ○ Constitutionalised in the US Political System, we have a fully independent judicial system but the same cannot be said for the Legislative or Executive Branch ○ Who exercises more power, the Prime Minister or the US President Answer is debated (Example: US President can pick anyone for cabinet but Canada can pick anyone, also US President is the figurehead of the US Military) US President has veto power, but Prime Minister cannot do so Who is more accountable to the electorate? The Canadian PM via a motion of no confidence Types of Constitutions: How to Organize Constitutions in a Large Constitutional study ○ Written v Unwritten ○ Federal v Unitary ○ Judicial Review and Parliamentary Supremacy Another term is Parliamentary Sovereignty; British System to the teeth ○ Flexible and Rigid Some are relatively easier to change compared to others ○ Authoritarian v democratic The Canadian Constitution: ○ Hybrid Written and Unwritten Constitution ○ Consists of 1763 Royal Proclamation (French territory was transfered to the British), 1867 Constitution Act (Created Canada as an entity but not fully sovereign) (BNA Act), 1931 Statute of Westminster (Crown split where almost full control over everything in Canada was introduced, Formal Citizenship was  introduced in 1928), 1982 Constitution Act and Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms + Other laws/principles (we got full autonomy lessgoo) ‘Similar in principle to that of the UK’ - Canadian Constitution about the Canadian Government ○ Judicial Review ○ Federalism Federal Government has jurisdiction over public debt, currency, postal service, census, military, fisheries, properties and workers union (Section 91) Provinces have jurisdiction over direct taxation, provincial officers, provincial prisons, hospitals, civil rights, education and business license (Section 92) Some Standards have to be met which will see the government help with transfer payments ○ General Amending Formula: 7/50 formula There are a few different ones to; one for french speaking provinces (Quebec, Manitoba and New Brunswick) and the other General Amending formula for some issues that requires unanimity of provinces ○ Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Section 15: Equality Section 1: Limitations clause (pertains to notwithstanding clause and reasonable limits prescribed by law) Section 2: Fundamental Freedoms Section 3, 5 and 16: Basic Rights of Canadian Citizens Section 33: Notwithstanding Clause Examples of successful invocations: Bill 137, Parents Bill of Rights in Saskatchewan Examples of failed invocations: Alberta did not have jurisdiction over marriage, Ontario wanted to invoke back to work legislation but the Province got pissed of at that so he walked back Legislatures: The Central Assembly, in the form of a body of representatives that changes or creates law ○ They legislate by creating or enacting law ○ Other functions include: Debate Issues, Accountability, Political influence, balance power of executives, control budgets (common in democracies), socialize politicians and communication to the public  ○ Gandhi: Autocracies have legislatures to be symbolic, to be proto democratic or integrating a combination of interest within policy Elections are the main accountability mechanism Legislatures vary in size, composition, structure and function, electoral rules, party makeup, how they relate to executive & the degrees to which they represent the public ○ Westminster System: British originated democratic parliamentary system (Fusion between legislature and executive) List of countries with a Westminster System: Canada, UK, Australia, India, Israel, Japan, Singapore, Thailand To varying degrees ○ Canadian Parliament: Executive depend on the parliament ○ American Congress: legislative - executive separation of powers The Legislative Process: Propose Legislation, Organize votes (involves horse trading and is highly politicized) and bring them to the floor of the decision ○ Horse Trading is harder in Canada due to a high level of party discipline Disincentives include being a backbencher for your entire life Elbowgate: Canada’s lone instance of legislative violence ○ A highly political process ○ Committee: A smaller group of legislators specializing on important matters Standing/permanent committees; select committees and committees of the whole Canada has 25 Standing Committees which will continue with a turnover of government: Example: National Defense We have Special Committees for very particular ad - hoc issues: Example: Canada - China relations Joint Committees are composed of both Upper and Lower Houses (Example: Declaration of Emergency in Canada Committee) Types of Legislatures: ○ Unicameral (Single Chamber) and Bicameral (2 Chambers, Lower and Upper) Legislatures House of Sober Second Thought v Democratic Deficit 60% of Democratic Systems have Unicameral Legislatures Unicameral Legislatures are common in small nations, unpopulated nations, unitary nations, and autocratic nations ○ Electoral/ Party Systems: Constituency Systems/2 - Party Systems  We do not choose a 2 party system, the electoral system determines this (Canada is a 2 party dominant system and US is a 2 party System) Proportional Representation Mixed/ Hybrid System ○ Quota and Non - Quota System: Quotas for the representation of women & minorities Canada does not have a Quota System Gender Quotas are common and present in over a 100 countries ranging from Argentina to Rwanda Cuba and Rwanda have a high amount of women representative Substantive v Nominal Representation: Nominal Representation can translate to Substantive Representation Not always the case (Example: Uganda) Nominal Representation is essentially just electing people from that group Patterns of Representation: ○ Representation can vary according to; decision making processes, electoral system, geography, identity group or political party ○ All electoral systems face issues of apportionment and districting Malapportment: When some voters are misrepresented in the Legislature Gerrymandering: Building a constituency so it captures the regions where you have the most likely vote Topic 6: Legislature: Executive Relations ○ Legislatures often have oversight over the executive and have the power to remove the executive from office ○ Canada’s parliamentary system is a fusion of two branches of government where the executive is responsible to the legislature ○ America’s presidential system has a separation of powers but the legislature can use the process of impeachment to remove the executive ○ In Russia, President’s power overrides legislature; very powerful legislature, can make obligatory orders on the Prime Minister, President chooses the Prime Minister  ○ In Iran, the Guardian Council with an unelected Supreme Leader has the final say on many decisions Power of Executives: ○ Veto Power: when an executive rejects a law passed by the legislature (Example: USA) Canadian executive has no veto power but can call in snap elections when they see it expedient for themselves ○ Dissolving the legislature ○ Decree: Executive Order that has the power to become law without the bill passing legislature (Common in Authoritarian regimes like Russia) ○ Executive Order: Made by a top official of a Bureaucracy to determine how the Bureaucracy interprets a legislation Not used to make law (How do we go about administering education) Working within the confines of the law in terms of administration Always in the Administrative realm (Decree is giving everyone passports while executive orders will be to expedite passport applications) Executive Order can be overturned ○ State of Emergency: In Canada, this is called the Emergencies Act Very common in democratic regimes, based on the need to circumvent certain civil and political rights Derogation: Allowable violation of a legal obligation State of Emergency is a derogation to the ICCPR and Constitutional liberties Emergencies Act in Canada still goes through the legislature (not necessary in some countries) Partisan Powers (pertaining to control over voting in the parties) of executives ○ USA does not have a level of Partisan appointment that Canada has; US’ Cabinet can come from outside of legislature, Canada’s cabinet cannot ○ Party discipline and political appointments Canadian MPs have to balance the wishes of the party whip with the wishes of the constituencies More leeway is witnessed in the USA (Example: Joe Manchin voting against Biden’s gun bill) Informal Power of executives ○ Persuasive Powers  ○ Patronage and Clientalism Restraint of Executive Powers ○ Periodic Elections ○ Constitutional Limitation ○ Separation of Powers Canadian Judiciary is way more independent and unbiased compared to the United States Judiciaries: ○ The branch of government responsible for implementing laws in the court system Lower Court; Superior Court (Provincial Level) Most cases are sorted at this level Federal Court deals with Federal issues Canada has an individual tax court: your assessment has to be more than $15,000 to make it to the tax court Court’s Marital oversees the military court Distinction between tort law and criminal law: Tort is about compensation for wrongs Wrongs may be intentional or unintentional or have strict liability in tort (Intentional torts, negligent torts, strict liability tort) ○ Example of Strict Liability tort: Taking precautions to prevent your dog from killing other dogs but your dog stilll kills other dogs Criminal law has to be a violation of the criminal court Quebec has a civil codified law for their private law; in public law, they follow Common Law (Canadian Criminal Code based on precedence) ○ Other provinces apply tort law for civil lawsuits as well ○ Tort law has a minimum amount to face a jury of your peers as opposed to a judge ○ Degrees of liability is also a thing Criminal Law in Canada is a federal jurisdiction Canadian Justice System is way less partisan than the USA (current chief justice was picked by Harper to be a justice, and Trudeau to be Chief Justice) ○ A legal and political institutions ○ Constitutions often outline the role of the judiciary Constitutional Court: ○ Judiciaries often have authority to interpret and uphold the constitution  ○ High Courts or Supreme Court UK does not have this because they have parliamentary supremacy, what parliament says goes Canada is in between UK and US Judicial Activism: Justices that act as activists and make interpretations based on their views High Courts review legislation based on whether it complies with the constitution or not Supreme Court can be active without being invoked in USA and Canada vs in Germany where the Supreme Court has to be asked for judicial review Judicial review started in Canada once the charter or rights and freedoms was established ○ Vs local court Judicial Review: The power of the judiciary to determine the legality of laws in line with the constitution ○ A form of separation of power ○ Opposite is Parliamentary Supremacy Concrete Review: Allows the High Court to rule on constitutional issues only when disputes are brought up; much more reactive Abstract Reviews: Allow the High Court to decide cases where formal review has not been requested, much more proactive The Supreme Court of Canada: ○ Founded in 1875 as per section 96 of the 1867 Constitution Act Became the final court of appeal in Canada in 1949 JCPC was the superior court until then JCPC used to be biased towards the Provincial level JCPC Determined women were full legal persons and could run for the Senate ○ Consists of 9 Justices (5 of them are women) 3 Justices have to be Quebecois, 3 others have to be Ontarians, 2 from Western Canada and 1 form Atlantic Canada Made by Federal Cabinet on recommendation by PM Serve till age of 75; work for 18 weeks out of the entire year In the US, SC justices are nominated by President and approved by the Senate  Our SC hears cases in English and French, represents common and civil law and carries out judicial review ○ Above a system of provincial and federal courts Final Court of review, 95% of court cases will be decided at the provincial level ○ Judicial Reviews Richard Wagner stepped in as Chief Justice after Julie Payette resigned; appointed by both Trudeau and Harper